/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230817.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, August 17, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 165
Headlines
1ST SOURCE: Kuhn Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Customer Data
A1 ACCESSIBLE: Jdahim Seeks OT Pay for Non-Exempt Staff
ALLIANCE COAL: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due July 19, 2024
ALLSTATE LIFE: Class Cert Hearing Deadline Extended to Oct 4
AMAZON SERVICES: Plaintiffs Can Withdraw Collective Cert Bid
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Certification Deadlines Extended in Mahone
AMAZON.COM INC: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due March 29, 2024
B&G FOODS: Silva Partly Wins Partial Summary Judgment Bid
BANK OF AMERICA: Christensen Calls Rewards Card Ads "Deceptive"
BAUSCH HEALTH: Kelk Sues Over Withheld B+L Spinoff Information
BLU GURU: Fact Discovery Must Be Completed by Nov. 17, 2024
BNP PARIBAS: Kashef Seeks Leave to File Redacted Materials
BP EXPLORATION: Court Denies Bids to Reconsider in Rounds Suit
BRASELTON FINE: Hriczo Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
CALIFORNIA GASOLINE: MPC Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal
CAPITAL REALTY: Moore Bid Enjoining Eviction Proceedings Nixed
CASE WESTERN: Bid for Class Certification Extended to August 23
CHAMPION CARE: Faces Hopkins Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
CHI-ADA CORP: Fails to Pay Cleaning Custodians' OT, Benitez Says
CHILDREN'S PLACE: School Uniforms Contain PFAS, Garland Claims
CIGNA CORP: Kisting-Leung Alleges Wrongful Insurance Claim Denials
CINTAS CORPORATION: Fact Discovery Due Jan. 19, 2024
CITIZENS BANK: Reinig Seeks Reconsideration of Summary Ruling Order
CLINTON PERZEE: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Solis
CLUB WAX: Harvey Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Entertainers
COLONIAL PENN: Court Issues Show Cause Order in Kelley Class Suit
CONNECTICUT GENERAL: Court Denies as Moot Bid to Certify Class
CONSIGLI & ASSOCIATES: Bid for Leave to Amend Pleadings Granted
CONTINENTAL SECRET: FLSA Settlement in Chambers Gets Final Nod
DSDR LLC: Underpays Hotel Receptionists, Angeles Suit Alleges
DYNATRACE INC: Wiretaps Website Visitors, Gary Says
ESURANCE PROPERTY: Fails to Pay Total Loss Claims, Moore Says
FORD MOTOR: Court Dismisses Marino's Claims From O'Connor Suit
GREENHILL & CO: Finger Files Suit Over Mizuho Merger Deal
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Electric Vehicles Have Faulty Chargers, Gould Says
J&J SERVICE: Kelly Suit Seeks Merchandisers' Unpaid Overtime Wages
MAJOR LEAGUE: Concepcion Appeals Judgment Dismissing Suit
MANHATTAN CARDIOLOGY: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Clement Says
MANHATTAN COLLEGE: Beck Appeals Judgment Closing Case to 2nd Cir.
MIGHTY BOWL: Faces Polanco Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
MISSOURI: Amended Complaint Must Be Filed in Jones v. Precythe
MISSOURI: Amended Complaint Must Be Filed in Watie v. Precythe
MISSOURI: District Court Directs Baisden to File Amended Complaint
MISSOURI: District Court Directs Reed to File Amended Complaint
MISSOURI: Shaw Must File Amended Complaint, District Court Rules
NATIONSBENEFITS LLC: King Sues Over Failure to Protect Private Info
PRIMECARE MEDICAL: Manzo Seeks Medical Assistants' Unpaid Overtime
PROTRANS INT'L: Court Maintains Refusal to Approve Briz Settlement
RADIUS HEALTH: Does not Properly pay Employees, Kushelowitz Says
REALPAGE INC: Kabisch Sues Over Overpriced Rental Housing
RETAIL BUSINESS: Hogg Seeks Unpaid Wages for Call Center Agents
SO-CAL DOMINOIDS: Faces Buc Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
SOUTHERN METHODIST: 5th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Hogan's Claims
SPACE EXPLORATION: Underpays Non-Exempt Employees, Padilla Claims
STAR FOOD: Fails to Properly Pay Deli Workers, Galan Suit Alleges
U.S. FACILITY: Glass Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Technicians
WHEATFIELD, NY: Greif's Bid for Fees in Andres Suit Partly Granted
*********
1ST SOURCE: Kuhn Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Customer Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARK KUHN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 1ST SOURCE BANK, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-00702 (N.D. Ind., July 26, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of
fiduciary contract, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated customers stored within its
network systems following a data breach sometime around June 1,
2023. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and
similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result,
the PII of the Plaintiff and Class members were compromised and
damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and
unauthorized third parties.
1st Source Bank is a banking company, with its principal place of
business in South Bend, Indiana. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
Milberg Coleman Bryson, Esq.
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
Justin C. Walker, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 East Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
jwalker@msdlegal.com
A1 ACCESSIBLE: Jdahim Seeks OT Pay for Non-Exempt Staff
-------------------------------------------------------
ZAKARIA JDAHIM and ABDELHAMID MOHAMED ISLAM AHMED, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. A1
ACCESSIBLE TRANSPORTATION, LLC, JERMAINE DELESTON, and KAREEM
NELSON, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06509 (S.D.N.Y., July 27,
2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including
unpaid overtime wages, retaliation, unpaid spread-of-hours
premiums, and failure to provide wage notice. The Plaintiffs also
seek civil damages for fraudulent filing of information returns.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
employees.
A1 Accessible Transportation, LLC is a transportation service
provider, located at 57 West 57th Street, 4th Floor New York, New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Emre Polat, Esq.
EMRE POLAT, PLLC
45 Broadway, Suite 1420
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 480-4500
ALLIANCE COAL: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due July 19, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDY BRANSON, et al. on
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly-Situated, V. ALLIANCE
COAL, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-00155-RGJ-HBB (W.D. Ky.), the
Hon. Judge H. Brent Brennenstuhl entered an joint scheduling order:
Fact Discovery: June 24, 2024
Expert Discovery: October 4, 2024
Deadline for the Plaintiffs' July 19, 2024
expert report:
Deadline for the Defendants' September 20, 2024
expert report:
Deadline for Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification and
deadline for Defendants' motion
to decertify the conditionally
certified collective:
Motions: July 19, 2024
Responses: September 20, 2024
Replies October 14, 2024
Alliance Coal is a diversified coal producer and marketer.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DHWEuW at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
Lane L. Vines, Esq.
Reginald L. Streater, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: scarson@bm.net
crodriguez@bm.net
lvines@bm.net
rstreater@bm.net
- and -
Mark N. Foster, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER
Madisonville, KY 42431
Telephone: (270) 213-1303
E-mail: Mfoster@MarkNFoster.com
- and -
Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
Thomas Fowler, Esq.
Olena Savytska, Esq.
Krysten Connon, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN
729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com
tfowler@llrlaw.com
osavytska@llrlaw.com
kconnon@llrlaw.com
- and -
Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
Liberato Verdame, Esq.
Shoshana M. Savett, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (267) 408-8445
E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com
lverdame@edelson-law.com
ssavett@edelson-law.com
- and -
John R. Kleinschmidt, III, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN R.
KLEINSCHMIDT III, PLLC
Lexington, KY 40588
Telephone: (859) 866-3097
E-mail: john@employmentlawky.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Richard G. Griffith, Esq.
Elizabeth S Muyskens, Esq.
Kif H. Skidmore, Esq.
STOLL KEENON OGDEN PLLC
300 West Vine Street – Suite 2100
Lexington, KY 40507-1801
Telephone: (859) 231-3000
Facsimile: (859) 259-3526
E-mail: richard.griffith@skofirm.com
elizabeth.muyskens@skofirm.com
kif.skidmore@skofirm.com
ALLSTATE LIFE: Class Cert Hearing Deadline Extended to Oct 4
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN L. HOLLAND-HEWITT,
v. ALLSTATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00652-ADA-SAB
(E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley A. Boone entered an order
continuing the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification from August 16, 2023, to October 4, 2023.
The Plaintiff’s motion for class certification was initially
heard on March 22, 2023, and a second hearing was initially set for
June 21, 2023.
On June 16, 2023, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the Court
continued the hearing until August 16, 2023.
On July 24, 2023, the parties filed a stipulated request to again
continue the hearing.
Allstate offers universal life insurance and variable universal
life insurance.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OpTm4v at no extra charge.[CC]
AMAZON SERVICES: Plaintiffs Can Withdraw Collective Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Leitch et al v. Amazon
Services Com LLC f/k/a Amazon Services Com Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-06121-LGS-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna G. Schofield
entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' request for leave to
withdraw their motion for collective certification.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OQpteU at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert Wisniewski, Esq.
ROBERT WISNIEWSKI P.C.
17 State Street, Suite 820
New York, NY 10004
T EL: (212) 267-2101
E-mail: www.rwapc.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Certification Deadlines Extended in Mahone
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YASMINE MAHONE, an
individual, and BRANDON TOLE, an individual, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC.,
a Delaware corporation, AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC; a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; AMAZON.COM DEDC, LLC; a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; and AMAZON.COM KYDC LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-00594-MJP (W.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge Marsha J. Pechman entered an order extending certain
class certification-related deadlines:
1. On April 10, 2023, the Court issued a Case Scheduling Order,
which set a deadline to complete class discovery on July 21,
2023. The parties have tried to fit all of the discovery
within
that time frame but there are still outstanding depositions
that
the parties have noticed and need to complete.
2. Amazon has noticed the depositions of the Plaintiffs Yasmine
Mahone and Brandon Tole. The parties have scheduled the
depositions of Ms. Mahone and Mr. Tole for August 2 and
August
3, 2023, respectively.
3. The Plaintiffs noticed a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Amazon.
The
parties are meeting and conferring regarding the noticed
topics.
the Plaintiffs noticed the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition for
August
22, 2023.
4. The parties agree and stipulate to extend the time to
complete
class discovery until August 31, 2023, for the limited
purpose
of conducting the above-referenced depositions and completing
document productions by both the parties. The parties also
agree
and stipulate that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification be extended from August 31, 2023, to September
15,
2023.
5. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is currently
due
on August 31, 2023.
Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company focusing
on e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital
streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YisZ4Q at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel Kalish, Esq.
HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
600 Stewart Street, Suite 901
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 826-5354
E-mail: dkalish@hkm.com
- and -
Brian J. Lawler, Esq.
PILOT LAW, P.C.
4632 Mt. Gaywas Dr.
San Diego, CA 92117
Telephone: (619) 255-2398
E-mail: blawler@pilotlawcorp.com
- and -
Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
STONEBARGER LAW, APC
101 Parkshore Dr., Suite 100
Folsom, CA 95630
Telephone: (916) 235-7140
E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com
- and -
Kevin L. Wilson, Esq.
KEVIN WILSON LAW PLLC
3110 Horton Avenue
Louisville, KY 40220
Telephone: (502) 276-5050
E-mail: kevin@klwilsonlaw.co
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrew E. Moriarty, Esq.
Heather L. Shook, Esq.
Shannon McDermott, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: (206) 359-8000
Facsimile: (206) 359-9000
E-mail: AMoriarty@perkinscoie.com
HShook@perkinscoie.com
SMcDermott@perkinscoie.com
- and -
Jason C. Schwartz, Esq.
Brian A. Richman, Esq.
Lauren M. Blas, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-5306
Telephone: (202) 955-8500
Facsimile: (202) 467-0539
E-mail: JSchwartz@gibsondunn.com
BRichman@gibsondunn.com
LBlas@gibsondunn.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due March 29, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE MARTINHO, ET AL.,
v. AMAZON.COM, INC., ET AL., Case No. 4:22-cv-06849-YGR (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order
setting the following trial and pretrial dates:
Last Day to Join Parties Or Amend Jan. 15, 2024
Pleadings
Class Certification Motion Due Mar. 29, 2024
Opposition to Class Certification Due May 10, 2024
Hearing on Class Certification Motion June 25, 2024
Referred to Adr To Be Completed By: July 12, 2024
Close of Fact Discovery Related to Liability 90 days after
Order on Class
Certification
issues
Close of Discovery Related to Expert 30 days after
Reports rebuttal expert
reports are due
Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company focusing
on e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital
streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QtRRVn at no extra charge.[CC]
B&G FOODS: Silva Partly Wins Partial Summary Judgment Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SABRINA SILVA, et al., v.
B&G FOODS, INC., et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00137-JST (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment
and motion to exclude Palmatier testimony.
-- The Court grants the motion to exclude Palmatier's testimony
regarding whether Silva and Schier are entitled to a full
refund
if they prevail on their claims or whether the Plaintiffs
suffered any injury. B
-- B&G remains free to argue that the Plaintiffs' deposition
testimony contradicts their contention that they obtained no
benefits from the taco shells they purchased, but this is not
a
proper subject of expert testimony, let alone from a marketing
expert like Palmatier.
The Plaintiffs Silva and Schier brought this case as a putative
class action against B&G. They allege that B&G's Ortega taco shells
contained partially hydrogenated oil, and that the front of the
packaging misleadingly advertised "0g Trans Fat! per serving" in
violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumer
Legal Remedies Act.
B&G Foods is an American branded foods holding company.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KxdoZz at no extra charge.[CC]
BANK OF AMERICA: Christensen Calls Rewards Card Ads "Deceptive"
---------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL CHRISTENSEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, NA, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-00468-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C., July 27, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of contract including breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and
violation of North Carolina's Unfair & Deceptive Trade Practices
Act.
According to the complaint, Bank of America consistently
misrepresented to applicants for its Rewards Cards whether and the
extent to which they would be paid a Sign-Up Bonus in the form of
cash or rewards to induce the issuance of new Rewards Cards. The
Plaintiff and other similarly situated Rewards Card accountholders
signed up but did not receive their Sign-Up Bonuses either in whole
or in part. As a result of the Defendant's misrepresentations, the
Plaintiff and members of the Class overpaid Bank of America as part
of services they purchased.
Bank of America, NA is a national bank with its headquarters and
principal place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
11 N. Market Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone: (828) 258-2991
Facsimile: (828) 257-2767
E-mail: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Jonathan Streisfeld, Esq.
Daniel Tropin, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
One W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
streisfeld@kolawyers.com
tropin@kolawyers.com
- and -
Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street NW 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
950 Gilman Street, Ste 200
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com
jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
- and -
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
BAUSCH HEALTH: Kelk Sues Over Withheld B+L Spinoff Information
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN KELK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BAUSCH HEALTH COMPANIES INC., JOSEPH PAPA,
PAUL HERENDEEN, and THOMAS APPIO, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-03996 (D.N.J., July 26, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding Bausch's business, operations,
and prospects in order to trade Bausch securities at artificially
inflated prices between August 6, 2020 and May 3, 2023.
Specifically, the Defendants withheld material information
concerning the reasons for the spinoff of Bausch + Lomb Corporation
(B+L) and the risk Bausch faced from the opt-out Plaintiffs.
When the truth emerged, Bausch's stock price declined by $3.48 per
share on May 4, 2021 and continued to drop by $1.51 per share on
May 4, 2023.
Bausch Health Companies Inc. is a pharmaceutical company, with U.S.
headquarters located at 400 Somerset Corporate Boulevard,
Bridgewater, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam M. Apton, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
55 Broadway, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: aapton@zlk.com
BLU GURU: Fact Discovery Must Be Completed by Nov. 17, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Luis Toro, et al., v. Blu
Guru, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03593-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Lewis J. Liman entered a case management plan and scheduling order
as follows:
-- All fact discovery is to be completed Nov. 17, 2024
no later than:
-- Depositions shall be completed by: Dec. 19,2023
-- Requests to Admit shall be served Oct. 16, 2023
no later than:
A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s0rE6O at no extra charge.[CC]
BNP PARIBAS: Kashef Seeks Leave to File Redacted Materials
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kashef, et al., v. BNP
Paribas S.A., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-03228-AKH-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the
BNPP Defendants request leave to file redacted versions of the
materials on the public docket and to file unredacted versions of
these materials under seal.
In general, the BNPP Defendants have filed only those portions of
the designated materials that are necessary to support the BNPP the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment, statement, and opposition
to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification filed
contemporaneously.
The BNPP Defendants have informed the Plaintiffs of the need to
file, within three days, a letter explaining the need for the
materials designated as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential" by
the Plaintiffs under the Protective Order to remain under seal.
The firm and Sullivan & Cromwell LLP represent the Defendants BNP
Paribas S.A. and BNP Paribas U.S. Wholesale Holdings, Corp. in the
action.
BNP Paribas is a France-based international banking institution.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 21, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DJ7DUQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Carmine D. Boccuzzi, Jr., Esq.
CLEARLY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
One Liberty Plaza
New York, NY 10006-1470
Telephone: (212) 225-2508
Facsimile: (212) 225-3999
E-mail: cboccuzzi@cgsh.com
BP EXPLORATION: Court Denies Bids to Reconsider in Rounds Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jane Triche Milazzo of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana denies the Plaintiffs' motions for
reconsideration in the lawsuits captioned GREGORY ALPHONSE ROUNDS
v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: "H." CHER
GRIFFIN BROWN v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL.,
SECTION: "H," CHESTER LEE NORSWEARTHY, v. BP EXPLORATION &
PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: "H," Case Nos. 17-4576, 17-3516,
17-3590 (E.D. La.).
Before the Court are nearly identical motions submitted in three
different cases. The Plaintiffs have filed Motions to Reconsider
the Court's Orders Granting Defendants' Motions in Limine and
Motions for Summary Judgment in each of their cases.
These three cases are among the "B3 bundle" of cases arising out of
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig
"Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, No.
10-md-02179, R. Doc. 26924 at 1 (E.D. La. Feb. 23, 2021)). This
bundle comprises "claims for personal injury and wrongful death due
to exposure to oil and/or other chemicals used during the oil spill
response (e.g., dispersant)."
The cases were originally part of the multidistrict litigation
("MDL") pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana before Judge
Barbier. During this MDL, Judge Barbier approved the Deepwater
Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement, but the
B3 plaintiffs either opted out of this agreement or were excluded
from its class definition. Subsequently, Judge Barbier severed the
B3 cases from the MDL to be reallocated among the judges of the
Court. The cases were reassigned to Section H.
Plaintiffs Gregory Alphonse Rounds, Cher Griffin Brown, and Chester
Lee Norswearthy each filed lawsuits against the Defendants based on
their alleged exposure to toxic chemicals following the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Each Plaintiff was
allegedly involved in cleanup or recovery work after the oil spill,
and each contends that his or her resulting exposure to crude oil
and dispersants caused a litany of health conditions. The
Plaintiffs bring claims for general maritime negligence, negligence
per se, and gross negligence against the Defendants.
Now before the Court in each of the cases are the Plaintiffs'
Motions for Reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e). They argue that the Court's order granting the Defendants'
Motion in Limine and Motion for Summary Judgment should be
reconsidered because of BP's decision not to collect dermal and
biometric data from cleanup workers. Defendants BP Exploration &
Production, Inc.; BP America Production Company; BP p.l.c.;
Transocean Holdings, LLC; Transocean Deepwater, Inc.; Transocean
Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.; and Halliburton Energy Services,
Inc. (collectively, the "BP parties") oppose.
The Plaintiffs move the Court for reconsideration under Rule 59(e)
of its order excluding Dr. Cook's testimony and granting the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs state that
the affidavit of Dr. Linda Birnbaum, the Director of the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences ("NIEHS") creates an
issue of fact "as to whether biomonitoring would have been required
to adequately protect the workers from the known hazards of
exposure to crude oil." The Defendants respond that the Plaintiffs
are rehashing arguments irrelevant to this suit and that they
present no arguments unique to their cases.
Judge Milazzo notes that the Plaintiffs do not identify which of
the four Rule 59(e) criteria they believe are satisfied here. The
Plaintiffs' argument regarding Dr. Birnbaum's affidavit is
irrelevant to the fact that Dr. Cook's opinion is unhelpful and
unreliable.
In its previous Orders, the Court, as well as others in this
district, determined that Dr. Cook's expert report was inadmissible
and these decisions did not depend on the dermal and biometric data
that BP allegedly failed to collect. Specifically, another section
of the Court has held that Dr. Birnbaum's affidavit neither cures
nor explains the deficiencies of Dr. Cook's report.
Dr. Birnbaum's affidavit "appears to conflate general causation
with specific causation," as general causation requires evidence
demonstrating that the types of chemicals encountered by the
Plaintiff are actually capable of causing the injuries alleged by
the Plaintiff, Judge Milazzo opines. The Fifth Circuit requires
admissible general causation expert testimony in toxic-tort cases,
and Dr. Birnbaum's affidavit does not remedy this deficiency within
Dr. Cook's expert report.
Considering this, Judge Milazzo finds that the Plaintiffs have not
presented any justification for alteration or amendment pursuant to
Rule 59(e). Moreover, the Court is not alone in this decision, as
another court in this district has also denied reconsideration on
the same grounds.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Reasons dated July 20,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr2kku6r from
Leagle.com.
BRASELTON FINE: Hriczo Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH HRICZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BRASELTON FINE FOODS, LLC d/b/a COTTON CALF
KITCHEN, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00142-RWS (N.D. Ga., July 26,
2023) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay
minimum wages and unlawful withholding of tips in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as server and bartender from
approximately October 2021 until on or about April 28, 2023.
Braselton Fine Foods, LLC, doing business as Cotton Calf Kitchen,
is a restaurant operator located in Braselton, Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin M. Scott, Esq.
Tierra M. Monteiro, Esq.
SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C.
160 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 610
Decatur, GA 30030
Telephone: (678) 780-4880
Facsimile: (478) 575-2590
E-mail: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com
tmonteiro@scottemploymentlaw.com
CALIFORNIA GASOLINE: MPC Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re California Gasoline Spot Market
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:20-cv-03131-JSC (N.D. Cal.),
Non-Party Marathon Petroleum Corporation requests that the Court
enter the Proposed Sealing Order.
Accordingly, Marathon requests that the Court grant its sealing
request on the grounds that it has satisfied the compelling reasons
standard, its request is narrowly tailored and limited to
particular portions of the Exhibits that contain its
competitively-sensitive information, and there is no less
restrictive alternative that would protect Marathon’s competitive
standing.
Pursuant to the Order Modifying Sealing Procedures for Class
Certification Briefing and Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5,
Marathon brings an Administrative Motion to File Under Seal
(a) portions of exhibits attached to the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification;
(b) portions of exhibits attached to the Defendants' Joint
Opposition to Motion for Class Certification; and
(c) portions of exhibits attached to the Plaintiffs' Reply in
Support of Motion for Class Certification
A copy of Marathon's motion dated July 20, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43U3iss at no extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for Non-Party Marathon Petroleum Corporation:
Rasha Gerges Shields, Esq.
Danielle R. Leneck, Esq.
JONES DAY
555 South Flower Street, 50th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 489-3939
Facsimile: (213) 243-2539
E-mail: rgergesshields@jonesday.com
dleneck@jonesday.com
CAPITAL REALTY: Moore Bid Enjoining Eviction Proceedings Nixed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JERRY W. MOORE, v. CAPITAL
REALTY GROUP, INC., NAME-UNKNOWN OWNER(S) OF ST. JOHN TOWERS APTS,
FELICIA PRYOR, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
and MARCIA FUDGE, Secretary of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Case No. 1:21-cv-01099-LGF (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Leslie G. Foschio entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion
enjoining eviction proceedings in Buffalo City Court.
The Plaintiff has not alleged any facts establishing the eviction
.proceedings qualify as state action, none of the St. John the
Defendants is alleged to be a state actor, and the Plaintiff has
utterly failed to allege any facts to establish any St. John the
Defendant qualifies as a state actor in one of a few limited
circumstances recognized as satisfying the state action
requirement.
Accordingly, the court does not liberally construe the Second
Amended Complaint as alleging a section 1983 First Amendment
retaliation claim which is not barred by the AIA so as to preclude
a preliminary injunction.
The Plaintiff Moore commenced a civil rights class action on
October 7, 2021, asserting claims under the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 against the
Defendants Capital Realty Group.
Capital Realty is a full service boutique realty company, providing
comprehensive real estate and property management services.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44WQUcJ at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Colleen Mary Killian, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF COLLEEN KILLIAN
St. John Towers Apts., and Felicia Pryor
43 Court Street, Suite 930
Buffalo, NY 14202
CASE WESTERN: Bid for Class Certification Extended to August 23
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL LOZADA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-02336-DAR (N.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge David A. Ruiz entered an order granting Joint
request 30-day extension of summary judgment and class
certification briefing deadlines:
Existing Date Revised
Date
Motions for Class Certification July 24, 2023 Aug. 23,
2023
& Summary Judgment:
Opposition Briefs: Aug. 23, 2023 Sept. 22,
2023
Reply Briefs: Sept. 6, 2023 Oct. 6,
2023
Case Western is a private research university in Cleveland, Ohio.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OiUneC at no extra charge.[CC]
CHAMPION CARE: Faces Hopkins Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHIRLEY HOPKINS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHAMPION CARE, LLC, THE BAY AT BURLINGTON
HEALTH AND REHABILITATION LLC, and THE BAY AT ST. ANN HEALTH AND
REHABILITATION CENTER LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01001-WCG
(E.D. Wis., July 27, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages and failure to pay an agreed-upon
wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an hourly-paid employee
in the position of Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) from August 9,
2018 until June 23, 2023.
Champion Care, LLC is a nursing home operator, with a principal
office address of 165 North Village Avenue, Suite 126, Rockville
Centre, New York.
The Bay at Burlington Health and Rehabilitation LLC is a healthcare
facility, with a principal office address of 677 East State Street,
Burlington, Wisconsin.
The Bay at St. Ann Health and Rehabilitation Center LLC is a
healthcare facility, with a principal office address of 2020 South
Muskego Avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
Jonathan M. Esp, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
jesp@walcheskeluzi.com
CHI-ADA CORP: Fails to Pay Cleaning Custodians' OT, Benitez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MERCEDES BENITEZ, MARCIA DE FATIMA FLORES and LAZARO A. RODRIGUEZ
BRAVO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CHI-ADA CORPORATION and BARTHOLOMEW OKORO,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-22809 (S.D. Fla., July 27, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as cleaning custodians at
any time between 2015 and 2022.
Chi-Ada Corporation is a provider of janitorial services, security
services, maintenance, and cleaning services to private and
governmental institutions in Florida, Georgia, and New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Nathaly Saavedra, Esq.
Juan J. Perez, Esq.
P. Brooks LaRou, Esq.
PEREGONZA THE ATTORNEYS, PLLC
5201 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 290
Miami, FL 33126
Telephone: (786) 650-0202
Facsimile: (786) 650-0200
E-mail: nathaly@peregonza.com
juan@peregonza.com
brooks@peregonza.com
CHILDREN'S PLACE: School Uniforms Contain PFAS, Garland Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANGALA GARLAND, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE CHILDREN'S PLACE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-04899 (N.D. Ill., July 27, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Illinois' Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act, fraudulent concealment,
breach of implied warranty, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of school uniforms.
The Defendant failed to disclose that its school uniforms contain
harmful chemicals, including multiple polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS), which are a known safety hazard to children and to the
environment. Had the Plaintiff and Class members known the truth,
they would not have purchased the school uniforms. As a result of
the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and the Class members
have suffered economic damages.
The Children's Place, Inc. is an operator of brick-and-mortar
stores throughout the state of Illinois, with a principal place of
business located at 500 Plaza Drive in Secaucus, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
E. Samuel Geisler, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
D. Nicole Guntner, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
Facsimile: (850) 916-7449
E-mail: sgeisler@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
nguntner@awkolaw.com
- and -
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
Robert N. Fisher, Esq.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (805) 270-7100
Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
rfisher@bradleygrombacher.com
CIGNA CORP: Kisting-Leung Alleges Wrongful Insurance Claim Denials
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUZANNE KISTING-LEUNG and AYESHA SMILEY, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CIGNA CORPORATION,
CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01477-DAD-KJN (E.D. Cal.,
July 24, 2023) arises from Defendants' illegal scheme to
systematically, wrongfully, and automatically deny Plaintiffs and
other insureds the thorough, individualized physician review of
claims guaranteed to them by California law and, ultimately, the
payments for necessary medical procedures owed to them under
Cigna's health insurance policies.
According to the complaint, Cigna developed an algorithm known as
PXDX that it relies on to enable its doctors to automatically deny
payments in batches of hundreds or thousands at a time for
treatments that do not match certain pre-set criteria, thereby
evading the legally-required individual physician review process.
The PXDX system saves Cigna money by allowing it to deny claims it
previously paid and by eliminating the labor costs associated with
paying doctors and other employees for the time needed to conduct
individualized, manual review for each Cigna insured, the suit
alleges.
By engaging in this alleged misconduct, Cigna breached its
fiduciary duties, including its duty of good faith and fair
dealing, because its conduct serves Cigna's own economic
self-interest and elevates Cigna's interests above the interests of
its insureds, contends the suit.
Cigna Corp. is a for-profit American multinational managed
healthcare and insurance company based in Bloomfield,
Connecticut.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Glenn A. Danas, Esq.
Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq.
Zarrina Ozari, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: gdanas@clarksonlawfirm.com
sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
zozari@clarksonlawfirm.com
CINTAS CORPORATION: Fact Discovery Due Jan. 19, 2024
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND HAWKINS, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CINTAS CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01062-JPH (S.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge Jeffery P Hopkins entered a scheduling order:
1. Required disclosures under July 28, 2023
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1):
2. Disclosure of lay witnesses: July 28,
2023
3. Deadline for fact discovery: Jan. 19,
2024
4. the Plaintiff's expert report(s) and Feb. 16, 2024
designation(s):
5. the Defendant's expert report(s) March 15,
2024
and designation(s):
6. Deadline for expert discovery: April 26,
2024
7. Telephone status conference to April 23,
2024
discuss settlement:
8. Dispositive motion deadline June 7, 2024
(including class certification):
Cintas provides a range of products and services to businesses
including uniforms, mats, mops, cleaning and restroom supplies,
first aid and safety products, fire extinguishers and testing, and
safety courses.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/459uq83 at no extra charge.[CC]
CITIZENS BANK: Reinig Seeks Reconsideration of Summary Ruling Order
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEX REINIG, et al. v.
CITIZENS BANK, N.A., Case No. 2:15-cv-01541-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiffs move the Court for an Order pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 54(b), reconsidering and reversing the Court's
August 22, 2017 Order granting summary judgment to the Defendant as
to the Plaintiffs' "Recapture" claims and denying the Plaintiffs'
summary judgment as to their "Recapture Claims."
Citizens Bank offers checking accounts, investing and benefits,
managing cash flow, healthcare, savings and money markets, card
products, and student loans.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 21, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45hiUaJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
9 Tanner Street, Suite 101
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Telephone: (856) 685-7420
Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
CLINTON PERZEE: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Solis
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Solis v. Clinton Perzee,
et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02062-JBM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge
Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 20, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ogmn2t at no extra charge.[CC]
CLUB WAX: Harvey Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Entertainers
---------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY HARVEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CLUB WAX, LLC, d/b/a 4375 HOLDINGS, INC.,
4375 MANAGERS, 4375 PROPERTIES, LLC, and THOMAS WATERS, JR.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-03329-MHC (N.D. Ga., July 27, 2023) is
a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay statutory
minimum wages and failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed as an entertainer at Club Wax from July
2012 through present.
Club Wax, LLC, doing business as 4375 Holdings, Inc., 4375
Managers, and 4375 Properties, LLC, is an owner of an adult
entertainment club called Club Wax, located at 4375 Commerce Drive
SW, Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
1560 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 600
Winter Park, FL 32789
Telephone: (407) 574-4999
Facsimile: (833) 423-5864
E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com
- and -
Adeash "A.J." Lakraj, Esq.
THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
1560 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 600
Winter Park, FL 32789
Telephone: (770) 728-8478
Facsimile: (833) 423-5864
E-mail: alakraj@theleachfirm.com
avasquez@theleachfirm.com
COLONIAL PENN: Court Issues Show Cause Order in Kelley Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled THURMA J. KELLEY, Plaintiff v. COLONIAL
PENN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-03348-FLA
(Ex) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha of the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California issued an
order to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.
Judge Aenlle-Rocha explains that the Class Action Fairness Act
("CAFA") vests original jurisdiction in district courts over a
purported class action if all the following requirements are met:
(1) the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million; (2) at least one
putative class member is a citizen of a state different from any
defendant; and (3) the putative class exceeds 100 members.
A complaint filed in federal court must contain "a plausible
allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the
jurisdictional threshold," Judge Aenlle-Rocha notes, citing Dart
Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014).
Where a party contests or the court questions another party's
allegations concerning the amount in controversy, both sides must
submit proof and the court must decide whether the party asserting
jurisdiction has proven the amount in controversy by a
preponderance of the evidence.
This procedure applies equally to the amount in controversy
requirement in CAFA actions, Judge Aenlle-Rocha says. As a result,
the party asserting jurisdiction in CAFA actions bears the burden
to put forward allegations and sufficient evidence that the amount
in controversy exceeds $5 million.
The Court has reviewed the Complaint in this action and is
presently unable to conclude it has subject matter jurisdiction
under CAFA. In particular, and without limitation, the Court finds
that the allegations in the Complaint do not demonstrate by a
preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million.
Accordingly, Judge Aenlle-Rocha holds that the parties are ordered
to show cause, in writing only, within 14 days from the date of
this Order, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
The parties are encouraged to submit evidence and/or judicially
noticeable facts in response to the Court's Order. Responses will
be limited to ten (10) pages in length. The parties should consider
this Order to be a two-pronged inquiry into the facial and factual
sufficiency of the Plaintiff's demonstration of jurisdiction.
As the Plaintiff is the party asserting federal jurisdiction, the
Plaintiff's failure to respond timely and fully to this Order will
result in dismissal of the action without further notice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 20, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2ykx48rd from Leagle.com.
CONNECTICUT GENERAL: Court Denies as Moot Bid to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Karen Rain v. Connecticut
General Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-30115 (D. Mass, Filed
Aug .24, 2017), the Hon. Judge Mark G. Mastroianni entered an
order:
-- Finding as moot motion to certify class; and
-- Finding as moot motion to exclude.
The nature of suit states Diversity-Insurance Contract.
Connecticut General provides insurance services.[CC]
CONSIGLI & ASSOCIATES: Bid for Leave to Amend Pleadings Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HARLEYSVILLE WORCESTER
INSURANCE COMPANY et al., v. CONSIGLI & ASSOCIATES, LLC et al.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00934-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Paul A.
Engelmayer entered an order:
-- Granting Harleysville and Consigli's motions for leave to
amend
their respective pleadings;
-- Granting Zurich's motion for leave to amend with respect to
its
proposed third-party complaint against National Union and
crossclaim against Consigli; and
-- Denying Zurich's motion with respect to its proposed
counterclaim
against Harleysville.
The Court agrees that Zurich's proposed counterclaims are
duplicative of Harleysville's claims. Harleysville's operative
complaint-as well as its proposed SAC, which the Court grants leave
to file herein-seeks declarations that Harleysville has no
obligation to defend or indemnify Consigli, and, to the extent that
any of Harleysville's policies provide coverage to Consigli in the
underlying action, that Zurich's policies also obligate Zurich to
defend and indemnify Consigli for its own negligence and are
primary to, or share with, Harleysville's policies.
This decision resolves pending motions in this insurance coverage
dispute, which are for leave to file (1) amended pleadings and (2)
motions for summary judgment.
The case arises out of an underlying breach of contract and
quasi-contract action in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan:
99 Wall Development Inc. v. Consigli & Associates, LLC, jlkla T. G.
Nickel & Associates, LLC, Case no. 656973/2017 (the "underlying
action").
Consigli & Associates was founded in 2006. The Company line of
business includes providing residential construction services
A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QubCMO at no extra charge.[CC]
CONTINENTAL SECRET: FLSA Settlement in Chambers Gets Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rosalind Chambers,
individually and on behalf others similarly situated, v.
Continental Secret Service Bureau, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-00468-JJH
(N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick entered an order
granting the Amended Joint Motion for Final Approval of Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) Settlement and Preliminary Approval of Rule 23
Class Action Settlement.
1. All initial-capped terms contained herein, unless otherwise
defined, shall have the same definitions as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement.
2. On March 23, 2022, the Plaintiff filed this action alleging
the
Defendant violated the FLSA and the Ohio overtime statute by
failing to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees all their overtime pay.
3. The parties exchanged and analyzed initial factual
disclosures
and timekeeping and payroll records, and Class Counsel
engaged
an expert to review those same records and formulate a
damages
model, which was shared with the Defendant's Counsel.
4. The parties engaged in private mediation on October 18, 2022,
and October 24, 2022, after which the parties reached an
agreement to settle this matter.
5. The Settlement Agreement is approved as to the Plaintiff
Chambers and the Opt-In the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims as
provided
in the Settlement Agreement and preliminarily approved as to
the
Rule 23 Class claims as provided in the Settlement Agreement.
6. The Court certifies that the Settlement Class meet the
requirements for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a)
and (b)(3).
The Class is defined as: "All present and former hourly
security
employees who worked at office building locations similar to
One
Seagate that required shift changes, and worked over 40 hours
in
a given workweek at such location during the time period from
July 11, 2019 through October 18, 2022."
The definition of the Class encompasses persons with like
factual circumstances and like claims to that of the
Plaintiff
Chambers.
7. The Court appoints the Plaintiff Rosalind Chambers as class
representative to represent the Settlement Class for
settlement
purposes only.
8. The Court appoints Robi Baishnab, Shannon Draher, and Hans
Nilges of the law firm Nilges Draher as class counsel for the
Settlement Class for settlement purposes only.
9. The Court appoints Analytics Consulting LLC as settlement
administrator and preliminarily approves the allocated costs
for
administration of the settlement as described in the
Settlement
Agreement.
10. The Court preliminarily approves the service award for
Rosalind
Chambers in recognition of her services in this litigation.
Continental Secret offers video security and access control
systems, remote monitoring, armed and un-armed guard services.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44Um4Bm at no extra charge.[CC]
DSDR LLC: Underpays Hotel Receptionists, Angeles Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE ANGELES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DSDR, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:23-cv-00686 (E.D. Tex., July 27, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a receptionist in
Texas from approximately August of 2019 until May of 2023.
DSDR, LLC is a hotel operator located in Denton, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
lauren@a2xlaw.com
carter@a2xlaw.com
DYNATRACE INC: Wiretaps Website Visitors, Gary Says
---------------------------------------------------
ALYSSA GARY and MARLA DEFOORT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DYNATRACE, INC., and
DYNATRACE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-11673 (D. Mass., July
26, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of the Massachusetts Wiretapping Statute and the California
Invasion of Privacy Act and for invasion of privacy under
Massachusetts General Laws and California's Constitution.
According to the complaint, the Defendants wiretap the electronic
communications of the visitors of their websites through the
Dynatrace Session Replay spyware. The wiretaps are used by the
Defendants to secretly observe and record website visitors'
keystrokes, mouse clicks, data entry, and other electronic
communications, in real time. Neither the Plaintiffs nor any Class
member consented to being wiretapped on websites.
Dynatrace Inc. is a technology company, with its principal place of
business in Waltham, Massachusetts.
Dynatrace LLC is a technology company, with its principal place of
business in Waltham, Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: jsmith@bursor.com
- and -
Matthew A. Girardi, Esq.
Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: mgirardi@bursor.com
jdiamond@bursor.com
ESURANCE PROPERTY: Fails to Pay Total Loss Claims, Moore Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ESURANCE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, a North Carolina Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-11776-LVP-KGA (E.D. Mich., July 24, 2023) is a class action
brought by Plaintiff, on behalf of similarly situated automobile
insurance policyholders, bringing claims against the Defendant for
breach of contract as a result of ESURANCE's (1) failure to pay
sales tax as part of its payments for total loss claims; (2)
failure to pay title and registration fees for total loss claims;
and (3) failure to pay dealer fees for total loss claims.
Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Allstate Insurance Company, a publicly-held Illinois
insurance company.
Plaintiff Moore owned a 2017 Cadillac ATS AWD with VIN
1G6AG1RX8H0203688, which was insured under a policy issued by
Defendant Esurance. On December 10, 2022, Plaintiff suffered a loss
to his Insured Vehicle.
According to the complaint, ESURANCE breached the automobile policy
by failing to pay as part of the cash payment the full Actual Cash
Value of the loss vehicle, including all mandatory sales tax, title
fees, registration fees, and dealer fees that the insured
reasonably would be expected to incur in replacing the total loss
vehicle.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com
- and -
Joshua R. Jacobson, Esq.
NORMAND PLLC
3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175
Orlando, FL 32803
Telephone: (407) 603-6031
E-mail: jjacobson@normandpllc.com
FORD MOTOR: Court Dismisses Marino's Claims From O'Connor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Justin O'Connor, et al., on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Ford Motor
Company, Defendant, Case No. 19 C 5045, Consolidated with Nos. 20 C
1981, 20 C 2095, 20 C 2612 and 21 C 6540 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Elaine
E. Bucklo of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, grants the Defendant's motion for
sanctions against Plaintiff Robert Marino and dismisses his
claims.
In this consolidated putative class action, the Plaintiffs seek
damages from Ford Motor Company based on Ford's alleged sale and
lease of 2017 to 2020 Model Year Ford F-150 trucks with defective
10R80 10-speed automatic transmissions. Named Plaintiff Robert
Marino traded in his vehicle in October 2021. Ford now moves for
sanctions against Marino for spoliation of evidence. Specifically,
Ford seeks dismissal of Marino's claims.
The operative complaint (Consolidated Amended Complaint) alleges
one or more design and/or manufacturing defects, including defects
contained in the Vehicles' 10R80, a 10-speed automatic transmission
that can shift harshly and erratically, causing the vehicle to
jerk, lunge, and hesitate between gears.
Mr. Marino leased a 2019 Ford F-150 (one of the "Vehicles"
described in the Consolidated Amended Complaint) starting in 2019.
He alleges that, approximately two months after leasing the
Vehicle, he started to notice a loud 'clunk' or 'bang' noise upon
starting the engine, as well as slipping and jerking when changing
gears, and that these problems persisted.
Based on these problems, Marino brings claims for breach of express
warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, fraud,
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and violation of
Massachusetts' Consumer Protection Law (Chapter 93A)--several other
claims were earlier dismissed.
In November 2019, Marino served pre-suit notice on Ford. On Jan.
10, 2020, Marino filed a putative class action in federal district
court in Massachusetts, which was transferred to this district and
consolidated in July 2020. After a discovery stay pursuant to the
Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot ("MIDP") program was lifted in
November 2021, Ford served its initial discovery demands on Jan.
13, 2022.
In responding to that discovery request in February 2022, Marino
notified Ford that he was no longer in possession of the vehicle,
as he had traded it in in October 2021. On June 7, 2022, Marino
amended his response to correct the dealership to which the vehicle
was returned. Ford served requests to inspect all Named Plaintiffs'
vehicles on March 31, 2022. Marino objected to that request because
he no longer possessed his vehicle.
Mr. Marino argues at the outset that Ford's motion comes too late.
Ford learned in February 2022 that Marino had traded in his
vehicle, but did not raise the issue until filing this motion in
May 2023. Ford explains that it waited until the other Named
Plaintiffs either allowed or made clear that they intended to allow
inspections of their vehicles, so that it could address all
spoliation issues in a single motion.
Ford represents that it brought this motion within one month of the
final Named Plaintiffs agreeing to an inspection. Ford also argues
that it waited to bring this motion until after targeted discovery
into the facts around Marino's disposition of his vehicle.
Judge Bucklo opines that whatever the merits of Ford's reasons for
delay, Marino has not persuaded the Court that the delay was
prejudicial to him or offered Ford a tactical advantage, nor do
factors other than the delay itself counsel in favor of finding the
motion untimely. Judge Bucklo, therefore, finds that the motion is
timely.
By trading in his vehicle with no notice to Ford, Judge Bucklo
holds that Marino breached his preservation duty. Though, as Marino
argues, the vehicle was not destroyed and it may have been (and may
still be) possible for Ford to track down the vehicle after the
trade-in, the focus of this inquiry is on Marino's conduct, not
Ford's.
Adopting Marino's position would allow parties to dispose of
evidence without destroying it and leave it to the opposing party
to locate the evidence and conduct discovery on whether and how its
condition had been altered since the trade-in, Judge Bucklo points
out.
The next factor is harm or prejudice. Ford argues that the trade-in
of Marino's vehicle caused it harm because it impacts Ford's
ability to respond to his allegations and to establish its
affirmative defenses. Marino responds that alternative evidence is
available to Ford to use in this litigation.
However, Judge Bucklo finds that Marino fails to address how Ford
could develop certain affirmative defenses that could explain his
issues with the vehicle--like the alleged clunking and banging
noises, or the slipping and jerking while changing gears--absent an
inspection of the vehicle, such as defenses of intervening cause
(Eleventh Affirmative Defense), misuse (Thirteenth Affirmative
Defense), or neglect (Fourteenth Affirmative Defense). Indeed, an
inspection of a different Plaintiff's vehicle revealed, in Ford's
view, possible neglect because all four tires were dry-rotted and
worn, which caused noise while driving.
Judge Bucklo agrees with Marino that Ford could have sought
inspection sooner, but as explained, the onus is on the party in
control of relevant evidence to preserve it and, in this case,
provide notice of access for inspection. That burden is properly
placed so as to incentivize efficient access to relevant evidence.
The last element justifying spoliation sanctions requires that the
"noncomplying party acted either with willfulness, bad faith or
fault," Judge Bucklo notes, citing Marrocco v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
966 F.2d 220, 224 (7th Cir. 1992). Ford argues that Marino's
conduct constitutes fault and willfulness, but it does not argue
the conduct rose to the level of bad faith.
Judge Bucklo finds that Marino's trade-in of the vehicle, without
any notice to Ford, was willful. Not only was the trade-in without
notice unreasonable or the result of "extraordinarily poor
judgment," which would constitute fault, but it was done in the
context of active litigation centrally involving the vehicle.
The remaining question is what sanction is appropriate here. Ford
seeks dismissal of Marino's claims. Marino argues that dismissal is
only available as a sanction when a court finds the spoliating
party acted in bad faith. But that position is difficult to square
with the Seventh Circuit's decision in Marrocco to affirm a
district court's dismissal sanction for spoliation where the
dismissed party's conduct had risen only to the level of fault,
Judge Bucklo says.
"There are two considerations which, taken together, lead me to
conclude that dismissal, rather than a lesser sanction, is
warranted in this case," Judge Bucklo writes. The first is the
already discussed prejudicial effect the loss of Marino's vehicle
has on Ford's ability to prove its possible affirmative defenses.
The second is the fact that, 21 months into this vehicle-centered
litigation, and while represented by counsel, Marino traded in the
vehicle before his lease ended without any notice to Ford.
Dismissing Marino's claims as a sanction for this conduct will
hopefully deter similar conduct by other parties in the future,
Judge Bucklo points out.
For these reasons, Judge Bucklo rules that Ford's motion for
sanctions is granted. Marino's claims are dismissed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
July 20, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mufnmrdt from
Leagle.com.
GREENHILL & CO: Finger Files Suit Over Mizuho Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE FINGER, Plaintiff v. GREENHILL & CO, INC., ROBERT F.
GREENHILL, SCOTT L. BOK, MERYL D. HARTZBAND, JOHN D. LIU, ULRIKA
EKMAN, and KEVIN FERRO, Defendants, Case No. 653570/2023 (N.Y.
Sup., New York Cty., July 24, 2023) is a class action brought by
the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated stockholders, for Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties
in connection with the Board of Directors' efforts to sell the
Company to Mizuho Americas LLC.
On May 22, 2023, Greenhill issued a press release announcing that
Greenhill, Mizuho Americas and Mizuho Americas' wholly owned
subsidiary, Blanc Merger Sub, Inc., entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger pursuant to which Greenhill stockholders will
receive $15.00 in cash per share of Greenhill common stock.
On July 13, 2023, the Company filed the Schedule 14A Definitive
Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission to,
among other things, recommend that Greenhill stockholders vote to
approve the proposed transaction. However, the proxy statement
fails to provide the Company's shareholders with material
information and/or provides them with materially misleading
information thereby rendering the shareholders unable to make an
informed decision on whether to vote in favor of the proposed
transaction, says the suit.
Critically, the proxy statement contains materially incomplete and
misleading information, including with respect to Greenhill's
financial projections and the most critical metric for Greenhill
stockholders -- Greenhill's unlevered free cash flow projections --
relied upon by the Board's financial advisor, Houlihan Lokey, in
connection with the financial analyses underlying its fairness
opinion, and relied upon by the Board in connection with its
decision to approve the proposed transaction. The proxy statement
further fails to disclose material information concerning: (i) the
financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion
provided by Houlihan Lokey; and (ii) potential conflicts of
interest faced by Houlihan Lokey and Company insiders, the suit
claims.
Greenhill & Co, Inc. is a New York-based independent investment
banking firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
ACOCELLI LAW, PLLC
33 Flying Point Road, Suite 131
Southampton, NY 11968
Telephone: (631) 204-6187
E-mail: racocelli@acocellilaw.com
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Electric Vehicles Have Faulty Chargers, Gould Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID GOULD, KAUSHIK IYENGAR, and JOHN NIXON, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HYUNDAI
MOTOR COMPANY, HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, KIA CORPORATION, KIA AMERICA,
INC., GENESIS MOTOR, LLC, and GENESIS MOTOR AMERICA LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 8:23-cv-01344 (C.D. Cal., July 26, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act, the California Computer Data Access and Fraud
Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, New York General
Business Law, Georgia's Fair Business Practices Act, Georgia
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the Florida Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act and for trespass to chattel and
unjust enrichment.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
their electric vehicles. The Defendants advertise that their
electric vehicles promise seven-hour charging at home with a Level
2 charger. In reality, the chargers overheat before completing the
charge, sometimes within 30 to 60 minutes of use. Class Vehicle
owners must unplug and replug the chargers in order to restart the
charging process. As a result, owners who plug in their vehicles at
night come back in the morning to find that their vehicles are not
fully charged. And the overheated chargers frequently lead to
damage to vehicle components.
The Plaintiffs seek recovery on behalf of the Class and Sub-Classes
for all relief to which they are entitled, including but not
limited to compensation for out-of-pocket and incidental expenses.
Hyundai Motor Company is a multinational automaker headquartered in
Seoul, South Korea.
Hyundai Motor America is an automobile design, manufacturing,
distribution, and/or service corporation headquartered in
California.
Kia Corporation is a multinational automaker headquartered in
Seoul, South Korea.
Kia America, Inc. is an automobile design, manufacturing,
distribution, and/or service corporation headquartered in
California.
Genesis Motor LLC is the luxury vehicle division of the Hyundai
Motor Company, headquartered in Seoul, South Korea.
Genesis Motor America LLC is an automobile company headquartered in
California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (213) 330-7150
Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
E-mail: christopherp@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Jerrod C. Patterson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
jerrodp@hbsslaw.com
J&J SERVICE: Kelly Suit Seeks Merchandisers' Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN KELLY, QUENTIN MONDAY, and RANIQUE WILLIAMS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. J&J
SERVICE SOLUTIONS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-02854 (E.D. Pa.,
July 26, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiffs worked for J&J as merchandisers at any time in 2021,
2022, and 2023.
J&J Service Solutions LLC is a full-service facility maintenance
and installation company, headquartered in Columbia, Pennsylvania.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 10099
Houston, TX 77206
Telephone: (713) 868-3388
E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
- and -
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
Michelle Tolodziecki, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Telephone: (215) 884-2491
E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
mtolodziecki@winebrakelaw.com
MAJOR LEAGUE: Concepcion Appeals Judgment Dismissing Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs DANIEL CONCEPCION, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Order dated June 21, 2023 and Judgment dated June
22, 2023 entered in the lawsuit styled DANIEL CONCEPCION,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL, an
unincorporated association doing business as MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL,
ROB MANFRED; ALLAN HUBER "BUD" SELIG; KANSAS CITY ROYALS BASEBALL
CORP.; MIAMI MARLINS, L.P.; SAN FRANCISCO BASEBALL ASSOCIATES LLC;
BOSTON RED SOX BASEBALL CLUB L.P.; ANGELS BASEBALL LP; CHICAGO
WHITE SOX LTD.; ST. LOUIS CARDINALS, LLC; COLORADO ROCKIES BASEBALL
CLUB, LTD.; BASEBALL CLUB OF SEATTLE, LLP; THE CINCINNATI REDS,
LLC; HOUSTON BASEBALL PARTNERS LLC; ATHLETICS INVESTMENT GROUP,
LLC; ROGERS BLUE JAYS BASEBALL PARTNERSHIP; CLEVELAND INDIANS
BASEBALL CO., L.P.; CLEVELAND INDIANS BASEBALL CO., INC.; PADRES
L.P.; SAN DIEGO PADRES BASEBALL CLUB, L.P.; MINNESOTA TWINS, LLC;
WASHINGTON NATIONALS BASEBALL CLUB, LLC; DETROIT TIGERS, INC.; LOS
ANGELES DODGERS, LLC; LOS ANGELES DODGERS HOLDING CO.; STERLING
METS L.P.; ATLANTA NATIONAL LEAGUE BASEBALL CLUB, INC.; AZPB L.P.;
BALTIMORE ORIOLES, INC.; BALTIMORE ORIOLES, L.P.; THE PHILLIES
L.P.; PITTSBURGH BASEBALL, INC.; PITTSBURGH BASEBALL P'SHIP; NEW
YORK YANKEES P'SHIP; TAMPA BAY RAYS BASEBALL LTD.; RANGERS BASEBALL
EXPRESS, LLC; RANGERS BASEBALL, LLC; CHICAGO BASEBALL HOLDINGS,
LLC; MILWAUKEE BREWERS BASEBALL CLUB, INC.; MILWAUKEE BREWERS
BASEBALL CLUB, L.P., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01017, in the
United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, San
Juan.
The complaint is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and the Puerto Rico Wage and Hour Law.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged conspiracy and
agreement to restrict and depress, at below market rates, the wages
and compensation they pay to their minor league baseball players.
The Defendants are members of the monopsony cartel known as Major
League Baseball (MLB). In order to monopolize minor league players,
and restrain and depress their salaries, the MLB cartel inserted a
provision (known as the reserve clause) into players' contracts
that allows teams to retain the contractual rights to players and
restricts their movement and their ability to negotiate with other
teams for their baseball services and the compensation they
receive. This reserve clause preserves MLB's monopsony over the
minor league system of artificially low compensation paid to minor
league players and their nonexistent contractual mobility, the
complaint notes.
On June 21, 2023, the Court entered an Opinion and Order accepting
and adopting a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge
Bruce J. McGiverin, recommending the Court to grant Defendants'
motion to dismiss. Judge McGiverin ruled that Plaintiffs' Sherman
Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, and Puerto Rico wage and hour claims
against all Defendants, except the Kansas City Royals, San
Francisco Giants, and San Diego Padres, are DISMISSED without
prejudice. The claims against the Kansas City Royals, San Francisco
Giants, and San Diego Padres are DISMISSED with prejudice. Further,
Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory relief from the Curt Flood Act
and baseball's antitrust exemption are also DISMISSED with
prejudice.
On June 22, JUDGMENT was entered DISMISSING without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' Sherman Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, and Puerto Rico
wage and hour claims against all Defendants, except the Kansas City
Royals, San Francisco Giants, and San Diego Padres. The claims
against the Kansas City Royals, San Francisco Giants, and San Diego
Padres are also DISMISSED with prejudice. The Plaintiffs' claims
for declaratory relief from the Curt Flood Act and baseball's
antitrust exemption are likwise DISMISSED with prejudice. The case
was closed for statistical purposes.
The appellate case is captioned as Concepcion, et al. v. Office of
the Commissioner of Baseball, et al., Case No. 23-1558, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on July
18, 2023.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants DANIEL CONCEPCION, et al., individually and
on behalf of all those similarly situated, are represented by:
Rafael Baella-Silva, Esq.
BAELLA & BAELLA LAW OFFICES
563 Pedro A. Bigay St
Urb Ext Baldrich
San Juan, PR 00918
Telephone: (787) 250-8080
- and -
Brian David, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN DAVID
1329 N Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60610
Telephone: (847) 778-7528
- and -
Samuel Kornhauser, Esq.
155 Jackson St
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 981-6281
Defendants-Appellees OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL, d/b/a
MLB, et al., are represented by:
Mark W. Batten, Esq.
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
1 International Pl
Boston, MA 02110-0000
Telephone: (617) 526-9850
- and -
Elise M. Bloom, Esq.
Adam M. Lupion, Esq.
Rachel S. Philion, Esq.
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
11 Times Sq
New York, NY 10036-8299
Telephone: (212) 969-3000
- and -
Thomas E. Gorman, Esq.
Robert Adam Lauridsen, Esq.
Zainab O. Ramahi, Esq.
Connie P. Sung, Esq.
KEKER VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
633 Battery St
San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
Telephone: (415) 391-5400
- and -
Diego Murgia-Diaz, Esq.
Jorge I. Peirats, Esq.
Maria Dolores Trelles-Hernandez, Esq.
PIETRANTONI MENDEZ & ALVAREZ LLC
208 Ponce de Leon Ave
Popular Center, 19th Fl
San Juan, PR 00918-0000
Telephone: (787) 773-6038
- and -
Julian R. Rodriguez-Munoz, Esq.
DMRA Law LLC
Centro Internacional de Mercadeo
Torre 1, Ste 402
Guaynabo, PR 00968
Telephone: (787) 331-9970
MANHATTAN CARDIOLOGY: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Clement Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VINCENT CLEMENT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MANHATTAN CARDIOLOGY, P.C., Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-05688 (E.D.N.Y., July 27, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 and the New York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.medicalofficesofmanhattan.com, contains access barriers which
hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its
online goods, content, and services offered to the public through
the website. The accessibility issues include, but not limited to:
(a) lack of alternative text (alt-text), or a text equivalent; (b)
hidden elements on web pages; (c) incorrectly formatted lists; (d)
unannounced pop ups; (e) unclear labels for interactive elements;
(f) the requirement that some events be performed solely with a
mouse; and (g) contained a host of broken links.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Manhattan Cardiology, PC is a healthcare company doing business in
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
MANHATTAN COLLEGE: Beck Appeals Judgment Closing Case to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Czigany Beck filed an appeal from the District Court's
Order dated May 7, 2021 and Opinion and Order and Judgment dated
June 29, 2023 entered in the lawsuit styled Czigany Beck,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Manhattan College, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-03229, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The lawsuit, filed on April 23, 2020, seeks disgorgement of all
amounts wrongfully obtained for tuition, fees, on-campus housing,
and meals, injunctive relief including enjoining Manhattan College
from retaining the pro-rated, unused monies paid for tuition, fees,
on-campus housing and meals, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and
expenses, prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any amounts
awarded and such other and further relief as may be just and
proper, refunds of all tuition fees paid on a pro-rata basis,
together with other damages resulting from breach of contract and
unjust enrichment.
Manhattan College is an institution of higher learning located in
Riverdale, New York where Beck is currently enrolled as a full-time
student in its undergraduate engineering program. He has paid
substantial tuition for the Spring 2020 semester. Manhattan College
decided to close campus, constructively evict students, and
transition all classes to an online/remote format as a result of
the Novel Coronavirus Disease. Beck claims to be deprived the
benefits of in-person instruction, access to campus facilities,
student activities and other benefits and services in exchange for
which they had already paid fees and tuition. Manhattan College
refused to provide reimbursement for the tuition, fees and other
costs.
On November 10, 2020, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
case which the Court granted in part and denied in part on May 7,
2021 through an Order signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton.
On December 21, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment dismissing Plaintiff Beck's unjust enrichment claim for
tuition reimbursement.
On June 29, 2023, Judge Stanton entered an Order granting
Defendant's motion. The Clerk of the Court was also ordered to
close the case.
The appellate case is captioned as Beck v. Manhattan College, Case
No. 23-1049, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on July 19, 2023.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Czigany Beck, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM
32 Ann Street, 3rd Floor
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 614-8888
Defendant-Appellee Manhattan College is represented by:
Gregory Bertram Reilly, III, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
900 3rd Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 583-9600
MIGHTY BOWL: Faces Polanco Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
KARLA POLANCO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIGHTY BOWL LLC (D/B/A MIGHTY BOWL), MIGHTY
BOWL 2 LLC (D/B/A MIGHTY BOWL), MIGHTY BOWL 3 LLC (D/B/A MIGHTY
BOWL), and DWAYNE GOTUA , Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06376
(S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants
for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law and the
"spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York
Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiff Polanco was employed by Defendants at the Mighty Bowl
restaurants from June 2017 until March 2020 and from June 2021
until October 10, 2022 as a food preparer and supervisor.
The Corporate Defendants own, operate, and control 3 Asian
restaurants under the name "Mighty Bowl" in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
MISSOURI: Amended Complaint Must Be Filed in Jones v. Precythe
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge John M. Bodenhausen of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, directs the
Plaintiff to file an amended complaint in the lawsuit captioned
LAANTHONY JONES, the Plaintiff v. ANNE L. PRECYTHE, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00897JMB (E.D. Mo.).
The matter is before the Court on review of the Plaintiff LaAnthony
Jones' self-represented complaint. For the reasons discussed here,
the Court will order the Plaintiff to file a signed, amended
complaint on a Court-provided form. The Plaintiff will also be
directed to either file an "Application to Proceed in District
Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs" or pay the $402 filing fee.
On July 10, 2023, 14 inmates incarcerated at the Missouri Eastern
Correctional Center ("MECC"), including the Plaintiff, filed a
"class action" lawsuit. The 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 complaint names
six Defendants affiliated with MECC. The Defendants are accused of
allowing the Plaintiff-Inmates to be restrained with plastic
zip-ties for an excessive amount of time while the Correctional
Emergency Response Team (CERT) searched their housing unit. Only
one of the Plaintiff-Inmates, David Wilson, signed the complaint,
filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and submitted a copy
of his inmate account statement.
Because the Court does not allow multiple prisoners to join
together in a single lawsuit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
20, the complaint was severed and new cases opened for each
individual plaintiff. The instant case is one of the newly created
cases brought by a severed plaintiff.
Judge Bodenhausen finds that the complaint in this matter is
defective for multiple reasons. First, and foremost, the complaint
is not signed by Plaintiff LaAnthony Jones as required by Rule
11(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Second, the
complaint alleges violations of the rights of a group of inmates as
a whole.
Because the Plaintiff is self-represented, the Court will give him
the opportunity to file a signed, amended complaint to set forth
his own claims for relief. The Plaintiff should type or neatly
print his complaint on the Court's prisoner civil rights form,
which will be provided to him.
In the "Statement of Claim" section, the Plaintiff should provide a
short and plain statement of the factual allegations supporting his
claim.
Judge Bodenhausen holds that it is important that the Plaintiff
establish the responsibility of each separate Defendant for harming
him. That is, for each Defendant, the Plaintiff must allege facts
showing how that particular Defendant's acts or omissions violated
his constitutional rights.
The Plaintiff is warned that the filing of an amended complaint
completely replaces the original complaint. If the Plaintiff fails
to file an amended complaint on a Court-provided form within 30
days in accordance with the instructions set forth herein, the
Court will dismiss this action without prejudice and without
further notice to the Plaintiff.
Finally, Judge Bodenhausen notes, the Plaintiff has neither paid
the $402 filing fee, nor sought leave to proceed without the
prepayment of fees or costs. If the Plaintiff files an "Application
to Proceed without Prepaying Fees or Costs," it must be accompanied
by a certified copy of his inmate account statement for the
six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.
Also, if the Plaintiff files such Application, the Court will
review the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915.
The Plaintiff's failure to make specific factual allegations
against a defendant will result in the dismissal of that defendant.
If the Plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee or file an application
to proceed without prepayment, within thirty (30) days, the Court
will dismiss this action without prejudice and without further
notice.
Accordingly, Judge Bodenhausen directs the Clerk to mail to the
Plaintiff a copy of the Court's "Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint"
form, and the "Application to Proceed in District Court without
Prepaying Fees or Costs" form.
The Plaintiff must file an amended complaint on the Court's form
within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.
The Plaintiff must either pay the $402 filing fee or file an
application to proceed without prepayment within thirty (30) days
of the date of this Order. If the Plaintiff files an application to
proceed without prepayment, he must also file a certified copy of
his inmate account statement for the six-month period preceding the
filing of the complaint.
If the Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, the Court
will dismiss this action without prejudice and without further
notice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated July 20,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdztwbjk from
Leagle.com.
MISSOURI: Amended Complaint Must Be Filed in Watie v. Precythe
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Joseph S. Dueker of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, directs the
Plaintiff to file an amended complaint in the lawsuit entitled
DEMEYON WATIE, the Plaintiff v. ANNE L. PRECYTHE, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-886-JSD (E.D. Mo.).
The matter is before the Court on review of the Plaintiff Demeyon
Watie's prisoner civil rights complaint. For the reasons discussed
here, the Court will order the Plaintiff to file a signed, amended
complaint on a Court-provided form. He will also be directed to
either file an 'Application to Proceed in District Court without
Prepaying Fees or Costs' or pay the $402 filing fee.
On July 10, 2023, fourteen inmates incarcerated at the Missouri
Eastern Correctional Center ("MECC"), including the Plaintiff,
filed a "class action" lawsuit. The 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
complaint named six defendants affiliated with MECC. The Defendants
were accused of allowing the Plaintiff-Inmates to be restrained
with plastic zip-ties for an excessive amount of time while the
Correctional Emergency Response Team searched their housing unit.
Only one of the Plaintiff-Inmates, David Wilson, signed the
complaint, filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and
submitted a copy of his inmate account statement.
Because the Court does not allow multiple prisoners to join
together in a single lawsuit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
20, the complaint was severed and new cases opened for each
individual plaintiff. The instant case is one of the newly created
cases brought by a plaintiff severed from the initial action.
Judge Dueker finds that the complaint in this matter is defective
for two reasons. First, the Plaintiff has not signed the complaint
as requited by Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Second, the complaint alleges violations of the rights of a group
of inmates as a whole, rather than describing the specific
constitutional violations allegedly endured by the Plaintiff.
Because the Plaintiff is proceeding as a self-represented litigant,
the Court will give him the opportunity to file a signed, amended
complaint to set forth his own claims for relief. In completing his
amended complaint, the Plaintiff should follow the instructions set
forth here.
Judge Dueker directs the Plaintiff to type or neatly print his
amended complaint on the Court's prisoner civil rights form, which
will be provided to him. If the amended complaint is handwritten,
the writing must be legible.
In the "Caption" section of the Court-provided form, the Plaintiff
should clearly name each and every party he is intending to sue. If
there is not enough room in the caption, the Plaintiff may add
additional sheets of paper. However, all the Defendants must be
clearly listed. He must specify whether he intends to sue each
defendant in an official capacity, an individual capacity, or both.
The failure to sue a defendant in his or her individual capacity
may result in the dismissal of that defendant.
The Plaintiff should put his case number in the appropriate
location on the upper right-hand section of the first page. He
should then fill out the complaint form in its entirety, and ensure
that it is signed. In the "Statement of Claim" section, the
Plaintiff should provide a short and plain statement of the factual
allegations supporting his claim.
The amended complaint should only include claims that arise out of
the same transaction or occurrence. In other words, Judge Dueker
explains, the Plaintiff should only include claims that are related
to each other. Alternatively, the Plaintiff may choose a single
Defendant and set forth as many claims as he has against that
Defendant. Furthermore, the Plaintiff should only bring claims on
his own behalf, and not on behalf of anyone else. That is, his
claim should describe what happened to him, and not what happened
to others.
Judge Dueker points out that it is important that the Plaintiff
establish the responsibility of each separate defendant for harming
him. He is warned that the filing of an amended complaint
completely replaces the original complaint.
After receiving the amended complaint, the Court will review it
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915. If the Plaintiff fails to file
an amended complaint on a Court-provided form within thirty (30)
days in accordance with the instructions set forth herein, the
Court will dismiss this action without prejudice and without
further notice to the Plaintiff.
Finally, Judge Dueker finds that the Plaintiff has neither paid the
$402 filing fee, nor sought leave to proceed without the prepayment
of fees or costs. He will, therefore, be directed to either file a
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full
filing fee within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. If
the Plaintiff files an 'Application to Proceed without Prepaying
Fees or Costs,' it must be accompanied by a certified copy of his
inmate account statement for the six-month period immediately
preceding the filing of the complaint. If the Plaintiff fails to
pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed without
prepayment, within thirty (30) days, the Court will dismiss this
action without prejudice and without further notice.
Accordingly, Judge Dueker directs the Clerk of Court to mail to the
Plaintiff a copy of the Court's 'Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint'
form, and the 'Application to Proceed in District Court without
Prepaying Fees or Costs' form.
The Plaintiff must file an amended complaint on the Court's form
within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, in accordance
with the instructions set forth here. He must either pay the $402
filing fee or file an application to proceed without prepayment
within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. If he files an
application to proceed without prepayment, he must also file a
certified copy of his inmate account statement for the six-month
period preceding the filing of the complaint.
If the Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this Order, the Court
will dismiss this action without prejudice and without further
notice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated July 20,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4dr8t4vm from
Leagle.com.
MISSOURI: District Court Directs Baisden to File Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Henry Edward Autrey of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, directs the
Plaintiff to file amended complaint in the lawsuit titled QUINCY
BAISDEN, Plaintiff v. ANNE L. PRECYTHE, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 4:23-cv-896-HEA (E.D. Mo.).
The matter is before the Court on review of Plaintiff Quincy
Baisen's prisoner civil rights complaint. For the reasons discussed
here, the Court will order the Plaintiff to file a signed, amended
complaint on a Court-provided form. He will also be directed to
either file an 'Application to Proceed in District Court without
Prepaying Fees or Costs' or pay the $402 filing fee.
On July 10, 2023, fourteen inmates incarcerated at the Missouri
Eastern Correctional Center ("MECC"), including the Plaintiff,
filed a "class action" lawsuit. The 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
complaint named six Defendants affiliated with MECC. The Defendants
were accused of allowing the Plaintiff-Inmates to be restrained
with plastic zip-ties for an excessive amount of time while the
Correctional Emergency Response Team searched their housing unit.
Only one of the Plaintiff-Inmates, David Wilson, signed the
complaint, filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and
submitted a copy of his inmate account statement.
Because the Court does not allow multiple prisoners to join
together in a single lawsuit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
20, the complaint was severed and new cases opened for each
individual plaintiff. The instant case is one of the newly created
cases brought by a plaintiff severed from the initial action.
Judge Autrey finds that the complaint in this matter is defective
for two reasons. First, the Plaintiff has not signed the complaint,
as required by Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Second, the complaint alleges violations of the rights of a group
of inmates as a whole, rather than describing the specific
constitutional violations allegedly endured by the Plaintiff.
Because the Plaintiff is proceeding as a self-represented litigant,
the Court will give him the opportunity to file a signed, amended
complaint to set forth his own claims for relief. In completing his
amended complaint, the Plaintiff should follow the instructions set
forth here.
The Plaintiff should type or neatly print his amended complaint on
the Court's prisoner civil rights form, which will be provided to
him. If the amended complaint is handwritten, the writing must be
legible.
In the "Caption" section of the Court-provided form, the Plaintiff
should clearly name each and every party he is intending to sue. If
there is not enough room in the caption, the Plaintiff may add
additional sheets of paper. However, all the defendants must be
clearly listed. The Plaintiff must specify whether he intends to
sue each defendant in an official capacity, an individual capacity,
or both. The failure to sue a defendant in his or her individual
capacity may result in the dismissal of that defendant.
Judge Autrey also directs the Plaintiff to put his case number in
the appropriate location on the upper right-hand section of the
first page. He should then fill out the complaint form in its
entirety, and ensure that it is signed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a).
In the "Statement of Claim" section, the Plaintiff should provide a
short and plain statement of the factual allegations supporting his
claim. He should put each claim into a numbered paragraph, and each
paragraph should be limited as far as practicable to a single set
of circumstances.
The amended complaint should only include claims that arise out of
the same transaction or occurrence. In other words, Judge Autrey
says, the Plaintiff should only include claims that are related to
each other. Alternatively, the Plaintiff may choose a single
Defendant and set forth as many claims as he has against that
Defendant. Furthermore, the Plaintiff should only bring claims on
his own behalf, and not on behalf of anyone else. That is, his
claim should describe what happened to him, and not what happened
to others.
Judge Autrey also says, among other things, that it is important
that the Plaintiff establish the responsibility of each separate
Defendant for harming him. That is, for each Defendant, the
Plaintiff must allege facts showing how that particular Defendant's
acts or omissions violated his constitutional rights. The Plaintiff
is warned that the filing of an amended complaint completely
replaces the original complaint.
After receiving the amended complaint, the Court will review it
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915. If the Plaintiff fails to file
an amended complaint on a Court-provided form within thirty (30)
days in accordance with the instructions set forth herein, the
Court will dismiss this action without prejudice and without
further notice to the Plaintiff.
Finally, Judge Autrey notes that the Plaintiff has neither paid the
$402 filing fee, nor sought leave to proceed without the prepayment
of fees or costs. He will, therefore, be directed to either file a
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full
filing fee within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.
Accordingly, Judge Autrey directs the Clerk of Court to mail to the
Plaintiff a copy of the Court's 'Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint'
form, and the Court's 'Application to Proceed in District Court
without Prepaying Fees or Costs' form.
Judge Autrey directs the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on
the Court's form within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order,
in accordance with the instructions set forth here. He must either
pay the $402 filing fee or file an application to proceed without
prepayment within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.
If the Plaintiff files an application to proceed without
prepayment, he must also file a certified copy of his inmate
account statement for the six-month period preceding the filing of
the complaint. If he fails to timely comply with this Order, the
Court will dismiss this action without prejudice and without
further notice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion, Memorandum and Order dated
July 20, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5uk9hs2f from
Leagle.com.
MISSOURI: District Court Directs Reed to File Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Rodney H. Holmes of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, directs the
Plaintiff to file an amended complaint in the lawsuit styled
TERRELL REED, the Plaintiff v. ANNE L. PRECYTHE, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00887 RHH (E.D. Mo.).
The matter is before the Court on review of the Plaintiff Terrell
Reed's self-represented complaint. For the reasons discussed here,
the Court will order the Plaintiff to file a signed, amended
complaint on a Court-provided form. The Plaintiff will also be
directed to either file an "Application to Proceed in District
Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs" or pay the $402 filing fee.
On July 10, 2023, fourteen inmates incarcerated at the Missouri
Eastern Correctional Center ("MECC"), including the Plaintiff,
filed a "class action" lawsuit. The 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
complaint names six Defendants affiliated with MECC. The Defendants
are accused of allowing the Plaintiff-Inmates to be restrained with
plastic zip-ties for an excessive amount of time while the
Correctional Emergency Response Team (CERT) searched their housing
unit. Only one of the Plaintiff-Inmates, David Wilson, signed the
complaint, filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and
submitted a copy of his inmate account statement.
Because the Court does not allow multiple prisoners to join
together in a single lawsuit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
20, the complaint was severed and new cases opened for each
individual plaintiff. The instant case is one of the newly created
cases brought by a severed plaintiff.
Judge Holmes finds that the complaint in this matter is defective
for multiple reasons. First, and foremost, the complaint is not
signed by the Plaintiff Terrell Reed as required by Rule 11(a) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Second, the complaint alleges
violations of the rights of a group of inmates as a whole.
Because the Plaintiff is self-represented, the Court will give him
the opportunity to file a signed, amended complaint to set forth
his own claims for relief. The Plaintiff should type or neatly
print his complaint on the Court's prisoner civil rights form,
which will be provided to him. In the "Caption" section of the
Court-provided form, the Plaintiff should clearly name each and
every party he is intending to sue.
In the "Statement of Claim" section, the Plaintiff should provide a
short and plain statement of the factual allegations supporting his
claim.
Judge Holmes says it is important that the Plaintiff establish the
responsibility of each separate Defendant for harming him. That is,
for each Defendant, the Plaintiff must allege facts showing how
that particular Defendant's acts or omissions violated his
constitutional rights. The Plaintiff is warned that the filing of
an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint.
If the Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint on a
Court-provided form within thirty days in accordance with the
instructions set forth here, the Court will dismiss this action
without prejudice and without further notice to the Plaintiff.
Finally, Judge Holmes notes that the Plaintiff has neither paid the
$402 filing fee, nor sought leave to proceed without the prepayment
of fees or costs. If the Plaintiff files an "Application to Proceed
without Prepaying Fees or Costs," it must be accompanied by a
certified copy of his inmate account statement for the six-month
period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint. Also, if
the Plaintiff files such Application, the Court will review the
amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915.
The Plaintiff's failure to make specific factual allegations
against a defendant will result in the dismissal of that defendant,
Judge Holmes holds. If the Plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee or
file an application to proceed without prepayment, within thirty
(30) days, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice and
without further notice.
Accordingly, Judge Holmes directs the Clerk to mail to the
Plaintiff a copy of the Court's "Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint"
form, and "Application to Proceed in District Court without
Prepaying Fees or Costs" form.
The Plaintiff must file an amended complaint on the Court's form
within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.
The Plaintiff must either pay the $402 filing fee or file an
application to proceed without prepayment within thirty (30) days
of the date of this Order.
If the Plaintiff files an application to proceed without
prepayment, he must also file a certified copy of his inmate
account statement for the six-month period preceding the filing of
the complaint.
If the Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, the Court
will dismiss this action without prejudice and without further
notice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated July 20,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/58t9jzhh from
Leagle.com.
MISSOURI: Shaw Must File Amended Complaint, District Court Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Henry Edward Autrey of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, directs the
Plaintiff to file an amended complaint in the lawsuit styled ADRIAN
SHAW, Plaintiff v. ANNE L. PRECYTHE, et al., Defendants, Case No.
4:23-CV-00892 HEA (E.D. Mo.).
The matter is before the Court on review of Plaintiff Adrian Shaw's
self-represented complaint. For the reasons discussed here, the
Court will order the Plaintiff to file a signed, amended complaint
on a Court-provided form. The Plaintiff will also be directed to
either file an "Application to Proceed in District Court without
Prepaying Fees or Costs" or pay the $402 filing fee.
On July 10, 2023, fourteen inmates incarcerated at the Missouri
Eastern Correctional Center ("MECC"), including the Plaintiff,
filed a "class action" lawsuit. The 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
complaint names six defendants affiliated with MECC. The Defendants
are accused of allowing the Plaintiff-Inmates to be restrained with
plastic zip-ties for an excessive amount of time while the
Correctional Emergency Response Team (CERT) searched their housing
unit. Only one of the Plaintiff-Inmates, David Wilson, signed the
complaint, filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and
submitted a copy of his inmate account statement.
Because the Court does not allow multiple prisoners to join
together in a single lawsuit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
20, the complaint was severed, and new cases opened for each
individual plaintiff. The instant case is one of the newly created
cases brought by a severed plaintiff.
The complaint in this matter is defective for multiple reasons,
Judge Autrey finds. First, and foremost, the complaint is not
signed by Plaintiff Adrian Shaw as required by Rule 11(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Second, the complaint alleges
violations of the rights of a group of inmates as a whole.
Because the Plaintiff is self-represented, the Court will give him
the opportunity to file a signed, amended complaint to set forth
his own claims for relief. The Plaintiff should type or neatly
print his complaint on the Court's prisoner civil rights form,
which will be provided to him. In the "Statement of Claim" section,
the Plaintiff should provide a short and plain statement of the
factual allegations supporting his claim.
Judge Autrey points out that it is important that the Plaintiff
establish the responsibility of each separate defendant for harming
him. That is, for each Defendant, the Plaintiff must allege facts
showing how that particular Defendant's acts or omissions violated
his constitutional rights. The Plaintiff is warned that the filing
of an amended complaint completely replaces the original
complaint.
If the Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint on a
Court-provided form within thirty (30) days in accordance with the
instructions set forth herein, the Court will dismiss this action
without prejudice and without further notice to the Plaintiff.
Finally, Judge Autrey says, the Plaintiff has neither paid the $402
filing fee, nor sought leave to proceed without the prepayment of
fees or costs. If the Plaintiff files an "Application to Proceed
without Prepaying Fees or Costs," it must be accompanied by a
certified copy of his inmate account statement for the six-month
period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint. Also, if
the Plaintiff files such Application, the Court will review the
amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915.
The Plaintiff's failure to make specific factual allegations
against a defendant will result in the dismissal of that defendant.
If the Plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee or file an application
to proceed without prepayment, within thirty (30) days, the Court
will dismiss this action without prejudice and without further
notice.
Accordingly, Judge Autrey directs the Clerk to mail to the
Plaintiff a copy of the Court's "Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint"
form, and "Application to Proceed in District Court without
Prepaying Fees or Costs" form.
The Plaintiff must file an amended complaint on the Court's form
within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.
The Plaintiff must either pay the $402 filing fee or file an
application to proceed without prepayment within thirty (30) days
of the date of this Order. If the Plaintiff files an application to
proceed without prepayment, he must also file a certified copy of
his inmate account statement for the six-month period preceding the
filing of the complaint.
If the Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, the Court
will dismiss this action without prejudice and without further
notice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion, Memorandum and Order dated
July 20, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/reh6euc6 from
Leagle.com.
NATIONSBENEFITS LLC: King Sues Over Failure to Protect Private Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFEREY KING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONSBENEFITS LLC, NATIONSBENEFITS
HOLDINGS LLC, and AETNA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-00981-SRU (S.D. Fla., July 18, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, unjust enrichment, invasion
of privacy, third-party beneficiary breach of contract, bailment,
and breach of fiduciary duty by failing to adequately and properly
secure and safeguard Plaintiff and other patients' personally
identifiable information(PII) and protected health information(PHI)
and failing to provide timely, accurate and adequate notice to
Plaintiff and the Class Members that their information had been
compromised in an attack orchestrated by cybercriminals.
Starting on April 13, 2023, NationsBenefits sent Plaintiff and
Class Members a notice informing them that its computer systems had
been breached and customer data accessed by a cybercriminal. The
data involved included PHI and PII such as names, gender,
addresses, telephone numbers, birth dates, Social Security numbers,
health insurance information, Medicare/Medicaid ID numbers, and
group plan names and numbers.
Allegedly, the data breach occurred and was amplified by
Defendants' negligent failure to (i) implement reasonable and
adequate security procedures and practices, (ii) disclose material
facts surrounding their deficient data security protocols, and
(iii) timely notify the victims of the data breach. As a result of
Defendants' failure to protect the sensitive PHI and PII they were
entrusted to safeguard, Plaintiff and the Class Members have
suffered harm and have been exposed to a significant and continuing
risk of identity theft, financial fraud, and other fraud for years
to come, the suit says.
NationsBenefits LLC provides benefits, flex cards, and member
engagement solutions for health plans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
1625 N. Commerce Parkway Suite 320
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326
Telephone: (866) 544-5505
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: nczipperian@millershah.com
- and -
Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
Amber L. Schubert, Esq.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
2001 Union Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94123
Telephone: (415) 788-4220
Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
E-mail: rschubert@sjk.law
aschubert@sjk.law
PRIMECARE MEDICAL: Manzo Seeks Medical Assistants' Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------------
TIFFANY MANZO, individually and for others similarly situated v.
PRIMECARE MEDICAL, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01216-CCC (M.D. Pa., July
24, 2023) arises from the Defendant's violation of the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection
Law by depriving Plaintiff and the putative Class members of
overtime wages at rates not less than one and a half times their
regular rates of pay—based on all renumeration received.
Plaintiff Manzo worked for PrimeCare as a medical assistant at the
Monroe County Detention Center in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania from
approximately January 2022 until September 2022.
PrimeCare Medical, Inc. provides healthcare services to county
jails, prisons, and juvenile detention centers throughout the
Northeastern United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott B. Cooper, Esq.
SCHMIDT KRAMER PC
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Telephone: (717) 888-8888
Facsimile: (717) 232-6467
E-mail: scooper@schmidtkramer.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
PROTRANS INT'L: Court Maintains Refusal to Approve Briz Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Micaela Alvarez of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, McAllen Division, maintains her
denial of the motion for approval of settlement in the lawsuit
styled OSCAR MORENO BRIZ, et al., Plaintiff v. PROTRANS
INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:22-cv-00144 (S.D. Tex.).
The Court considers the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and
maintains its denial of the motion for approval of the settlement
but modifies its order for resubmission.
The case was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
alleging miscalculation of overtime pay for bonus-earning
employees. The three current Plaintiffs reached an agreement with
the Defendant which (1) stipulates (for settlement purposes) the
collective of similarly situated workers, and (2) establishes a
settlement fund capable of paying all of those prospective
plaintiffs 52% of the allegedly withheld wages.
The parties moved for approval of the settlement, as well as
approval of notice and consent to be sent out to over 400
prospective plaintiffs. The proposed notice and consent would
inform prospective plaintiffs that they are not bound by the
settlement and may decline to participate, but it gives them no
opportunity to object to the settlement. It is a
take-it-or-leave-it offer.
The Court denied that motion and (1) approved the stipulated
collective but (2) instructed the parties to resubmit a notice and
consent that would inform the prospective plaintiffs of their
ability to join the lawsuit, not a settlement.
In the instant motion, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to reconsider.
Their counsel provides several cases in which courts use varying
tests to arrive at the conclusion that it is acceptable to approve
a settlement and notice to a settlement class/collective
contemporaneously.
In Jasso v. HC Carriers, LLC, the magistrate court recommended the
approval of an FLSA collective, notice to the collective, and
settlement with the collective all in one order.
To support the proposition that a collective may be certified for
settlement purposes only, the Jasso court cites to Frost v. Oil
States Energy. But in Frost, the case was handled as both a class
action under Rule 23 and a collective action under the FLSA, Judge
Alvarez notes. Furthermore, notice had been sent at the conditional
certification stage, and the parties were before the court
requesting final certification and approval of the settlement.
In Stanley v. Patriot Inspection Services, the court analyzed
whether the settlement was "fair and reasonable" at the same time
as conditional certification of the collective, but it discussed no
factors.
Judge Alvarez finds that Lea v. Baker Hughes does not support the
Plaintiff's position because there, the court approved the
settlement with final certification after the collective was
conditionally approved and notice to join the lawsuit, not the
settlement, had been sent out and the new plaintiffs had an
opportunity to object. The Court cannot find the opinion from
Munoz, et al. v. Ironclad Energy, LLC, et al., online.
None of these authorities persuade the Court that the Plaintiffs'
and the Defendant's proposed settlement should be approved prior to
notice and without an opportunity for objection. Only Jasso and
Stanley stand for the proposition that this is possible in an FLSA
case, and the Court disagrees with those courts' ultimate
conclusions.
According to Judge Alvarez, Stanley's analysis is not fully baked,
and it considers "fair and reasonable" in the abstract without
explicating concrete factors or considering objections from actual
members of the collective, who have not yet been notified. Jasso's
analysis is far more thorough, yet somewhat myopically focused on
Chano's paraphrastic version of the Rule 23(e) fairness factors.
But if Rule 23(e) is to be mapped onto an FLSA collective action
consistently, then the collective should be notified of a proposed
settlement (not a finalized one), and the collective members should
have the opportunity to object. Jasso is correct, however, that
importing the fairness considerations from Rule 23 onto FLSA
collectives counsels in favor of a fairness hearing.
Here, Judge Alvarez finds the parties' proposal does none of that.
They would have the Court approve notice that informs prospective
plaintiffs that the "parties reached a settlement," not that a
proposed settlement is on the table as Rule 23(e) contemplates,
Judge Alvarez explains. They would refuse prospective plaintiffs
the opportunity to object, and they hope to accomplish all this
without a hearing.
On reconsideration, Judge Alvarez holds that the motion for
settlement approval remains denied.
However, Judge Alvarez says, the cited authorities--especially
Frost--do persuade the Court that provided there is an opportunity
to object, informing prospective plaintiffs of a proposed
settlement in the collective notice can facilitate a fair,
reasonable, and efficient resolution to the case. The collective's
feedback on the settlement terms helps the Court make a final
approval determination and, in this case, justifies including the
proposed settlement terms in the notice.
Therefore, the Court modifies its prior order to allow the parties'
notice to include the terms of the proposed settlement. The Court
will consider settlement approval after the opt-in and objection
periods have expired. Such notice will make clear that joining the
collective action does not bind the new plaintiffs to the proposed
settlement.
On reconsideration and in spite of other courts' conclusions to the
contrary, Judge Alvarez says this Court is not convinced the
settlement should be approved before notice to the collective and
an opportunity for objections. The parties' deadline to resubmit
proposed notice and consent is continued.
Judge Alvarez holds that this order supersedes the Court's prior
order such that the parties may include details of the proposed
settlement in the notice so long as (1) it is termed a proposed
settlement and prospective plaintiffs are informed that joining
does not bind them to the settlement, and (2) prospective
plaintiffs are apprised of their right to object to the settlement
and providing contact information and a deadline for submission of
objections.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Opinion dated July 20,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yfhnsmyb from
Leagle.com.
RADIUS HEALTH: Does not Properly pay Employees, Kushelowitz Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
BARRY KUSHELOWITZ, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RADIUS HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-23-016024 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., July 24,
2023) is a class action against the Defendant brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act to recover Plaintiff's unpaid wages for
all hours worked including those above 40 in a workweek, liquidated
damages and/or prejudgment interest, and attorney's fees and
litigation expenses.
The Plaintiff brings this suit, on behalf of all current and former
sales employees classified as exempt under the outside sales
exemption who performed initial training at the outset of their
employment with Radius during the three year liability period.
Radius is global biopharmaceutical company, doing business
nationwide, including in Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
Tamra C. Givens, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 447-8888
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
REALPAGE INC: Kabisch Sues Over Overpriced Rental Housing
---------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Kabisch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v . REALPAGE, INC.; THOMA BRAVO FUND XIII,
L.P.; THOMA BRAVO FUND XIV, L.P.; THOMA BRAVO L.P.; APARTMENT
INCOME REIT CORP., d/b/a AIR COMMUNITIES; ALLIED ORION GROUP, LLC;
APARTMENT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, LLC; AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC;
BELL PARTNERS, INC.; BH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; BOZZUTO
MANAGEMENT COMPANY; BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES MULTIFAMILY LLC; CAMDEN
PROPERTY TRUST; CH REAL ESTATE SERVICES, LLC; CONAM MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION; CONTI CAPITAL; TF CORNERSTONE, INC.; CORTLAND
MANAGEMENT, LLC; CWS APARTMENT HOMES LLC; DAYRISE RESIDENTIAL, LLC;
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL; ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC.; FPI MANAGEMENT,
INC.; GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP; HIGHMARK RESIDENTIAL, LLC;
INDEPENDENCE REALTY TRUST, INC.; KAIROI MANAGEMENT, LLC; KNIGHTVEST
RESIDENTIAL; LANTOWER LUXURY LIVING, LLC; LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY;
LYON MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.; MIDAMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES,
INC.; MISSION ROCK RESIDENTIAL, LLC; MORGAN PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT
COMPANY, LLC; PINNACLE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC;
PROMETHEUS REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC.; THE RELATED COMPANIES L.P.;
RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY L.P.; ROSE ASSOCIATES, INC.; RPM LIVING,
LLC; SARES REGIS GROUP COMMERCIAL, INC.; SECURITY PROPERTIES INC.;
SHERMAN ASSOCIATES, INC.; SIMPSON PROPERTY GROUP, LLC; THRIVE
COMMUNITIES MANAGEMENT, LLC; CROW HOLDINGS, LP; TRAMMELL CROW
RESIDENTIAL COMPANY; B/T WASHINGTON, LLC d/b/a BLANTON TURNER; UDR,
INC.; WINDSOR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY; WINNCOMPANIES LLC;
WINNRESIDENTIAL MANAGER CORP.; AND ZRS MANAGEMENT, LLC; Defendants,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00742 (M.D. Tenn., July 24, 2023) arises from the
Defendants' engagement in a nationwide conspiracy to fix and
inflate the price of multifamily rental housing across the U.S. in
violation of the Sherman Act and the state antitrust statutes.
According to the complaint, leveraging their control of the
multifamily rental housing market from at least January 2016,
Defendants each caused substantial damages to Plaintiff and other
members of the Class, whose ability to obtain affordable housing
depended on getting competitive prices for the units they rented.
Several witness accounts, rental price and occupancy data, economic
evidence, and public investigations, confirm this anticompetitive
conduct, says the suit.
Each Lessor Defendant agreed that they would delegate their rental
price and supply decisions to a common decision maker, RealPage;
share the proprietary data necessary for RealPage to make those
decisions; and then abide by RealPage's price and supply decisions.
As RealPage put it, it offered clients the ability to "outsource
daily pricing and ongoing revenue oversight" to RealPage, allowing
Defendant RealPage to set prices for its clients' properties "as
though we [RealPage] own them ourselves." Rather than function as
separate economic entities, Lessor Defendants agreed to make key
competitive decisions regarding the price and supply of multifamily
apartments, collectively, the suit alleges.
The Plaintiff and the Class, who rent multifamily rental units from
property managers that use Defendant RealPage's revenue management
software solutions (RMS), paid significant overcharges on rent, and
suffered harm from the reduced availability of rental units they
could reasonably afford, says the complaint. This suit is brought
to recover for that alleged harm.
RealPage, Inc. develops integrated technology platform that
provides a host of software solutions for the multifamily rental
housing markets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tricia R. Herzfeld, Esq.
Anthony A. Orlandi, Esq.
HERZFELD SUETHOLZ GASTEL LENISKI AND WALL, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 300
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 800-6225
E-mail: tricia@hsglawgroup.com
tony@hsglawgroup.com
- and -
Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
Carmen A. Medici, Esq.
Fatima Brizuela, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 West Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 798-5325
Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
E-mail: pcoughlin@scott-scott.com
cmedici@scott-scott.com
fbrizuela@scott-scott.com
- and -
Patrick McGahan, Esq.
Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq.
Michael Srodoski, Esq.
G. Dustin Foster, Esq.
Isabella De Lisi, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
156 South Main Street
P.O. Box 192
Colchester, CT 06145
Telephone: (860) 537-5537
Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
E-mail: pmcgahan@scott-scott.com
alawrence@scott-scott.com
msrodoski@scott-scott.com
gfoster@scott-scott.com
idelisi@scott-scott.com
- and -
Stacey Slaughter, Esq.
Thomas J. Undlin, Esq.
Geoffrey H. Kozen, Esq.
Stephanie A. Chen, Esq.
J. Austin Hurt, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 349-8500
Facsimile: (612) 339-4181
E-mail: sslaughter@robinskaplan.com
tundlin@robinskaplan.com
gkozen@robinskaplan.com
ahurt@robinskaplan.com
- and -
Swathi Bojedla, Esq.
Mandy Boltax, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
E-mail: sbojedla@hausfeld.com
mboltax@hausfeld.com
- and -
Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 633-1908
E-mail: gsmith@hausfeld.com
- and -
Katie R. Beran, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
325 Chestnut Street, Suite 900
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 985-3270
E-mail: kberan@hausfeld.com
RETAIL BUSINESS: Hogg Seeks Unpaid Wages for Call Center Agents
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHARI HOGG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RETAIL BUSINESS SERVICES LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00613 (M.D.N.C., July 26, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to compensate its employees
for all hours worked, including overtime hours, in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act and for breach of contract
and unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a call center agent from
approximately December 2021 until approximately December 2022.
Retail Business Services LLC is a retail company, with its
principal offices located at 2110 Executive Drive, Salisbury, North
Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Mills Esq.
BURNS, DAY & PRESNELL, P.A.
2626 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 560
Raleigh, NC 27608
Telephone: (919) 782-1441
Facsimile: (919) 782-2311
E-mail: JMills@bdppa.com
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Albert J. Asciutto, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
aasciutto@sommerspc.com
SO-CAL DOMINOIDS: Faces Buc Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
LUDIM ELICEO CARPIO BUC, on behalf of the State of California, and
others similarly situated and aggrieved, Plaintiff v. SO-CAL
DOMINOIDS, INC., a California Corporation; DOMINOIDS, INC., a
California Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 23STCV17387 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 24, 2023)
arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California
Labor Code.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants created a uniform set of
policies, practices and/or procedures concerning, inter alia,
hourly and overtime pay, time-keeping practices, meal and rest
periods, reimbursement of business expenses and other working
conditions that were distributed to, and/or applied to Plaintiff
and aggrieved employees. Furthermore, Defendants uniformly
compensated and controlled the wages of Plaintiff and other
aggrieved employees in a uniform manner.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-exempt employee with a
job title of delivery driver or a similar title from December 2021
through August 15, 2022.
So-Cal Dominoids, Inc. owns, operates, manages restaurant in Los
Angeles County, California operating under the name Domino's and/or
Domino's Pizza.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
Jamie Serb, Esq.
Brandon Brouillette, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, PC
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (866) 276-7637
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
E-mail: zach@crosnerlegal.com
jamie@crosnerlegal.com
bbrouillette@crosnerlegal.com
SOUTHERN METHODIST: 5th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Hogan's Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled LUKE HOGAN, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND OTHER
INDIVIDUALS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SOUTHERN
METHODIST UNIVERSITY, AND OTHER AFFILIATED ENTITIES AND
INDIVIDUALS, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 22-10433 (5th Cir.), the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reverses the
district court's order dismissing Hogan's claims, and certifies a
question to the Texas Supreme Court.
Luke Hogan, on behalf of a putative class of students, sued
Southern Methodist University ("SMU") for refusing to refund
tuition and fees after the university switched to remote
instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Because SMU did not refund students any tuition or fees, Hogan
sued, asserting claims for breach of contract, conversion, and
unjust enrichment. Hogan's amended complaint alleges SMU promised
to provide students with on-campus services as reflected in
numerous representations. Additionally, Hogan's complaint cites the
Student Rights and Responsibilities Agreement ("Student
Agreement"), which he claims represented a binding obligation to
pay tuition and fees in exchange for educational services detailed
in the documents.
Mr. Hogan filed this putative class action in Texas state court in
August 2020, on behalf of himself and all individuals, who paid SMU
tuition for in-person educational services during the Spring 2020
semester. He sought monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief.
SMU removed the action based on diversity jurisdiction to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The district
court dismissed Hogan's complaint for failure to state a claim.
The district court granted SMU's motion, dismissing Hogan's claims
with prejudice. It concluded that Hogan's breach-of-contract claim
failed to meet federal pleading standards by not alleging a
specific contractual promise that SMU violated; that his unjust
enrichment and conversion claims failed under Texas law; and,
alternatively, that the PLPA was constitutional and barred Hogan's
claim for monetary relief. Hogan timely appealed.
On appeal, Hogan challenges only the district court's dismissal of
his breach-of-contract claim and its ruling on the PLPA's
constitutionality. First, he claims the court erred by overlooking
his claim that SMU breached the Student Agreement by discontinuing
in-person instruction. Second, he contends the PLPA violates the
Texas Constitution's retroactivity clause as applied to his claim.
The Court of Appeals reverses that decision in light of King v.
Baylor University, 46 F.4th 344 (5th Cir. 2022), which was issued
after the district court's ruling and which teaches that Hogan
adequately pled a breach-of-contract claim. Alternatively, the
district court held that Texas's Pandemic Liability Protection Act
("PLPA") retroactively bars Hogan's claim for monetary relief and
is not unconstitutionally retroactive under the Texas
Constitution.
That latter ruling raises a determinative-but-unsettled question of
state constitutional law, which the Court of Appeals certifies to
the Texas Supreme Court.
Circuit Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, writing for the Panel, opines
that King compels the Court of Appeals to reverse the district
court's ruling that Hogan failed to plead a breach-of-contract
claim. Similar to King, the parties here offered competing
interpretations as to whether the Student Agreement is an
enforceable contract for on-campus instruction.
Judge Duncan notes that the district court did not resolve this
dispute, nor did it consider whether Hogan's capacious
interpretation of "educational purposes" is reasonable, and if so,
whether the term is latently ambiguous. The Panel must, therefore,
reverse.
Mr. Hogan next challenges the district court's ruling that the PLPA
retroactively bars the damages he seeks. He contends this
application of the PLPA violates the Texas Constitution's
retroactivity clause.
Judge Duncan says Hogan's argument raises a hard question under
Texas law. Neither the Texas Supreme Court nor any other Texas
court has yet decided whether the PLPA is unconstitutionally
retroactive. Two federal district courts have split on how to
answer the question.
Given this legal obscurity and the "significant state interests"
underlying the PLPA, Judge Duncan holds that the better course is
to certify this question to the Texas Supreme Court.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals certifies the following question
to the Texas Supreme Court:
Does the application of the Pandemic Liability Protection
Act to Hogan's breach-of-contract claim violate the
retroactivity clause in article I, section 16 of the Texas
Constitution?
The Court of Appeals asks the Texas Supreme Court to give the Panel
its determination of this state-law issue, which will be binding on
the Court. The Panel disclaims any intention or desire that the
Supreme Court confine its reply to the precise form or scope of the
question certified.
Question Certified.
A full-text copy of the Court's Certification dated July 20, 2023,
is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdhxvyzx from Leagle.com.
SPACE EXPLORATION: Underpays Non-Exempt Employees, Padilla Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN PADILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES, CORP. DBA
SPACEX; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
23STCV17559 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 26, 2023) alleges
violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and
Professions Code, including failure to pay minimum and straight
time wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal
periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to
timely pay final wages at termination, failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, failure to indemnify employees for
expenditures, and unfair business practices.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee
from approximately January 2022 to September 2022.
Space Exploration Technologies, Corp., doing business as SpaceX, is
a spacecraft engineering company, headquartered in Hawthorne,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
Christina M. Le, Esq.
Arsine Grigoryan, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com
cle@wilshirelawfirm.com
agrigoryan@wilshirelawfirm.com
STAR FOOD: Fails to Properly Pay Deli Workers, Galan Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE FELIX GALAN FLORES and ZACARIAS ATENCO OSORIO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STAR
FOOD MART AND DELI CORP. (D/B/A STAR FOOD MART & DELI), NUR GROCERY
TWO INC. (D/B/A NUR GROCERY TWO DELI & GRILL), MANJUR MORSHED, and
ANOWAR HOSSAIN, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06472 (S.D.N.Y., July
26, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law
including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay
spread-of-hours wages, failure to provide wage notices, failure to
provide accurate wage statements, failure to reimburse business
expenses, and failure to pay timely wages.
Plaintiff Galan was employed as a deli worker by the Defendants at
Star Food Mart & Deli, formerly known as Nur Grocery Two Deli &
Grill, from approximately July 2019 until on or about October
2022.
Plaintiff Atenco was employed as a deli worker by the Defendants at
Star Food Mart & Deli, formerly known as Nur Grocery Two Deli &
Grill, from approximately 2016 until on or about February 2023.
Star Food Mart and Deli Corp., doing business as Star Food Mart &
Deli, is a restaurant company, headquartered in New York, New
York.
Nur Grocery Two Inc., doing business as Nur Grocery Two Deli &
Grill, is a restaurant company, headquartered in New York, New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
U.S. FACILITY: Glass Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Technicians
--------------------------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS GLASS and RAY ST. CLAIRE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. U.S. FACILITY SOLUTIONS,
LLC and CHRIS DABEK, Defendants, Case No. 0:23-cv-61426 (S.D. Fla.,
July 26, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Plaintiff Glass worked as a technician for the Defendants from
approximately June 2021 until approximately March 2023, and St.
Claire from approximately June 2022 until March 2023.
U.S. Facility Solutions, LLC is a commercial maintenance management
company, headquartered in Sunrise, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason L. Gunter, Esq.
Conor P. Foley, Esq.
GUNTERFIRM
1514 Broadway #101
Fort Myers, FL 33901
Telephone: (239) 334-7017
E-mail: Jason@GunterFirm.com
Conor@GunterFirm.com
- and -
Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Telephone: (817) 479-9229
Facsimile: (817) 887-1878
E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com
pamela@herrmannlaw.com
- and -
Harold Lichten, Esq.
Matthew Thomson, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
mthomson@llrlaw.com
WHEATFIELD, NY: Greif's Bid for Fees in Andres Suit Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuits captioned ELIZABETH ANDRES, et al., Plaintiffs v.
TOWN OF WHEATFIELD, et al., Defendants; ALICIA BELLAFAIRE, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. TOWN OF WHEATFIELD, et al., Defendants; THEODORE
WIRTH, III, et al., Plaintiffs v. TOWN OF WHEATFIELD, et al.,
Defendants, Case Nos. 1:17-cv-00377-CCR, 1:18-cv-00560-CCR,
1:18-cv-01486-CCR (W.D.N.Y.), Judge Christina Reiss of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York grants in part
and denies in part Defendant Greif, Inc.'s motion for attorneys'
fees.
Pending before the Court is Defendant Greif, Inc.'s motion for an
award of attorneys' fees pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B),
filed on Jan. 27, 2023. The Plaintiffs opposed the motion on Feb.
10, 2023, and Greif replied on Feb. 13, 2023, at which point the
Court took the motion under advisement.
The Plaintiffs are current or previous owners or renters of
residential properties in North Tonawanda, New York, and the
surrounding area, who have lived in that area for at least one
year. They seek to bring a class action suit against Greif and
other Defendants.
On Dec. 13, 2021, Greif issued initial disclosures and stated that
pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(a)(iv) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, it is not presently aware of any insurance agreement
under which an insurance business may be liable to satisfy all or
part of a possible judgment in this action or to indemnify or
reimburse for payments made to satisfy any such judgment.
On Dec. 20, 2021, the Court held a Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 scheduling
conference, wherein they Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants'
Rule 26 disclosures were inadequate. Thereafter, the court entered
a Case Management Order ("CMO"), which ordered the parties to make
initial Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures within fifteen days of the CMO.
On March 14, 2022, the Plaintiffs sent a letter to the Defendants,
including Defendant Greif, asserting that their Rule 26 disclosures
were inadequate. The letter detailed the Plaintiffs' specific
issues with Defendants Crown Beverage Packing, LLC, Industrial
Holdings Corporation, and Republic Services, Inc.'s insurance
disclosures, but did not mention any issues with Greif's
disclosures.
On April 21, 2022, the Plaintiffs' counsel met and conferred with
counsel for Crown, Republic, and Industrial Holdings regarding
their Rule 26 disclosures, at which point those Defendants
"re-emphasized that there were no insurance policies for them to
produce under Rule 26(a) initial disclosures." Judge Reiss notes
that there is no evidence that the Plaintiffs' counsel met and
conferred with counsel for Greif.
On Nov. 23, 2022, the Plaintiffs' counsel emailed Greif's counsel,
as well as counsel for all other Defendants, stating that they
recently learned that at least one Defendant failed to identify and
produce responsive insurance policies under Rule 26 through the
initial disclosure process despite apparently making claims under
those same policies for this action. On Dec. 1, 2022, the
Plaintiffs moved to compel Greif's initial disclosures and
requested sanctions because Greif allegedly failed to produce
insurance agreements in its initial disclosures as required by Rule
26(a)(1)(A)(iv).
Defendant Greif opposed the Plaintiffs' motion, pointing out that
it had no insurance coverage and stating they failed to meet and
confer with it before filing. Greif further argued that the
Plaintiffs' motion was not supported by any evidence that Greif
failed to disclose a relevant insurance policy, and observed their
motion presented almost no argument directed at Greif. The
Plaintiffs replied on Dec. 22, 2022, and withdrew their motion to
compel against Greif.
On Jan. 6, 2023, the Court heard oral arguments regarding, among
other things, the Plaintiffs' motion to compel and for sanctions.
The Court found the Plaintiffs had failed to fully satisfy meet and
confer requirements and ruled that Greif could file an application
for attorney's fees to which the Plaintiffs may object. The pending
motion ensued. Greif requests a total of $7,980 in fees, based on
counsel's rate of $285 per hour for 28 hours of work, which it
asserts is reasonable.
The Plaintiffs oppose Greif's motion, asserting that Fed. R. Civ.
P. 37(a)(5)(C) governs the attorneys' fees award and provides that
if a motion for an order compelling disclosure or discovery is
granted in part and denied in part, the Court may after giving an
opportunity to be heard, apportion the reasonable expenses for the
motion. This rule, the Plaintiffs argue, renders award of fees
entirely discretionary.
As Greif correctly points out, no part of the Plaintiffs' motion
was granted against Greif, Judge Reiss notes. Instead, the
Plaintiffs withdrew their motion before the Court had to adjudicate
its merits.
At the Jan. 6, 2023 hearing, the Court found that the Plaintiffs
failed to fully satisfy meet and confer requirements, and their
motion presented no grounds for compelling Greif's initial
disclosure, which complied with its disclosure requirements. The
Plaintiffs' motion, thus, lacked a good faith factual and legal
basis and they violated the Court's Local Rules by failure to
attend a meet and confer before filing it.
In such circumstances, the Plaintiffs' motion cannot fairly be
characterized as "substantially justified," Judge Reiss holds.
In contrast, Greif, the prevailing party, filed timely initial
disclosures and acted appropriately, Judge Reiss finds. The Court,
thus, cannot find its position was not justified. Because the
Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that an exception to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B) applies, the Rule indicates an award of
attorneys' fees is appropriate.
Greif requests a total of $7,980 in fees based on its attorneys'
hourly rates of $285 per hour for 16.6 hours opposing the
Plaintiffs' motion to compel and for sanctions, 4.2 hours preparing
Greif's application for fees, and 7.2 hours spent working on
Greif's reply in further support of its application for fees. The
Plaintiffs describe Greif's requested amount as unreasonably
overinclusive and they request that no more than $1,196.50 be
awarded.
Greif requests hourly rates of $285 for Attorneys Steven Nonkes and
Brian Mahoney. It submits Attorney Nonkes's declaration reciting
his and Attorney Mahoney's qualifications and experience in support
of the requested hourly rate.
Judge Reiss finds that the requested hourly rates are reasonable in
the Western District of New York. Greif's hours spent opposing the
Plaintiffs' motion to compel and for sanctions are supported by
contemporaneous billing records, Judge Reiss adds.
The Court agrees that Greif should not be awarded fees related to
its review of its co-Defendant's filings. It further agrees it is
impossible to segregate out those fees that pertain to Greif's own
motion. The Court, therefore, reduces Greif's fee award by
$883.50.
The Plaintiffs also oppose entries made on Dec. 5, 12, 13, and 15,
2022, that reference without explanation an unknown time for
"defensive strategy," on the basis that this phrase leaves an
unreasonable degree of uncertainty as to time spent actually
opposing the motion as opposed to other issues or the case more
generally. The Plaintiffs request that the Court reduce any award
for December 12 and December 15 by half.
The entries in question are were redacted and "Defense Strategy" is
inserted instead of case-specific tasks. Without more, the Court
cannot find they pertain to the pending motion and, therefore,
grants the Plaintiffs' request and reduces the award by $584.25.
The Court finds no further reductions from the requested fees are
warranted.
For these reasons, Greif's motion for attorneys' fees is granted in
part and denied in part. The Court orders the Plaintiffs to pay
$6,512.25 within thirty-five (35) days of this Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated July 20,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/24msr7h7 from
Leagle.com.
Defendant Greif is represented by Brian C. Mahoney of Lippes
Mathias LLP -- bmahoney@lippes.com -- Kirstie Alexandra Means of
Harris Beach PLLC -- kmeans@harrisbeach.com -- Richard T. Sullivan
of Sullivan Law & Associates, and Steven Paul Nonkes of Harris
Beach PLLC -- snonkes@harrisbeach.com.
The Plaintiffs are represented by Lilia Factor, Esq., Nevin
Wisnoski, Esq., Ashley M. Liuzza, Esq., Christen Civiletto, Esq.,
Louise R. Caro, Esq., Michael G. Stag, Esq., Paul J. Napoli, Esq.,
and Tate James Kunkle, Esq.
*********
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 ***