/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230825.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, August 25, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 171
Headlines
24 WINDWARD AVENUE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Empy Alleges
AHLSTROM-MUNKSJO OYJ: Faces Water Drinking Contamination Suit
AL TIRO: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, Perez Alleges
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Two Classes
ARIZONA: Bid for Class Certification in Transgender Suit Granted
AUTO TRENDS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Escobar Alleges
B&C RENOVATION: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Vazquez Alleges
BHP GROUP: May Face Lung Disease Class Action in South Africa
BNO SERVICE: Fails to Pay Attendants' Minimum, OT Wages, Singh Says
BOEING EMPLOYEES: Woodard Suit Transferred to District of Oregon
BOSTON MARKET: Faces Class Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
CANADA: B.C. Sup. Court Denies Class Certification in Wildfire Suit
CITI TRENDS: Faces Green-Fogg Class Suit Over Employees Data Breach
CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Bid for Summary Judgment in Loomis Suit Denied
CLIENT SERVICES: Schiler Sues Over Deceptive Debt Collection Letter
COCKPIT USA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
CODEAGE LLC: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COMMONWEALTH HEALTH: Gabello Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania
COOKS & CAPTAINS: Sanchez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
CPA GLOBAL: BCS Seeks Cinven Compliance on Subpoena Issued
CRACKER BARREL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Frederick Alleges
CREDIT SUISSE: Linhares Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
CRUMBL LLC: Cytryn Files Suit in C.D. California
DAVITA INC: Suit Removed to S.D. California
DEAN & TYLER: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DELOITTE LLP: Singh Appeals ERISA Suit Dismissal
DEV VET CORP: Stephenson Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
DOGTOPIA ENTERPRISES: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
DROPOFF INC: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Purpiglio Alleges
DULUTH, MN: Court Certifies Overcharging Stormwater Fees Class Suit
EATON CORP: Faces Class Action Over Defective Circuit Breakers
ECL GROUP: Parties Seek to Initially Certify Settlement Class
ECO VESSEL: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ELEVATION BEHAVIORAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gonzales Says
ELI LILLY: Nine U.S. States Object to $13.5MM Insulin Settlement
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Quach Sues Over Labor Code Violations
ENZO BIOCHEM: Louis Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII/PHI
FACTOR75 LLC: Gonzalez Suit Removed to C.D. California
FANTASIA TRADING: Shakya Sues Over Security Cameras' False Ads
FENSTERSHEIB LAW: Partial Nod of Houston's Bid for Tax Cost Pushed
FLORIDA HEALTH SCIENCE: Andriano Files Suit in M.D. Florida
FLORIDA HEALTH: Fails to Safeguard Patients' Info, Russo Says
FLORIDA HEALTH: Ruggiero Sues Over Disclosed Personal Info
FLOS USA INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
FOAM CROWN MOLDING: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FOLGERS COFFEE: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Reply by Sept. 18
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Suit Over Fire Risk in Hybrid Vehicles
FULLPLATE VENTURES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Elder Claims
GAP INC: O'Reilly Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Advance Notice
GENWORTH LIFE: Faces Class Action Over MOVEit Data Breach
GEOVERA SPECIALTY: Burke Files Suit in E.D. Louisiana
GOLDMAN SACHS: 2nd Cir. Decertifies Class in Securities Lawsuit
GOLDMAN SACHS: 2nd Cir. Denies Certification in Securities Suit
GOOGLE LLC: Bermudez Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial in Wiretap Suit
GORDON ELECTRIC: Bullock Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GOSHI INC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GOURMET IMPORTS LP: Bullock Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HARTFORD LIFE: Faces Class Action Over May 2023 Data Breach
HARVARD PILGRIM: Jano Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Must Face Class Action Over Disabled Printers
HOMERO VILLARREAL: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HOSPITALITY STAFFING: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Felix Says
HOUSING AUTHORITY: Carlson Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info
HUNTER WARFIELD: Perrucci Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia
HYUNDAI AMERICA: McCrory Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Judge Refuses to Approve Vehicle Theft Settlement
IDOLL INC: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
INDIANA: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Child Welfare System
INTELLIHARTX LLC: Terwilliger Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
IRAN: D.C. Court Denies Renewed Bid to Certify Class in Burks Suit
J.F.K. CONSTRUCTION: Membreno Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
JAGUAR LAND: Faces Class Suit Over Defective I-Pace Batteries
JOY'S PLACE: Underpays Direct-Care Assistants, Prince Suit Claims
JSP LIFE: Fails to Pay Health Aides' OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
KAYE-SMITH ENTERPRISES: Krefting Suit Moved to District of Oregon
KOCHAVA INC: Must Face Privacy Class Action, Court Rules
LADLES SOUPS: Faces Servers' Class Action Over Tip Policy
LIFELABS: Settles Class Action Suit Over Cyberattack for $4.9M
M & M RENTALS: Settlement Claim Submission Deadline Set Nov. 28
MANDERLY GROUP: Fails to Pay Technician's OT Wages Under FLSA
MARKETSTAR QOZ: Gustafson Sues Over WARN Act Violation
MED SPA HOLDINGS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Dotoli Claims
MEDBAR CORP: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MERCER LAMOUR BRANDS: Shuman Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
MERCHANTS BUILDING: Carino Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MI MEXICO: Faces Ortega Suit Over Meat Market Staff's Unpaid Wages
MISSOURI: Whitley Ordered to File Amended Complaint v. Precythe
MISSOURI: Wilson v. Precythe Suit Can Proceed in Forma Pauperies
MORRIS MOHAWK: Faces Consumer Class Action in Kentucky
MORRIS MOHAWK: Woods Sues Over Illegal Web-Based Gambling
MYLAN NV: Investors Appeal Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit
NETRADUYNE INC: Ross Sues Over Illegal Biometric Info Collection
NIO INC: Faces Suit Over False Shanghai Factory Construction
NTA PRECISION: Faces Yates Class Suit Over Biometrics Collection
PRESIDIO BRANDS: Faces Meilan Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages
PRIORITY DISPATCH: Appeals Dismissal Bid Denial in Peter FLSA Suit
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Hagens Berman Files Data Breach Class Actions
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Faces Data Breach Class Action in Ohio
QUICK MED: Moore Sues Over Radiology Technologists' Unpaid OT
R.T.G. FURNITURE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Williams Says
RYS HOLDINGS: Property Not Accessible to Disabled, Foster Says
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Certification Motion Dismissal Upheld
SANTO DOMINGO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, De La Cruz Says
SENTAI FILMWORKS: Discloses Viewers' Info to Meta, James Alleges
SERVE AUTOMATION: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Ramos Alleges
SHAKE SHACK: Fails to Pay Restaurant Managers' OT Wages Under FLSA
SKYBRIDGE CAPITAL: Faces Rabbitte Suit Over FTX Fraud Conspiracy
STAR SNACKS: Copeland Sues Over Mislabeled Cashew Products
SWCA INC: Fails to Pay OT & Double Time Wages, Shreckengost Alleges
SWEETWATER FRANCHISE: Faces Turner Class Suit Over Data Breach
SYRACUSE ASC: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Greco Class Suit Reversed
TEACHERS INSURANCE: Faces Jentz Class Suit Over MOVEit Data Breach
TELADOC HEALTH: Ma Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal
TEMASEK HOLDINGS: Faces Cabo Class Suit Over FTX Fraud Conspiracy
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: 11th Cir. Affirms Securities Suit Dismissal
TWITTER INC: Weinberg Sues Over Employment Discrimination
ULTIMATE FIGHTING: UFC Fighters May Join Antitrust Class Action
UNISON AGREEMENT: Faces Ahmed Suit Over Co-Investment Services
UNITED COLLECTION: Falsely Represents Consumer Debt, Rivero Claims
UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Sexual Abuse in Incarcerated Women
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY: Lopiano Testimony Barred From Niblock Suit
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH: Class Action Over COVID Shutdown Certified
VILLAGE PODIATRY: Suit Filed in Ga. Sup. Ct.
VIRGINIA UNION: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Belliveau Files Suit in C.D. California
W/R GROUP INC: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WALMART INC: Russell Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
WARNER BROS: Faces BPFWP Shareholder Suit
WARNER BROS: Faces Todorovski Shareholder Suit
WARNER BROS: Police Fund Shareholder Suit Consolidated
WAYFAIR LLC: Faces Suit Over Failure to Pay Customer Service Reps
WG&R FURNITURE: Faces Parker Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
WORKHORSE GROUP: Court Enters Final Judgment in Farrar Class Suit
WORLD WRESTLING: Brunzell Seeks to Restore Concussion Class Suit
YALE-NEW HAVEN HOSPITAL: Court Certifies Class in Ruilova Suit
YELLOW CORP: Rivera Sues Over Mass Layoffs Without Prior Notice
[*] Credit Unions Being Deposed for Class Suit Over Missing Info
[*] Tailor-Made Class Suits Regarding Mass Disasters Discussed
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues $8MM Liability for Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy Has $109MM Est. Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Has Pending Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Group Has $223MM Loss Reserves at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fluor Corp. Has $3MM Asbestos Reserve Expense
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Defends 37,000 Pending PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hess Corp. Faces Various Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Still Faces Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll Rand Has $133.0MM Litigation Reserve
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Co-Defends 112 Personal Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regal Rexnord Has 404 Pending Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roger Corp. Has $60.2MM Asbestos Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sempra Energy Has 2 Pending PI Suits at July 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi Inc. in Legal Action on Insurance Coverage
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vontier Corp. Reports $103.6MM Gross Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Co. Defends 650 Personal Injury Lawsuits
*********
24 WINDWARD AVENUE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Empy Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
CARL EMPY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 24 WINDWARD AVENUE LLC; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV18608 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Aug. 7, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals
and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements.
Plaintiff Empy was employed by the Defendants as a dishwasher.
24 WINDWARD AVENUE LLC owns and operates a restaurant in Los
Angeles, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lilit Tunyan, Esq.
Artur Tunyan, Esq.
TUNYAN LAW, APC
1336 Rossmoyne Avenue
Glendale, CA 91207
Telephone: (323) 410-5050
Email: ltunyan@tunyanlaw.com
atunyan@tunyanlaw.com
AHLSTROM-MUNKSJO OYJ: Faces Water Drinking Contamination Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eileen Persike of Northwoods Star Journal reports that the website
businesswire.com is reporting a Dallas, Texas based law firm is
filing a class action lawsuit against Ahlstrom-Rhinelander paper
mill and 3M for their alleged roles in "contaminating private well
drinking water in Oneida County," with PFAS chemicals in the area
around the town of Stella.
Baron & Budd, P.C. and two other firms filed the suit Aug. 9 in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
According to the website, the lawsuit alleges the application of
waste from the paper mill onto farmland in the county caused the
contamination in nearby private wells. These PFAS chemicals were
produced and sold by 3M Company.
"It is Ahlstrom's policy not to comment in detail on open
litigation," Addie Teeters, head of marketing communications and
public affairs for Ahlstrom North America, told the Star Journal.
"While we are still reviewing the complaint, it appears to focus on
activities that are alleged to have occurred prior to Ahlstrom's
acquisition of the Mill in 2018."
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances are man-made chemicals used to
create nonstick, stain resistant and waterproof products. They are
called "forever chemicals" because they don't break down and spread
easily, contaminating groundwater, surface water and soil.
Businesswire.com states this lawsuit, and others filed for PFAS
contamination, seek to recoup costs associated with
remediation/access to clean water, past and future water testing,
loss of use and enjoyment of property and decreases in property
value. [GN]
AL TIRO: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, Perez Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan S. Vega Perez, individually and on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. Al Tiro,
Inc. dba Altiro Latin Fusion Restaurants and Roberto Avila, Case
No. 1:23-cv-05230 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 8, 2023) seeks to recover
minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.
The Plaintiff worked, at a minimum, 11-hour daily shifts, seven
days a week. The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff any
additional pay for overtime hours that he worked. Instead, the
Defendants paid the Plaintiff his hourly rate (i.e., "straight
time") for each work hour he recorded in the company's timekeeping
system, including his overtime hours, the suit alleges.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from October 2022 until
February 2023.
Altiro is a corporation in the restaurants business in
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James M. Dore, Esq.
Daniel I. Schlade, Esq.
JUSTICIA LABORAL, LLC
6232 N. Pulaski, No. 300
Chicago, IL 60646
Telephone: (773) 550-3775
E-mail: dschlade@justicialaboral.com
jdore@justicialaboral.com
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Two Classes
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MISTY SNOW, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALIGN
TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-03269-VC (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certify proposed Class,
appoint them as class representatives, and appoint Hagens Berman as
Class Counsel.
The Plaintiffs and all class members are individual purchasers of
Invisalign treatment who were injured by Align's anticompetitive
conduct and thus overpaid for treatment.
The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following two Classes:
-- Nationwide Injunctive Relief Class (NIR Class):
"All persons or entities in the United States that purchased,
paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the
purchase price for Invisalign aligners acquired for personal
use
during the period beginning July 1, 2018 until such time as
the
anticompetitive conduct alleged herein has ceased;" and
-- State Indirect Purchaser Classes (SIP Classes):
"All persons that purchased, paid and/or provided
reimbursement
for some or all of the purchase price for Invisalign
Treatments
that used any of the following types of Invisalign products--
"Comprehensive", "Moderate", "GO", "Teen", "Assist Product
Tracking", "Lite", "Express Ten", "Multi-stage Comprehensive",
or
"Assist" treatment—while residing in a relevant state,
acquired
for personal use during the period beginning July 1, 2018
until
such time as the anticompetitive conduct alleged has ceased."
The relevant states are: Arizona, California, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, North
Carolina, and Oregon.
Align is an American manufacturer of 3D digital scanners and
Invisalign clear aligners used in orthodontics.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 31, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45j2WwY at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Theodore Wojcik, Esq.
Joey Kingerski, Esq.
Rio S. Pierce, 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
tedw@hbsslaw.com
joeyk@hbsslaw.com
riop@hbsslaw.com
ARIZONA: Bid for Class Certification in Transgender Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Rebecca Gomez of AZ Mirror reports that a lawsuit
challenging the state's process for changing gender markers on
birth certificates now has the potential to benefit all transgender
Arizonans.
On August 10, 2023, a federal judge in Tucson approved a class
action request in a lawsuit first filed three years ago by a trio
of trans minors and their parents who argued that the rules for
editing their birth certificates are harmful and intrinsically
unfair.
Currently, state law requires either a court order or a doctor's
statement verifying a chromosomal count or "sex change operation"
before a birth certificate can be amended. Expanding the case via a
class action means every transgender Arizonan stands to benefit,
not just the initial plaintiffs.
"We are thrilled that this case will now apply to all transgender
individuals born in Arizona who wish to amend their birth
certificates to accurately reflect their gender identity," Rachel
Berg, a staff attorney for the National Center of Lesbian Rights,
which is representing the minors, said in an emailed statement.
"Access to correct identity documents is critically important to
the health and well-being of transgender people."
What's the case about?
In 2020, a group of trans minors and their parents took the Arizona
Department of Health Services to court over the process for editing
birth certificate gender markers. The trio argued that making the
process more difficult for trans minors violates several federal
protections, including the equal protection rights guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment and their due process rights to privacy
and the right to choose whether to undergo medical treatment.
"Barring transgender youth from obtaining a corrected birth
certificate places them in a disfavored class," reads the brief.
"Unlike other youth, whose birth certificates match who they are,
transgender youth are forced to use birth certificates that do not
match their sex."
Trans minors rarely receive surgical care to transition, attorneys
wrote at the time, which creates an unreasonable hurdle for them.
On August 12, 2023, after the Republican-controlled legislature
passed a gender-affirming surgery ban in 2022, it's in fact illegal
for minors in Arizona to obtain a surgery for the purpose of
transitioning. For many trans people, attorneys added,
gender-affirming surgery is cost-prohibitive and not all trans
people need or want surgical procedures to transition successfully.
Attorneys noted that birth certificates are critical documents for
minors with no other government-issued identifications. They're
often used to participate in school activities or to acquire other
important documents, like driver's licenses and passports.
Preventing trans minors from having accurate birth certificates
means every time the certificates are used for official purposes
risks forcing them to come out to strangers, which can put them in
danger.
"Depriving transgender young people of birth certificates that
accurately reflect who they are forces them to disclose their
transgender status -- information that is private and sensitive --
without their consent whenever they need to rely on birth
certificates to establish their identity," wrote attorneys.
A 2015 national survey conducted by the National Center for
Transgender Equality found that nearly one-third of respondents who
presented an identity document that didn't match their perceived
gender experienced harassment, physical attacks or were denied
services.
Why did the judge agree to expand its reach?
Federal Judge James Soto appeared receptive to the arguments that
the requirement to obtain a "sex-change operation" unnecessarily
burdens trans Arizonans, especially when considering it in light of
the widely-accepted treatment for gender dysphoria.
The medical condition is characterized by intense distress when a
person's gender identity and biological sex are incongruent.
Gender-affirming care is the recommended treatment, and it includes
social acceptance, such as accurate gender markers on official
documents.
"Consistent with medical and psychological treatment for gender
dysphoria, transgender individuals seek to align their appearance
and identification documents (such as birth certificates, driver's
licenses, passports, etc.) with their gender identity," Soto wrote.
"For many transgender individuals, surgical treatment may never be
medically or psychologically appropriate or necessary to treat
their gender dysphoria. However, Arizona law requires Arizonans to
get a 'sex change operation' to be permitted to change the gender
marker on their birth certificate."
That conflict isn't unique to the trans minors filing the lawsuit,
Soto noted, as it also affects other trans Arizonans, including
adults who haven't undergone surgery but still wish to change their
gender marker. And there is a significant enough population of
trans people in the Grand Canyon State to warrant a class action
that covers all of them.
"Plaintiffs have submitted demographic studies reflecting that
there are likely over 30,000 transgender individuals in Arizona,
and there are likely thousands of transgender individuals who would
amend their Arizona birth certificates through a private
administrative process if it was available in Arizona," Soto
concluded.
To qualify for a class action, the affected population must number
at least 40. A 2022 report from the UCLA Williams Institute
estimated that as many as 41,200 transgender adults call Arizona
home.
What are the next steps?
Berg told the Mirror that the case is approaching its final stages
of litigation, but an appeal from the state health department might
also extend that timeline. And while the lawsuit was originally
filed under a Republican administration and now Democrats hold
office, the Department of Health Services remains unwilling to
settle, she said. But Berg is confident that the law will
ultimately be overturned as unconstitutional.
"We are confident that this surgical requirement violates the equal
protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment,"
she said.
The Department of Health Services declined to comment.
Soto has set a deadline for summary judgment motions on Sept. 30.
Depending on the outcome, the case could throw a wrench in ongoing
efforts from Republicans to restrict the behavior of trans
students. Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne, a
Republican, and GOP legislative leaders are currently embroiled in
a legal battle to ban trans girls from joining girls' athletic
teams. And Republican lawmakers have repeatedly attempted to pass
laws that bar trans students from using school facilities that
match their gender identity or prohibit teachers from respecting
students' preferred pronouns. The enforcement mechanism behind all
of these attacks is the gender marker on birth certificates. [GN]
AUTO TRENDS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Escobar Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
ELVIS ESCOBAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AUTO TRENDS INC. d/b/a MID VALLEY COLLISION;
and LINDA SUCARI, Defendants, Case No. 716419/2023 (N.Y. Sup.,
Queens Cty., Aug. 8, 2023) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals
and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements.
Plaintiff Escobar was employed by the Defendants as a collision
technician and repairman.
AUTO TRENDS INC. provides automotive repair services. The Company
specializes in auto body and collision repair services such as auto
glass, bumpers, custom paintings, filler materials, clear coat
finishes, fenders, wheels, air bag, and other related repair
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
B&C RENOVATION: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Vazquez Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MILTON GEOVANNY PEREZ VAZQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. B&C RENOVATION SERVICES LLC and JOHNNY
CARDENAS, as an individual, Case No. 1:23-cv-05929 (E.D.N.Y., Aug.
4, 2023) sues the Defendants for failing to pay overtime wages for
all hours regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week at a wage
rate of one and a half times the regular wage, under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was regularly required to work 60 hours or more hours
each week, from January 2022 until June 2023. However, the
Plaintiff was paid a flat weekly rate of $720.00 per week for all
hours worked from January 2022 until in or around June 2023.
Allegedly, the Plaintiff was not compensated at all by the
Defendants for his last week of employment. As a result of the
violations of Federal and New York State labor laws, the Plaintiff
seeks compensatory damages and liquidated damages in an amount
exceeding $100,000.00. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory interest,
attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable remedies
this Court deems appropriate.
The Plaintiff was employed as a demolition worker, concrete mixer
and laborer while performing related miscellaneous duties for the
Defendants, from January 2022 until June 2023.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
BHP GROUP: May Face Lung Disease Class Action in South Africa
-------------------------------------------------------------
Antony Sguazzin, writing for Bloomberg, reports that BHP Group
Ltd., South32 Ltd. and a unit of Seriti Resources Holdings Ltd. may
face a class action from coal miners with lung disease in South
Africa who worked at the companies' operations over the last six
decades
Richard Spoor, a South African lawyer who has won compensation for
gold and asbestos miners with lung disease, filed a case with the
country's High Court on Aug. 15 seeking permission to launch a
class action.
The Southern African Bishops Conference initiated the case and will
seek relief for miners who have worked at the operations since 1965
and their descendants, Spoor's legal firm said in a statement.
"Every breath can be a struggle in the life of a coal miner
suffering from coal-mine lung disease," Spoor's firm said. "Miners
far too often walk away with incurable lung diseases that require
life-long treatments they cannot afford. Many have tragically lost
their lives."
The case is the latest attempt to win compensation for miners and
communities in southern Africa affected by the operations they
worked at or lived near at times of laxer environmental standards.
The papers were filed on behalf of 17 miners.
Spoor has won compensation for asbestos miners who worked for
now-defunct South African mining titan, Gencor Ltd., and gold
miners who worked for companies including Anglo American Plc. Anglo
is facing a separate suit over alleged lead poisoning near a mine
in Zambia.
"South32 can confirm it has been served with an application for
certification of a class action on behalf of certain mine workers
at coal mines in South Africa," the company, which ran coal mines
in the country between 2015 and 2021, said in a response to
queries. "This matter is currently being considered by the
business. We are unable to comment further."
BHP, which spun off South32, said it's yet to receive the claim and
hasn't held mining interests in South Africa since spinning off
South32 in 2015. It may respond once it has assessed the claim, the
company said.
Seriti didn't respond to queries.
Motley Rice LLC will act as a legal consultant to the miners. [GN]
BNO SERVICE: Fails to Pay Attendants' Minimum, OT Wages, Singh Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HARJIT SINGH, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. BNO SERVICE STATION, LLC, a/k/a EXXON, NESLIHAN KIPGE,
Individually, and UGAR OLGUN, Individually, Case No. 2:23-cv-04196
(D.N.J., Aug. 4, 2023) seeks to recover minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Beginning 2021, the Defendants engaged in a policy and practice of
requiring the Plaintiff and members of the putative collective to:
(1) regularly work in excess of 40 hours per week, without
providing overtime compensation; and
(2) to regularly work below the minimum wage, in violation of
the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), and
associated provisions of the New Jersey Administrative Code
("NJAC"), as well as the New Jersey Wage Payment Law
("NJWPL"), the Plaintiff asserts.
The Plaintiff routinely worked 70 hours per workweek. Regardless of
the number of hours that Plaintiff worked each week in excess of
40, the Defendants generally improperly paid the Plaintiff at his
regularly hourly rate of pay, versus at one and one half times his
hourly rate of pay, the Plaintiff claims.
As a direct and proximate cause of the Defendants' alleged actions,
the Plaintiff and those similarly situated employees suffered
damages, including past lost earnings, and are entitled to
liquidated and/or treble damages.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a gas station
attendant from February 2021 to the present.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
Andrew Glenn, Esq.
JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150
Princeton, New Jersey 08540
Telephone: (201) 687-9977
Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
E-mail: jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com
aglenn@jaffeglenn.com
BOEING EMPLOYEES: Woodard Suit Transferred to District of Oregon
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NOEL WOODARD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOEING EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION,
KAYE-SMITH ENTERPRISES INC., and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-00033. (W.D. Wash.), Judge Jamal N. Whitehead of the U.S.
Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, transfers
the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.
Woodard filed the putative class action against Defendants Boeing
Employees' Credit Union ("BECU") and Kaye-Smith Enterprises on Oct.
26, 2022, alleging damages caused by a data breach and unauthorized
access to her personally identifiable information. Some 20 days
earlier, Richard Smith filed a putative class action against
Kaye-Smith stemming from the same data breach in the District of
Oregon in Smith et al. v. Kaye-Smith Enters., Inc.,
3:22-cv-01499-AR (D. Or.).
Smith now moves for limited intervention in this action, arguing
Woodard's case should be stayed or transferred to the District of
Oregon under the "first-to-file rule," which permits district
courts to decline jurisdiction over an action when a complaint
involving essentially the same parties and issues has already been
filed in another district.
BECU's printing vendor, Kaye-Smith, experienced a data breach in
June 2022 that affected thousands of BECU customers. BECU notified
its customers, like Woodard and Smith, of the data breach. Woodard
and Smith each filed a putative class action on behalf of
themselves and other BECU members who were impacted by the June
2022 data breach incident involving data stored by Kaye-Smith.
Smith and Woodard had both previously filed putative class actions
against BECU for the same incident that they voluntarily
dismissed.
On Oct. 6, 2022, Smith filed his current action against Kaye-Smith
Enterprises in the District of Oregon, on behalf of a nation-wide
class of impacted individuals.
Smith defined the proposed class as follows: All persons residing
in the United States whose personally identifiable information
Kaye-Smith obtained, stored, and/or shared and which was exposed to
an unauthorized party as the result of the data breach referenced
in BECU's correspondence to Plaintiff Smith dated July 25, 2022.
On Oct. 26, 2022. Woodard filed this action against both BECU and
Kaye-Smith Enterprises, on behalf of a class of individuals
residing in the State of Washington.
Woodard defines her proposed like this: All individuals within the
State of Washington whose PII and/or financial information was
exposed to unauthorized third parties as a result of the data
breach reference in BECU's letter to Plaintiff Woodard dated July
25, 2022.
On Jan. 6, 2023, Magistrate Judge Armistead for the District of
Oregon appointed Smith's counsel as interim class counsel in the
Smith Lawsuit. On April 13, 2023, Smith moved to intervene and to
transfer or stay this action. Defendant Kaye-Smith does not oppose
the motion. But Woodard opposes Smith's request. And so does
Defendant BECU.
Smith argues that he has a right to intervene in the Woodard case
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) or, in the alternative, that he
should be granted permissive intervention under Fed. R. Civ. P.
24(b)(1)
Although Smith has not demonstrated that he is entitled to
intervention as a matter of right, Judge Whitehead is convinced
that Smith should be permitted to intervene permissibly because he
satisfies the requirements of Rule 24(b)(1)(b). Permissive
intervention "requires (1) an independent ground for jurisdiction;
(2) a timely motion; and (3) a common question of law and fact
between the movant's claim or defense and the main action." Smith
meets the requirements for permissive intervention. Judge Whitehead
allows Smith to intervene for the limited purpose of his request to
either transfer the case to the District of Oregon or to stay this
case pending resolution of the Smith Lawsuit.
Smith seeks to invoke the first-to-file rule, asking the Court to
either transfer this case to be consolidated with the first-filed
Smith Lawsuit or to stay this case pending resolution of the Smith
Lawsuit. In determining whether to apply the first-to-file rule,
courts consider the (1) chronology of the lawsuits, (2) similarity
of the parties, and (3) similarity of the issues.
Judge Whitehead applies the first-to-file rule in this case. Thus,
the only remaining question is whether the case should be stayed or
transferred. He finds that transfer of this case to the District of
Oregon would best serve the interest of justice and efficiency.
Given the similarity of the parties and issues, a transfer of the
action will eliminate the risk of inconsistent rulings and serve
the principles of efficiency, economy, and comity by avoiding
duplicate and inefficient actions proceeding in separate districts.
Whether the cases should be consolidated will be left to the
District of Oregon's sound discretion.
For these reasons, Smith's motion for leave for limited
intervention to transfer or stay action is granted. Smith is
granted limited intervention pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
24(b)(1)(b). Woodard's case and all pending motions are transferred
to the District of Oregon.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 28, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3ptezyej from Leagle.com.
BOSTON MARKET: Faces Class Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett of Top Class Actions reports that a class action
lawsuit was filed against Boston Market late last month over claims
the chain failed to pay workers at its Arizona restaurants a legal
minimum wage and overtime pay.
Boston Market is accused of paying workers at its Arizona locations
either late or not at all, in an alleged violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Arizona Minimum Wage Act.
"Defendants' failure to compensate Plaintiff and all
similarly-situated employees at a rate equal to Arizona's required
minimum wage violates (Arizona Revised Statutes)," the Boston
Market class action states. [GN]
CANADA: B.C. Sup. Court Denies Class Certification in Wildfire Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press of EverythingGP reports that a British Columbia
Supreme Court justice has refused to certify a class-action lawsuit
linked to the wildfire that destroyed the village of Lytton in
2021, but the ruling also allows for an amended claim, potentially
keeping the lawsuit alive.
Chief Jordan Spinks of the Lytton-area Kanaka Bar Indian Band is
the only remaining plaintiff in the claim after the death of fellow
Lytton resident and plaintiff Chris O'Conner.
Spinks argues the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways,
along with the Attorney General of Canada, Transport Canada and
others "caused or contributed" to the devastating wildfire that
levelled most of Lytton and killed two people.
But the ruling from Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson finds
"deficiencies" he says make it "plain and obvious" that the suit
will fail, such as overly broad allegations or a lack of clarity
about the special damages class members might have suffered.
Hinkson writes that although the suit doesn't meet the criteria for
a class-action case, he agrees it can be rewritten "with the
benefit of (his) reasons," and resubmitted.
The claim seeks damages, alleging that a westbound CP coal train,
being operated at the time by a CN crew, passed through Lytton
moments before flames broke out near the tracks and quickly spread
into the village, one day after it had set an all-time Canadian
heat record of 49.6 C.
In refusing to certify the suit, Hinkson found negligence
allegations were "overly broad" and don't lay out a specific case
against each defendant.
"In particular, I find that there are no clear material facts
alleged as to how the defendants allegedly caused the wildfire,"
said Hinkson in the ruling posted online on August 10, 2023.
The chief justice also ruled loss claims were ambiguous, writing
"the same broad material facts are alleged on behalf of all of the
class members despite the fact that they suffered differing
injuries and some only suffered economic losses."
The cause of the 2021 wildfire remains undetermined.
A separate lawsuit, filed by the Village of Lytton and the
Thompson-Nicola Regional District alleges Transport Canada, CN and
CP rail are accused of being negligent for allowing train travel
through Lytton during the 2021 heat dome.
The suit, seeking general and special damages and costs, alleges
the railways failed to ensure braking systems and other train
equipment was safe, that reasonable fire prevention methods were
not used and crews failed to watch for smoke or fire along the
tracks.
The Insurance Bureau of Canada last year estimated insured losses
of the destruction in Lytton at $102 million.
The 2021 heat dome was one of the most extreme weather events in
recent Canadian history, and was blamed for more than 600 deaths in
B.C. [GN]
CITI TRENDS: Faces Green-Fogg Class Suit Over Employees Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett of Top Class Actions reports that Citi Trends was
hit last month with a class action lawsuit that claims the company
left the personally identifiable information of its current and
former employees vulnerable to becoming exposed in a data breach.
Citi Trends is accused of failing to safeguard the employee data by
allegedly not encrypting or redacting it, which ultimately left it
vulnerable to becoming compromised during a data breach discovered
in January.
The individual behind the complaint argues Citi Trends -- an
American retail clothing chain -- should have known that the
personally identifiable information of its workers would be a
target for cybercriminals. [GN]
CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Bid for Summary Judgment in Loomis Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LOOMIS SAYLES TRUST CO., LLC, Plaintiff v. CITIGROUP
GLOBAL MARKETS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 22 Civ. 6706 (LGS)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York denies without prejudice the
Defendant's converted motion for summary judgment.
Citigroup moves to dismiss the Complaint, arguing that the parties'
communications on the day of the trades at issue unambiguously
foreclose Loomis' claims by their plain language. Alternatively,
Citigroup argues that Loomis's claims are precluded by the
Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act ("SLUSA"), 15 U.S.C.
Section 78bb(f)(1)(A), and that the Plaintiff's breach of fiduciary
duty claim is duplicative of its breach of contract claim. The
Defendant requests oral argument in connection with its motion.
After Loomis contested the completeness and accuracy of the
materials that Citigroup had appended to its motion to dismiss --
namely, the Bloomberg chats and phone calls between the parties on
the trade day pp Citigroup's motion was converted into a motion for
summary judgment, and the parties were given the chance to file
supplemental briefing and any other evidentiary submissions
relevant to deciding the motion.
On July 18, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a letter requesting that the
Defendant be required to file a statement of material facts
pursuant to Local Rule 56.1 in support of its converted motion. On
July 25, 2023, the Defendant filed a letter opposing the request.
Loomis' claims arise out of state law, and the parties cite New
York cases or federal cases applying New York law, and such implied
consent is sufficient to establish the applicable choice of law.
Under New York law, determining whether a contract is ambiguous is
an issue of law for the courts to decide. Ambiguity in a contract
arises when the contract, read as a whole, fails to disclose its
purpose and the parties' intent, or when specific language is
susceptible of two reasonable interpretations. The contract, read
as a whole consists of Bloomberg chats and two telephone
conversations from March 18, 2022, filed in connection with the
motion.
Judge Schofield holds that ambiguity exists in the parties'
contract sufficient to preclude summary judgment. As relevant for
the motion, Citigroup argues that Loomis unambiguously directed it
to trade all shares of CL and SHOP with MOC orders for sale in the
closing auction. This is insufficient to establish unambiguously
that Loomis directed Citigroup to trade the CL and SHOP shares
entirely with MOC orders. Judge Schofield says the parties'
communications fail to disclose the parties' intent regarding the
orders for CL and SHOP, making the parties' agreement ambiguous.
The Plaintiff's claims are not precluded by SLUSA. SLUSA precludes
private parties from filing in federal or state court (1) a covered
class action (2) based on state law claims, (3) alleging that
defendants made a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact
or used or employed any manipulative or deceptive device or
contrivance (4) in connection with the purchase or sale of (5)
covered securities. To determine whether SLUSA applies, a court
should "emphasize substance over form." In the case, the gravamen
of Loomis' claims is neither misrepresentation nor omission of a
material fact nor the use of any manipulative or deceptive device.
So SLUSA does not apply.
Finally, under New York law, a cause of action for breach of
fiduciary duty which is merely duplicative of a breach of contract
claim cannot stand. New York law imposes a fiduciary obligation on
brokers. In the case, a reasonable jury could find that there was
no meeting of the minds between the parties regarding a material
term of their agreement -- the scope of the Defendant's discretion
in placing the trades. Without a meeting of the minds there would
be no binding contract, and the breach of fiduciary duty claim
would not be duplicative.
For these reasons, the Defendant's converted motion for summary
judgment is denied without prejudice to renewal upon the submission
of additional evidence. The Defendant's request for oral argument
and the Plaintiff's request to compel Defendant to file a Rule 56.1
statement are denied as moot.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motions at Dkt. Nos.
35, 44, 52 and 98.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 28, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mr3w767w from Leagle.com.
CLIENT SERVICES: Schiler Sues Over Deceptive Debt Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NATASHA SCHILER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CLIENT SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-23-016622 (Fla. Cir., 17th Jud., Broward Cty., August 8, 2023)
is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FDCPA by
using a represented itemization date in its debt collection letter
that is not the last statement date, the charge off date, the last
payment date, the transaction date, and the judgment date
associated with the consumer debt. By failing to use one of the
five itemization dates permitted under the FDCPA, the Defendant's
represented itemization date on the collection letter falsely
represents the amount and character of the consumer debt, says the
suit.
Client Services, Inc. is a debt collector with its principal place
of business located in St. Charles, Missouri. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
Shannon E. Gilvey, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
shannon@jibraellaw.com
COCKPIT USA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Cockpit USA, LLC.
The case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. The Cockpit USA, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-05903-FB-RER (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Cockpit USA -- https://cockpitusa.com/ -- offers authentic, Made in
USA military jackets, apparel, and accessories for adventure
seekers and free thinkers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
CODEAGE LLC: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Codeage LLC. The case
is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Codeage LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06828
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Codeage -- https://www.codeage.com/ -- is a cutting edge
nutritional and supplements manufacturer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
COMMONWEALTH HEALTH: Gabello Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Nicholas and Marie Gabello, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COMMONWEALTH HEALTH
PHYSICIAN NETWORK CARDIOLOGY a/k/a GREAT VALLEY CARDIOLOGY and
SCRANTON CARDIOVASCULAR SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 23-cv-3060 was
removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County,
Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania on Aug. 14, 2023, and assigned Case No.
3:23-cv-01348-MWB.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant violated the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"). The Complaint
alleges that these violations stem from Defendant's "failure to
employ reasonable and appropriate measures to protect against
unauthorized access to consumers' PHI and PII" and that "the Data
Breach itself resulted from a combination of inadequacies showing
Defendant failed to comply with safeguards mandated by HIPAA."[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael S. Friedman, Esq.
1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1350
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: (267) 319-7802
Fax: (215) 399-2249
Email: michael.friedman@jacksonlewis.com
COOKS & CAPTAINS: Sanchez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leoncio Sanchez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. COOKS & CAPTAINS LLC d/b/a NEGRIL BK, ANDRE HONORE, MALISSA
BROWN, and PETER BEST, Case No. 1:23-cv-05069-MKB-MMH (E.D.N.Y.,
July 10, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), that he is entitled
to recover from Defendants unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid
"spread of hours" premium for each day that Plaintiffs work shift
exceeded 10 hours, liquidated and statutory damages, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Beginning July 2020 and continuing through the remainder of his
employment on May 17, 2023, Plaintiff was not paid proper minimum
wages and overtime compensation. During this period, Plaintiff was
paid at the rate of $10 per hour straight time for all hours worked
and worked 48 hours per week, and sometimes in excess thereof. Work
performed in excess of 40 hours per week was not paid at the
statutory rate of time and one-half as required by state and
federal law. The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with weekly
wage statements/pay stubs setting forth Plaintiffs gross wages,
deductions, and net wages. Defendants knowingly and willfully
operate their business with a policy of not paying the New York
State minimum wage to Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees.
The Defendants knowingly and willfully operate their business with
a policy of not paying Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees either the FLSA overtime rate (of time and one-half), or
the New York State overtime rate (of time and one-half), in direct
violation of the FLSA and New York Labor Law and the supporting
federal and New York State Department of Labor Regulations. The
Defendants knowingly and willfully operate their business with a
policy of not paying a "spread of hours" premium to Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees, in direct contravention of the
New York State Labor Law and Regulations, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant to work at the Restaurant
as a non-exempt maintenance worker and porter in March 2018 and was
promoted to the position of busser in July 2020 but continued to
perform the duties of a maintenance worker and porter once per
week.
COOKS & CAPTAINS LLC, owns and operates a Jamaican restaurant doing
business as "Negri! BK," located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Cilenti, Esq.
Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
60 East 42nd Street-40th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 209-3933
Fax: (212) 209-7102
Email: info@jcpclaw.com
CPA GLOBAL: BCS Seeks Cinven Compliance on Subpoena Issued
----------------------------------------------------------
Brainchild Surgical Devices, LLC, a New York limited liability
company, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v.
CPA GLOBAL LIMITED, a foreign entity formed under the laws of the
Island of Jersey, Channel Islands; Case No. 1:23-mc-00230-MKV
(S.D.N.Y., July 14, 2023), files notice of and motion to compel
compliance with subpoena.
The Plaintiff Brainchild Surgical Devices, LLC moves this Court,
before the U.S. District Judge yet to be assigned, for an order
compelling non-party Cinven, Inc. to comply with the subpoena
issued upon it, sit for examination, and produce the documents as
requested. Plaintiff seeks to compel compliance with all 11 matters
for examination and all 11 requests for production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan B. Abbott, Esq.
Kete P. Barnes, Esq.
BROWN NERI SMITH & KHAN, LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2080
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Phone: (310) 593-9890
Facsimile: (310) 593-9980
Email: ryan@bnsklaw.com
kete@bnsklaw.com
CRACKER BARREL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Frederick Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
CATHERINE D. FREDERICK, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CRACKER BARREL OLD COUNTRY STORE,
INC., Defendant, Case 3:23-cv-00813 (M.D. Tenn., Aug. 7, 2023)
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Frederick was employed by the Defendant as a staff.
CRACKER BARREL OLD COUNTRY STORE, INC. owns and operates a
restaurant in Tennessee, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Florida,
Kentucky, Oklahoma, Ohio and Indiana. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT
OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
jholt@jsyc.com
CREDIT SUISSE: Linhares Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Milton Linhares, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, AXEL P.
LEHMANN, THOMAS GOTTSTEIN, ULRICH KORNER, DAVID R. MATHERS, and
DIXIT JOSHI, Case No. 1:23-cv-02246 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on July 13, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-06039-DLC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Securities Exchange Act.
Credit Suisse Group AG -- https://www.credit-suisse.com/ch/en.html
-- is a global investment bank and financial services firm founded
and based in Switzerland.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
Email: tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com
jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
Email: peretz@bgandg.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Edward Nathaniel Moss, Esq.
Herbert Scott Washer, Esq.
Jason Michael Hall, Esq.
Lauren Riddell, Esq.
CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP
32 Old Slip
New York, NY 10005
Phone: (212) 701-3838
Email: EMoss@cahill.com
hwasher@cahill.com
jhall@cahill.com
lriddell@cahill.com
Guillermo Carlo Artiles, Esq.
Jose Luis Linares, Esq.
Mark M. Makhail, Esq.
MCCARTER & ENGLISH LLP
Four Gateway Center
100 Mulberry Street
Newark, NJ 07102
Phone: (973) 639-7950
Email: mmakhail@mccarter.com
CRUMBL LLC: Cytryn Files Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crumbl LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Linda Cytryn, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. Crumbl LLC, Does 1-10, Case No.
8:23-cv-01218-CJC-KES (C.D. Cal., July 7, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability for
Other Contract.
Crumbl Cookies -- https://crumblcookies.com/ -- offers more than
120 specialty cookie flavors that rotate weekly.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan H Kang, Esq.
AK LAW, ACPC
333 City Boulevard West, 17th Floor
Orange, CA 92868
Phone: (714) 388-6937
Fax: (714) 820-1099
Email: alan@aklawsc.com
DAVITA INC: Suit Removed to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jane Doe, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. DAVITA, INC., Case No.
37-2023-0025611-CU-PO-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on Aug. 3, 2023, and assigned Case
No. 3:23-cv-01424-AJB-BLM.
The Complaint asserts the following claims: Violation of the
California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), Violation of the
California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act ("CMIA"),
Violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Invasion of Privacy under
California's Constitution; Common Law Invasion of Privacy –
Intrusion Upon Seclusion, Common Law Invasion of Privacy –
Publication of Private Facts, and Breach of Confidence.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anne M. Voigts, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
601 S. California Avenue, Suite 100
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Phone: (650) 422-6700
Facsimile: (650) 422-6800
Email: avoigts@kslaw.com
- and -
David L. Balser, Esq.
Robert D. Griest, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
1180 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1600
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 572-4600
Facsimile: (404) 542-5100
Email: dbalser@kslaw.com
rgriest@kslaw.com
DEAN & TYLER: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dean & Tyler, Inc.
The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Dean & Tyler, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-06879 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 4, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Dean & Tyler -- https://www.dtdogcollars.com/ -- sells dog collars,
leashes, and harnesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
DELOITTE LLP: Singh Appeals ERISA Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Rupinder Singh, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 5, 2023
entered in the lawsuit entitled RUPINDER SINGH, et al., Plaintiffs
v. DELOITTE LLP, et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-8458, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.
The complaint is brought on behalf of the Deloitte 401(k) Plan and
the Deloitte Profit Sharing Plan ("PSP Plan"); pursuant to the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, against the Plans'
fiduciaries, which include Deloitte, LLP and the Board of Directors
of Deloitte, LLP and its members during the Class Period and the
Retirement Committee of Deloitte, LLP and its members during the
Class Period for breaches of their fiduciary duties.
According to the complaint, the Plans' assets under management
qualifies them as jumbo plans in the defined contribution plan
marketplace, and among the largest plans in the United States. As
jumbo plans, the Plans had substantial bargaining power regarding
the fees and expenses that were charged against participants'
investments. Defendants, however, did not try to reduce the Plans'
expenses or exercise appropriate judgment to scrutinize each
investment option that was offered in the Plans to ensure they were
prudent.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 3, 2023, Judge
John G. Koeltl of the Southern District of New York granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Judge Koeltl held that the complaint is dismissed without prejudice
to the ability of the Plaintiffs to move to file an amended
complaint.
On February 27, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file amended complaint.
On July 5, Judge Koeltl entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order
which states that the Court has considered all the arguments of the
parties, and that the Plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint is
denied. The Clerk was also directed to close all pending motions
and to close the case because the original complaint has already
been dismissed.
The appellate case is captioned as Singh v. Deloitte LLP, Case No.
23-1108, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on Aug. 3, 2023.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Rupinder Singh, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by:
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (717) 233-4101
Defendants-Appellees Deloitte LLP, et al., are represented by:
Brian T. Ortelere, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 963-5150
DEV VET CORP: Stephenson Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Roselyn Stephenson, an individual and on behalf of similarly
situated Aggrieved Employees v. DEV VET CORP INC, dba VIA VERDE
ANIMAL HOSPITAL, a California Corporation, VALERIE VIRAMONTES, an
individual, KANWARBIR DHILLON, an individual, and DOES 1 through
20, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV18433 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., Aug. 3, 2023), is brought against the Defendants violation of
the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act as a result of unpaid
minimum wages.
The Defendants violated the Labor Code as a result of the wrongful
constructive termination in violation of public policy; failure to
pay minimum wages in violation of Labor Code, IWC Wage Order No. 5;
failure to furnish wage and hour statements; failure to maintain
payroll records; failure to pay meal and rest period compensation;
failure to pay wages in a timely manner; failure to pay overtime
compensation; waiting time penalties; unfair competition;
retaliation in violation of labor code (whistleblower retaliation);
feha violations based upon sex discrimination; hostile work
environment in violation of gov't code; quid pro quo sexual
harassment; assault; battery; and for civil penalties under the
Labor Code Private Attorney General Act, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as non-exempt employees.
DEV VET CORP INC, doing business as VIA VERDE ANIMAL HOSPITAL was
and is a California corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan P. LaCour, Esq.
Lisa Noveck, Esq.
Jameson Evans, Esq.
Amanda M. Thompson, Esq.
EMPLOYEES FIRST LABOR LAW P.C.
1 S. Fair Oaks Ave, Suite 200
Pasadena, CA 91105
Phone: (310) 853-3461
Facsimile: (949) 743-5442
Email. jonathanl@pierrelacour.com
lisan@pietrelacour.com
jamesone@pierrelacour.com
amandat@pierrelacour.com
DOGTOPIA ENTERPRISES: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dogtopia Enterprises,
LLC. The case is styled as Hakan Durantas, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Dogtopia Enterprises, LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-05943-DG-RER (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 4, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Dogtopia -- https://www.dogtopia.com/ -- is the leading provider of
dog daycare in North America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
DROPOFF INC: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Purpiglio Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID PURPIGLIO, individually and for others similarly situated v.
DROPOFF, INC. Case No. 1:23-cv-00924 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 4, 2023)
alleges that the Defendant deprived the straight time employees of
the "time and a half" overtime pay they are owed for all hours
worked after 40 in a workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act.
The Defendant allegedly routinely schedules its straight time
employees to work more than 40 hours a week. Instead of paying its
straight time employees at one and a half times their regular rates
of pay for hours worked after 40 in a workweek, the Defendant pays
them same hourly rate for all hours worked, says the suit.
Allegedly, the Defendant applied its illegal straight time for
overtime pay scheme to the straight time employees regardless of
any individualized factors, such as specific job title or precise
geographic location.
Mr. Purpiglio was employed as a Medical Courier from January 2021
until September 2021. Throughout his employment, the Defendant
assigned him to work on various projects for the Red Cross in
Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.
DropOff is a national courier service that provides medical courier
services to the healthcare industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
DULUTH, MN: Court Certifies Overcharging Stormwater Fees Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jana Hollingsworth of Star Tribune reports that the city of Duluth
faces a class-action suit over stormwater fees, potentially pitting
it against hundreds of plaintiffs.
Two longtime Duluth businesses asked Judge Eric Hylden to certify
the case in May. He said this week in St. Louis County District
Court that the case met class-action requirements.
Bakery equipment manufacturer Moline Machinery and Walsh Building
Products sued in 2021, alleging the city overcharged them when
assessing stormwater service fees, while undercharging or not
charging others. They say the city used an inappropriate method to
calculate payments for commercial properties when considering the
amount of impervious surface of each.
Eligible plaintiffs now include anyone who paid stormwater service
fees to the city for non-residential structures since Sept. 8,
2015, a date chosen because of statute limitations, Hylden wrote in
court filings.
"You're trying to resolve these claims efficiently," said Shawn
Raiter, an attorney for the two businesses. "We're just saying,
'You should do this once and only once.' And [Hylden] agreed."
This type of class-action lawsuit requires people to opt out rather
than opt in, he said, and potential plaintiffs will be notified by
Raiter's office. If successful, the average plaintiff could receive
thousands of dollars, he said.
Exclusions include owners of waterfront property who received
discounts for their location before 2021, and owners of multifamily
properties.
A spokeswoman for the city declined to comment on the case, citing
ongoing litigation.
"The total amount at issue is millions," Raiter said. "There were
businesses that were getting credit for $100,000 a year. That
essentially means that the remainder of commercial properties were
subsidizing that, and you do that over time and that adds up."
The businesses allege the city violated its own code for years by
giving discounts to some commercial and multifamily properties
while failing to charge others. For example, until 2021, the city
gave steep discounts to waterfront properties, which amounted to
more than $1 million annually, or 20% of its stormwater utility
budget. Duluth collected about $5.2 million in stormwater fees in
2020, and businesses paid nearly half of that, the lawsuit says, at
a rate higher than those in comparable cities.
More than 1,500 properties were billed at commercial rates in 2020,
according to court documents, a number that also includes
discounted properties.
In court filings, attorneys for the city argue that stormwater
discounts for best practices are indeed allowed, and that the city
had begun reviewing and fixing its billing practices long before
the 2021 lawsuit was filed, a process that was completed this year
and included remeasuring the impervious surfaces of thousands of
properties. That process did find some properties weren't correctly
charged; some because the city wasn't aware of changes to amounts
of impervious surfaces.
Hylden encouraged the two sides to settle the case through
mediation, with the next hearing scheduled for September. [GN]
EATON CORP: Faces Class Action Over Defective Circuit Breakers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action filed by three consumers and a property
development business claims certain Eaton Corporation circuit
breakers contain a defect that causes them to mistake harmless
electrical arcs for hazardous ones and unnecessarily shut down
power.
The 37-page lawsuit says the manufacturer's arc fault circuit
interrupter (AFCI) circuit breakers -- namely, its BR series and CH
series -- are equipped with a "poorly designed" algorithm that
causes "nuisance tripping," which occurs when a device fails to
adequately distinguish between dangerous and ordinary electrical
arcs and trips needlessly.
Per the suit, AFCIs monitor the electrical current within a circuit
to identify potentially hazardous electrical arc faults, which are
created when a current travels through an unintended medium rather
than through the circuit's wiring. If an AFCI device detects a
dangerous electrical arc, it is designed to stop the current in
order to prevent an electrical fire, the filing says.
Devices that are "properly designed" are able to recognize harmless
electrical arcs, which can be created when common household
appliances are turned on or off, and do not trip in such cases, the
complaint explains.
"Tripping in the presence of a harmless arc or arcing signature is
not a safety feature -- it is a defect," the case contends.
"Nuisance tripping renders the circuit unusable, causing
inconvenience to the user, safety risks, and financial loss due to
necessary repairs."
The filing charges that the defendant has known for years that its
AFCI circuit breakers experience "unusually high rates of nuisance
tripping" but has falsely represented to consumers and electricians
alike that the majority of these instances stem from legitimate
causes or installation errors.
"Eaton also knew that its defective AFCI circuit breakers often
could not be replaced with circuit breakers from a different
manufacturer (because that switch would require a person to replace
her entire circuit breaker box)," the suit relays. "And Eaton
exploited that fact and abused the leverage it created over its
customers when Eaton continued to sell them defective replacement
circuit breakers."
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who
purchased (whether directly or through the purchase of a structure
containing said breakers) an Eaton BR series or CH series AFCI
circuit breaker within the applicable statute of limitations
period. The case also seeks to cover any person or business in the
United States that, within the applicable statute of limitations
period, installed an Eaton BR series or CH series AFCI breaker or
investigated, resolved or attempted to resolve tripping by such a
device. [GN]
ECL GROUP: Parties Seek to Initially Certify Settlement Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the two class action lawsuits, the parties ask the Court to
enter an order:
-- preliminarily certifying the Physician Settlement Class and
Patient Settlement Class as Rule 23(b)(1)(B) classes;
-- preliminarily approving the Class Action Settlement
Agreement;
-- approving the appointment of Settlement Class Counsel for the
Patient Settlement Class and Physician Settlement Class, and
named Plaintiffs as Representative Plaintiffs;
-- approving the appointment of the Settlement Administrator as
identified to carry out all of the functions set forth herein
and
in the Settlement;
-- compelling the Defendants to produce the names and contact
information of members of the Patient Settlement Class to the
Settlement Administrator for the limited purpose of providing
notice of the Settlement and verifying claims related to the
Settlement; and
-- setting a deadline for submission of a Notice Plan to be
approved
by the Court; and
-- scheduling a fairness hearing.
The two class action lawsuits are captioned as:
"ALLIANCE OPHTHALMOLOGY, PLLC; DALLAS RETINA CENTER, PLLC; TEXAS
EYE AND CATARACT, PLLC; AND HOFACRE OPTOMETRIC CORPORATION, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. ECL
GROUP, LLC; ECL HOLDINGS, LLC; EYE CARE LEADERS HOLDINGS, LLC;
EYE
CARE LEADERS PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS, LLC; INTEGRITY EMR, LLC;
INTEGRITY
EMR HOLDINGS, LLC; ALTA BILLING, LLC; AND ALTA BILLING HOLDINGS,
LLC, Case No. 1:22-CV-00296-LCB-JLW (M.D.N.C.);"
"KIMBERLY FARLEY, CHAD FORRESTER, AND KIMBERLY SANDVIG, on
behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. EYE CARE
LEADERS HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:22-CV-00468-CCE-JLW
(M.D.N.C.)."
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 28, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qryiT4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Russ Ferguson, Esq.
Matthew F. Tilley, Esq.
Patrick G. Spaugh, Esq.
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
One Wells Fargo Center, Suite 3500
301 S. College Street
Charlotte, NC 28202-6037
Telephone: (704) 350-6361
E-mail: russ.ferguson@wbd-us.com
matthew.tilley@wbd-us.com
patrick.spaugh@wbd-us.com
- and -
Jean Sutton Martin, Esq.
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
MASON LLP, Esq.
5335 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 640
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
- and -
Jean Sutton Martin, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 559-4908
E-mail: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kristen Ward Broz, Esq.
Matthew Nis Leerberg, Esq.
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
Raleigh, NC 27611
Telephone: (919) 755-8700
E-mail: mleerberg@foxrothschild.com
ECO VESSEL: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eco Vessel LLC. The
case is styled as Mairoby Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Eco Vessel LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-06809-VEC (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Eco Vessel LLC -- https://www.ecovessel.com/ -- create premium
hydration vessels and food containers that maintain the optimal
temperature while reducing dependence on single use plastics.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick William Gallagher, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: pgallagher@mizrahikroub.com
ELEVATION BEHAVIORAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gonzales Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ELEVATION BEHAVIORAL HEALTH LLC; PRIYA CHAUDHRI; and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV18791
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 8, 2023) is an action against
the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, and
provide accurate wage statements.
Plaintiff Gonzalez was employed by the Defendants as an executive
chef.
ELEVATION BEHAVIORAL HEALTH LLC offers top private mental health
treatment centers in California offering inpatient, residential,
therapy.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan P. LaCour, Esq.
Lisa Noveck, Esq.
Jameson Evans, Esq.
Amanda M. Thompson, Esq.
EMPLOYEES FIRST LABOR LAW P.C.
1 S. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 200
Pasadena, CA 91105
Telephone: (310) 853-3461
Facsimile: (949) 743-5442
Email: jonathanl@pierrelacour.com
lisan@pierrelacour.com
jamesone@pierrelacour.com
amandat@pierrelacour.com
ELI LILLY: Nine U.S. States Object to $13.5MM Insulin Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson, writing for Reuters, reports that nine U.S. states
are objecting to a proposed $13.5 million settlement between Eli
Lilly and Co (LLY.N) and a class of insulin buyers over claims that
it inflated the drug's price, saying the drugmaker is wrongly
trying to use the deal to shield itself from future lawsuits by
states.
In a filing on Aug. 15 in Newark, New Jersey, federal court,
lawyers for Arizona, Mississippi and Minnesota urged U.S. District
Judge Brian Martinotti to delay final approval of the deal until it
is changed to make sure that states can still sue over insulin
prices.
"Lilly's brazen attempt to weaponize its tentative settlement
against other attorneys general litigating against the company
threatens the sovereign interests of states, including the
intervenor states to enforce their state laws," they said.
They joined previous, similar objections lodged by Illinois,
Nebraska, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas and Montana.
Lilly and a lawyer for the settling plaintiffs did not respond to a
request for comment. [GN]
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Quach Sues Over Labor Code Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mayweather Quach, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SERVICES & EDUCATION OF
CALIFORNIA, a California Corporation, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
COMPANY, a California Corporation; SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY,
a California Corporation, JENNIFER ALLRED, an individual, AND TODD
ALLRED; an individual. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
CVRI2303393 (Cal. Super. Ct., Riverside Cty., July 5, 2023), is
brought against the Defendants for California Labor Code
violations, unfair business practices, and civil penalties.
The Defendants' failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to
provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods,
failure to pay minimum wage, failure to timely pay wages, and
failure to reimburse necessary business-related expenses. In
addition, this is a class action lawsuit seeking unpaid wages and
interest thereon for unpaid wages for all hours worked at minimum
wage and overtime worked at the overtime rate of pay due to
defendant's policy, practice, and/or procedure of misclassifying
its employees as outside salespeople when they should have been
classified as non-exempt employees. The Defendants also had a
policy and practice of failing to reimburse class members for all
necessary business expenses, including but not limited to their
mileage for use of their personal vehicles for work done for
Defendants, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff received training on both of the Utility Company
Programs.
Environmental Assessment Services & Education ("EASE") is a company
that provides installation and repair services to make homes more
energy-efficient.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zack I. Domb, Esq.
Devin Rauchwerger, Esq.
Jeffrey Jackson, Esq.
DOMB & RAUCHWERGER LLP
1055 East Colorado Blvd., Fifth Floor
Pasadena, CA 91106
Phone: (213) 537-9225
Email: zack@dombrauchwerger.com
devin@dombrauchwerger.com
jeff@dombrauchwerger.com
ENZO BIOCHEM: Louis Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII/PHI
----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Louis, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. ENZO BIOCHEM, INC., AND ENZO CLINICAL LABS, INC., Case No.
653281/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 7, 2023), is brought against the
Defendants failure to implement and maintain reasonable safeguards
to protect patients' PII/PHI.
Between April 4, 2023 and April 6, 2023, Enzo suffered a serious
data breach whereby third-party hackers gained access to and
extracted troves of sensitive information maintained on Enzo's
servers and demanded a ransom in exchange for not releasing the
information (the "Data Breach").
The stolen information included personally identifiable information
including patient names and Social Security numbers ("PII") and
protected health information including dates of service and
clinical test information ("PHI") of current and former clinical
patients as well as potentially employees of Enzo. Those
individuals impacted by the Data Breach are now at serious risk.
Their most sensitive personal PII/PHI is in the possession of
cybercriminals seeking to profit from it and is potentially
available on underground websites for anyone to access.
The Defendants are responsible for the breach by failing to
implement and maintain reasonable safeguards to protect patients'
PII/PHI and failing to comply with industry-standard data security
practices. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and
those similarly situated to seek redress for the lifetime of harm
they will now face, including but not limited to reimbursement of
losses associated with identity theft and fraud, out-of-pocket
costs incurred to mitigate the risk of future harm, compensation
for time and effort spent responding to the Data Breach, the costs
of extended credit monitoring services and identity theft
insurance, and injunctive relief requiring Defendants to implement
and maintain reasonable data security practices going forward, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff received a letter from Defendant Enzo notifying her
that her PII/PHI was among the information accessed by
cybercriminals in the Data Breach.
Enzo is a New-York based bioscience company that provides
diagnostics and other services to clinical laboratories and
physicians.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Seeger, Esq.
Christopher Ayers, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
Phone: (973) 639-9100
Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
cayers@seegerweiss.com
- and -
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: (973) 994-1700
Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
Barrett J. Vahle, Esq.
J. Austin Moore, Esq.
Brandi S. Spates, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Phone: (816) 714-7100
Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
vahle@stuevesiegel.com
moore@stuevesiegel.com
spates@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
Daniel Srourian, Esq.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 474-3800
Email: daniel@slfla.com
FACTOR75 LLC: Gonzalez Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Alexis Gonzalez and Joanna Arredondo,
themselves and all others similarly situated and aggrieved v.
FACTOR75, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; FACTOR75,
INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case
No. 23STCV15330 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California Aug. 3, 2023,
and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-06293.
The Plaintiffs allege that Factor75 violated California law by
allegedly charging customers automatic renewal fees for its online
meal delivery subscription programs without adequately disclosing
the subscription terms. Factor75 denies liability, and denies that
Plaintiffs or any putative class member suffered any damages by
reason of any allegation in the complaint.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Daniel S. Silverman, Esq.
Ari N. Rothman, Esq.
Allison C. Nelson, Esq.
VENABLE LLP
2049 Century Park East, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 229-9900
Facsimile: (310) 229-9901
Email: dssilverman@venable.com
anrothman@venable.com
acnelson@venable.com
FANTASIA TRADING: Shakya Sues Over Security Cameras' False Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jyotindra Shakya and Thanh Tran, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated v. Fantasia Trading LLC; Anker Technology
Corporation, Case No. 3:23-cv-03925-JCS (N.D. Cal., Aug. 4, 2023)
sues over Defendants' alleged false and deceptive labeling,
advertising, marketing, and sale of their Eufy brand security
cameras.
The Plaintiffs assert that although the Defendants prominently
represents in their marketing and packaging that the Eufy Cameras
have "1080p"/"HD," "2K," or "4K"/"UHD" video resolution, in reality
they do not. To the contrary, the actual video resolution of the
Eufy Cameras is significantly lower than "1080p"/"HD," "2K," or
"4K"/"UHD" video resolution.
Accordingly, the Defendants made the "1080p"/"HD," "2K," or
"4K"/"UHD" resolution claims throughout the Class Period in all of
their significant marketing: on the Eufy Cameras product pages
(available at https://us.eufy.com/); on their Amazon.com product
pages; on the pages and in the advertising material of other
third-party retailers; in the Eufy Cameras product specifications;
and on the packaging of the Eufy Cameras themselves. The Defendants
never disclosed to consumers that the Cameras are incapable of
achieving "1080p"/"HD," "2K," or "4K"/"UHD" video resolution under
any circumstances, the suit alleges.
In July 2022, Mr. Tran was shopping for security cameras. During
his shopping process, he visited Amazon and located (i) the Eufy
security Video Doorbell Dual Camera with HomeBase, and (ii) the
Eufy S330 Floodlight Cam 2 Pro. He read the entire Amazon listings
for each of these products, including the various representations
that the cameras were "2K. Had Mr. Tran known before his initial
purchase that the Eufy Cameras were not capable of providing video
quality concomitant with the advertised or represented video
quality—in this case 2K resolution -- he would not have purchased
either Eufy Camera or, at a minimum, he would have paid less for
it, say the Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs seek, pursuant to California Civil Code, on behalf
of themselves and those similarly situated class members,
compensatory damages, statutory penalties, punitive damages and
restitution of any ill-gotten gains due to Defendants' acts and
practices. Mr. Tran intends to remain in San Jose and makes his
permanent home there.
Fantasia is the primary retailer of Eufy Cameras—advertising,
marketing, and selling the cameras through the Eufy website.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Seth A. Safier, Esq.
Todd Kennedy, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 639-9090
Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
todd@gutridesafier.com
FENSTERSHEIB LAW: Partial Nod of Houston's Bid for Tax Cost Pushed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HOUSTON SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v.
DAVID FENSTERSHEIB, et al., Defendants, Case No.
20-60091-CIV-ALTMAN/HUNT (S.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Patrik M.
Hunt of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, Fort Lauderdale Division, recommends that the Plaintiff's
Motion for Bill of Costs be granted in part.
The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion for Bill
of Costs. The Honorable Roy K. Altman referred the instant motion
to Judge Hunt for a report and recommendation.
The action arises from a coverage dispute under the Plaintiff's
Policy for Defendants Fenstersheib Law Group's and Robert
Fenstersheib's liability in Beth Israel Outpatient Surgical Center,
LLC, et al. v. Fenstersheib Law Group, P.A., et al., Consolidated
Case No. CACE-19-15541 and CACE-19-0-18545 (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct.
2019). The Defendants served a notice of claim on the Plaintiff and
the Plaintiff denied coverage. In the underlying litigation,
Defendants requested that the Plaintiff provide a defense and
indemnification. It issued a reservation of rights and this
coverage action followed.
The Parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The District
Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on Count I
of the Amended Complaint and denied the remainder of its motion.
The Court also denied the Defendants' motion for summary judgment
as moot. The Plaintiff now moves for an award of costs as the
prevailing party. The Defendants filed a response in opposition and
the Motion is fully briefed.
The Plaintiff moves the Court for an award of taxable costs in the
amount of $3,197.60. It contends that it is entitled to tax these
costs as the prevailing party. The Defendants respond that many of
the costs sought are excessive and nontaxable. They also argue that
many of the fees associated with the Plaintiff's depositions costs
are not recoverable.
First, Judge Hunt holds that the District Court granted the
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count I. Further, the
Defendants do not contest that the Plaintiff is the prevailing
party. Therefore, Judge Hunt finds that the Plaintiff is the
prevailing party and is entitled to an award of costs pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d). Accordingly, as the
Plaintiff is the prevailing party, the Court is permitted to tax as
costs only those expenses enumerated in 28 U.S.C. Section 1920.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover the filing fee of $400 paid to the
Clerk of the Court. Judge Hunt finds that the Plaintiff is entitled
to recover the filing fee paid to the Clerk of the Court.
The Plaintiff also seeks to recover $1,185 for fees paid to serve
subpoenas. Judge Hunt agrees with the Plaintiff to the extent that
fees for service of the subpoenas. However, he finds that the
Plaintiff should not be entitled to recover for two subpoenas, one
to Phoenix Insurance that was served to the wrong address and the
one to Regency that was invoiced but not served. The Plaintiff did
not rebut the Defendant's arguments about these two subpoenas.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff is entitled to tax costs in the amount
$1,055 ($1,185-$130) for subpoenas issued.
The Plaintiff next seeks an award of taxable costs for fees related
to printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily
obtained for use in the case in the amount of $1,606.60. Judge Hunt
finds that the Defendants have not met their burden of showing that
the deposition costs of the Plaintiff's corporate representative
and its expert were not necessary. The Plaintiff is not entitled to
recover any expedited fees associated with the depositions or
transcripts. As to the necessity of the transcripts, Judge Hunt
finds that they were necessarily obtained in the case. Thus, the
Plaintiff is entitled to recover for the costs for these two
hearings.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Hunt recommends that the Plaintiff's
Motion to Tax Costs be granted in part and the Plaintiff be awarded
taxable costs in the amount of $3,067.60 ($3,197.60-$130).
Within 14 days after being served with a copy of this Report and
Recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections to
any of the above findings and recommendations as provided by the
Local Rules for this district. The parties are notified that a
failure to timely object waives the right to challenge on appeal
the District Court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal
conclusions contained in the Report and Recommendation.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 28, 2023 Report &
Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/yeyuacna from
Leagle.com.
FLORIDA HEALTH SCIENCE: Andriano Files Suit in M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Florida Health
Science Center, Inc. The case is styled as Mary Andriano,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Florida Health Science Center, Inc. agent of Tampa General
Hospital, Case No. 8:23-cv-01744 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 4, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc., doing business as Tampa
General Hospital, operates as a non-profit Hospital.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
FLORIDA HEALTH: Fails to Safeguard Patients' Info, Russo Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zoie Russo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc. d/b/a Tampa General
Hospital, a Florida corporation, Case No. 8:23-cv-01757 (M.D. Fla.,
Aug. 7, 2023) alleges that the Defendant failed to safeguard the
personally identifiable information and protected health
information of Plaintiff and other patients, which resulted in
unauthorized access to its information systems between May 12,
2023, and May 30, 2023.
On May 31, 2023, the Defendant detected unusual activity in its
computer systems and ultimately determined that an unauthorized
third party accessed its network and obtained certain files from
its systems between May 12 and May 30, 2023. The Defendant's
investigation concluded that the Private Information compromised in
the Data Breach included the Plaintiff's and approximately 1.2
million other individuals' information. The stolen Private
Information includes names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of
birth, Social Security numbers, health insurance information,
medical record numbers, patient account numbers, dates of service
and/or limited treatment information.
The Defendant's harmful conduct has injured Plaintiff and Class
members in multiple ways, including: the lost or diminished value
of their Private Information; costs associated with the prevention,
detection, and recovery from identity theft, tax fraud, and other
unauthorized use of their data; lost opportunity costs to mitigate
the Data Breach's consequences, including lost time; and emotional
distress associated with the loss of control over their highly
sensitive Private Information, the suit alleges.
On behalf of herself and the Classes, the Plaintiff brings causes
of action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se,
breach of implied contract, and violation of the Florida Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act, seeking an award of monetary
damages and injunctive and declaratory relief, resulting from
Defendant's failure to adequately protect their highly sensitive
Private Information
The Plaintiff and Class members are current or former Patients who
provided their Private Information to the Defendant.
Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc. is a Tampa,
Florida-headquartered private not-for-profit hospital serving a
dozen counties with a population in excess of 4 million.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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
- and -
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
FLORIDA HEALTH: Ruggiero Sues Over Disclosed Personal Info
----------------------------------------------------------
LOUIS RUGGIERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FLORIDA HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, INC. d/b/a
Tampa General Hospital, Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-01778-WFJ-AAS
(M.D. Fla., August 8, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant
for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract,
unjust enrichment, violation of Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act, and declaratory and injunctive relief.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the protected health information and personally
identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
customers stored within its network systems following a data breach
between approximately May 12 and May 30, 2023. The Defendant also
failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals about the data breach. As a result, the PII and PHI of
the Plaintiff and Class members were compromised and damaged
through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third
parties, says the suit.
Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc., doing business as Tampa
General Hospital, is a healthcare services provider, with its
principal place of business located in Hillsborough County,
Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
E-mail: nickc@lcllp.com
gary@lcllp.com
jamisen@lcllp.com
- and -
Christian Levis, Esq.
Amanda G. Fiorilla, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
E-mail: clevis@lowey.com
afiorilla@lowey.com
- and -
Anthony M. Christina, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
One Tower Bridge
100 Front Street, Suite 520
West Conshohocken, PA
Telephone: (215) 399-4770
E-mail: achristina@lowey.com
FLOS USA INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flos USA, Inc. The
case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Flos USA, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-05901
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Flos U.S.A. Incorporated -- https://flos.com/en/us/ -- provides
lighting fixture. The Company offers floor, table, pendant, and out
door lighting.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
FOAM CROWN MOLDING: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Foam Crown Molding,
LLC. The case is styled as Shivan Bassaw, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Foam Crown Molding, LLC,
Case No. 1:23-cv-06843 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Foam Crown Molding, LLC -- https://foamcrownmolding.com/ -- offers
DIY installation with foam crown molding.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick William Gallagher, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: pgallagher@mizrahikroub.com
FOLGERS COFFEE: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Reply by Sept. 18
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action Folgers Coffee Marketing, Case No.
4:21-md-02984 (W.D. Mo., April 1, 2021), the Hon. Judge Beth
Phillips entered an order on motion for extension of time to file
response/reply:
The Plaintiffs shall file their Reply regarding class certification
and Oppositions regarding expert exclusion no later than September
18, 2023.
The Plaintiffs' motion to extend time to respond and for leave to
file excess pages is granted in part and denied in part.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product
Liability.[CC]
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Suit Over Fire Risk in Hybrid Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gerhard Horn of CarBuzz reports that six plaintiffs have filed a
nationwide class-action lawsuit against Ford over an alleged
life-threatening defect that puts thousands of vehicles at risk of
spontaneously catching fire. The lawsuit, brought to the courts by
Hagens Berman, relates to a June 2023 recall issued by Ford,
stating that 120,000 of its hybrid vehicles were shipped with a
defective block or oil pan. This could lead to oil and/or fuel
vapor reaching an ignition source, resulting in a fire.
Ford recalled 86,656 units of the 2020-2022 Escape, 35,501 units of
the 2022-2023 Maverick, and 3,165 Corsairs made between 2021-2023.
All these vehicles are equipped with the 2.5-liter Duratec
Atkinson-cycle four-cylinder engine.
The main allegation in the lawsuit is that Ford's recall solution
was inadequate and that it failed to "address the issue and caused
additional performance issues in affected vehicles."
Hagens Berman initially dragged Ford and Lincoln to court for this
issue in August last year, but the court granted Ford's motion to
dismiss because it had already issued a recall with a proposed
fix.
The first recall was issued on July 7, 2022, and the fix was to
modify the under-engine shield and active grille shutter. A second
recall was published on May 26, 2023. This time, Ford told owners
to "shut off the engine as quickly as possible if they hear
unexpected engine noises, notice a reduction in vehicle power, or
see smoke." The later recall said owners would be notified once a
remedy is available and that it was anticipated to happen in 2023.
"Multiple named plaintiffs in this case were lucky to escape their
burning vehicles with their lives," said Steve Berman, managing
partner at Hagens Berman and the attorney leading the case.
"Drivers are still reporting under-hood fires, and Ford itself has
admitted that its supposed fix does nothing to mitigate the risk of
catastrophic engine failure and fires. Assuming just 1% of vehicles
with this engine are impacted by the defect, as Ford claims, that
means there are over 1,250 ticking time bombs out there on the road
on August 12, 202. People's lives are at stake."
The wording is aggressive, but that's how advocates get their big
payouts. So what does Ford say about the whole thing?
Ford responded to a CarBuzz email requesting comment thus: "As we
indicated in our submission to the federal regulator, we expected
the initial repair to be effective but continued to monitor the
performance of the vehicles and reacted responsibly as facts
developed. We've now learned that some customers continued to drive
on the alternative hybrid electric system even after an engine
block breach, and so we are notifying customers to park the vehicle
if what's known as a 'block breach' occurs. Our team is working
earnestly to resolve the issue and meet the needs of our
customers."
That doesn't give us much clarity about when the issue will be
resolved or why the initial fix was ineffective, and that's not a
good look for Ford, especially given its current quality issues.
Ford had the most recalls out of all manufacturers in 2022, and it
will likely claim this unfortunate anti-accolade again this year.
It's already leading the recall charts after the first half of
2023. In addition to this, nearly 900,000 F-150s have been recalled
for a parking brake that could trigger unintentionally. Over a
million Ford Fusions and Lincoln MKZs were recalled for possible
brake failure, not to mention the small but still concerning F-150
Lightning fire recall.
Ford's CEO, Jim Farley, is aware of the reputational damage being
done to the company and has started implementing new quality
control methods to improve overall build quality.
Even with these new methods, Farley has admitted that it will take
years to rectify the problem. Theoretically, Ford can fix the
problem by investing in the right places. But it might take longer
if Ford has to pay punitive damages to set an example for the
entire automotive industry. [GN]
FULLPLATE VENTURES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Elder Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
MARIAH ELDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FULLPLATE VENTURES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
179116845 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Aug. 7, 2023) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.
FULLPLATE VENTURES, LLC is in the furniture and furnishings, mail
order business. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Telephone: (202) 709-5744
Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
GAP INC: O'Reilly Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Advance Notice
--------------------------------------------------------------
IAN O'REILLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE GAP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-04002 (N.D. Cal., August 8, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification (WARN) Act by failing to provide their
employees with the 60-day advance notice required under the WARN
Act before terminating them in a mass layoff in April 2023.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a manager of supply chain
operations at its headquarters in San Francisco, California from
about 2017 until May 12, 2023.
The Gap, Inc. is a clothing retail company, headquartered in San
Francisco, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin Rudolph Delson, Esq.
3810 Broadway
Sacramento, CA 95817
Telephone: (916) 970-7100
Email: rd@rudolphdelson.com
GENWORTH LIFE: Faces Class Action Over MOVEit Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Genworth
Life Insurance Co. failed to protect the personal information of
more than 2.5 million customers and employees that was exposed
through a cyberattack on Progress Software's MOVEit file-transfer
app, a proposed federal class action said.
Peter Behrens alleged that Genworth failed to comply with its
promises and contractual obligations to customers regarding the
protection of sensitive data, or the requirements of Florida's
consumer protection statutes.
Customer information exposed in the May breach included names,
Social Security numbers, birthdates, zip codes, states of
residence, policy numbers, and product types, according to a
complaint filed Tuesday in the US District Court. [GN]
GEOVERA SPECIALTY: Burke Files Suit in E.D. Louisiana
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GeoVera Specialty
Insurance Company, et al. The case is styled as Heidi C. Burke,
Jonathan F. Burke, on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated v. GeoVera Specialty Insurance Company, GeoVera Advantage
Insurance Services, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-02352-NJB-MBN (E.D. La.,
July 6, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.
GeoVera Specialty Insurance Company -- https://geovera.com/ --
offer surplus lines residential insurance through select wholesale
broker partners.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charles Ferrier Zimmer, II, Esq.
Daniel Ernest Davillier, Esq.
Jonathan David Lewis, Esq.
DAVILLIER LAW GROUP
935 Gravier Street, Suite 1702
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 582-6998
Email: czimmer@davillierlawgroup.com
ddavillier@davillierlawgroup.com
jlewis@davillierlawgroup.com
- and -
Anthony D. Irpino, Esq.
Kacie F. Gray, Esq.
IRPINO, AVIN & HAWKINS (NEW ORLEANS)
2216 Magazine Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 525-1500
Email: airpino@irpinolaw.com
kgray@irpinolaw.com
GOLDMAN SACHS: 2nd Cir. Decertifies Class in Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, disclosed that
on August 10, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit reversed the district court's class certification
order in a putative class action asserting claims under Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a global
financial institution and certain of its officers. Ark. Tchr. Ret.
Sys. v. Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc., -- F.4th --, 2023 WL 5112157 (2d
Cir. Aug. 10, 2023) ("ATRS III").
This long-running litigation has been the subject of prior posts in
this newsletter in 2018, 2020, and three times in 2021 (wherein we
assessed decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Second Circuit,
and the district court). After considering the district court's
latest decision to grant class certification (for the third time),
the Second Circuit held that defendants had rebutted the
presumption of reliance afforded by Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485
U.S. 224 (1988), because they had established that the allegedly
misleading statements had not affected the company's stock price
when made and plaintiffs had failed to sufficiently link specific
alleged corrective disclosures to the more generic alleged
misrepresentations. The Court, therefore, reversed and remanded
with instructions to decertify the class. In doing so, the Court
noted that the Supreme Court's rulings on materiality and class
certification are difficult to reconcile, clarified earlier
jurisprudence, and established that courts must engage in careful
parsing of alleged misrepresentations and disclosures—and their
market effects—before certifying a class.
As the Second Circuit explained, putative class members asserting
claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act do not have to prove
individual reliance on purported misrepresentations because Basic
affords them a presumption that the price of stocks trading in an
efficient market incorporates and reflects all public, material
information. Id. at *1. Defendants can rebut that presumption,
however, by demonstrating that alleged misrepresentations or
omissions did not actually impact a stock's price. Id. That
analysis becomes especially complicated in cases where, as here,
plaintiffs do not allege that the misrepresentations inflated a
company's stock price at the time they were made but, instead,
allegedly "maintained" artificial inflation that was already
built-in to the stock's price (a "price maintenance" claim). Id. In
such cases, plaintiffs often point to a price drop following an
alleged corrective disclosure "as an indirect proxy for the
front-end inflation," i.e., as evidence of the price maintaining
effect of the misrepresentation. Id. Where the alleged
misrepresentation was a generic statement, however, and the
subsequent disclosure is specific, "it is less likely that the
specific disclosure actually corrected the generic
misrepresentation" and, therefore, less clear that a stock-price
drop following such a specific disclosure is a valid proxy for the
allegedly inflation-maintaining effect of the claimed
misrepresentation. Id. at *2 (citing Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc. v.
Ark. Tchr. Ret. Sys., 141 S. Ct. 1951, 1961 (2021) ("Goldman")).
Thus, as dictated by the Supreme Court's prior ruling in this
action, courts at the class certification stage must compare "the
relative genericness of a misrepresentation with its corrective
disclosure." ATRS III, 2023 WL 5112157 at *2. In this latest
appeal, the Second Circuit was called upon to review the district
court's analyses and conclusions in conducting that comparison.
Plaintiffs challenged two groups of statements. First were
"business principle" statements reflected in the company's annual
report that stated overarching themes as guiding the company. These
included statements like "We are dedicated to complying fully with
the letter and spirit of the laws, rules and ethical principles
that govern us," and "Integrity and honesty are at the heart of our
business." Plaintiffs included in this category related statements
by executives at various conferences. Id. Second were "risk
disclosure" statements in the company's SEC filings regarding
conflicts of interest, including "[w]e have extensive procedures
and controls" to address potential conflicts. Id. at *3. Both sets
of statements were alleged to have been revealed as false when it
emerged that the company may have had conflicts of interest in
several collateralized debt obligation transactions the company
facilitated. Id. at *4–5.
It was undisputed that the statements plaintiffs challenged did not
cause statistically significant increases in the company's stock
price when made. Plaintiffs argued, instead, that the statements
maintained an already-inflated price, which fell in reaction to the
alleged corrective disclosures. Id. The Court construed plaintiffs'
theory to be that the challenged statements were misleading because
the company failed to disclose that it was "actively mismanaging"
conflicts. Id. at *5.
As noted, the focus of this latest appeal was whether the district
court clearly erred in finding a subject-matter match between the
alleged misrepresentations, which the Second Circuit described as
"comparatively generic," and the corrective disclosures. Absent
such a match, the back-end price drop following the alleged
corrective disclosures could not be used as a proxy for the
front-end inflation allegedly maintained by the challenged
misstatements and, thus, defendants would have rebutted the Basic
presumption by showing a lack of price impact.
The Second Circuit first explained that the district court erred in
assessing the generic nature of the challenged business principles
statements. The Court held that although it was correct for the
district court to consider statements such as "integrity and
honesty are at the heart of our business" as "platitudes when read
in isolation," the district court erred when it minimized their
genericness by reading those statements in conjunction with more
specific statements separately made by executives at different
times regarding conflicts of interest. Id. at *14. Statements made
in separate reports at different times cannot automatically be read
together, the Court held, and plaintiffs had offered no evidence
"to support a finding that, notwithstanding that space in medium
and time, investors would still conjunctively consume those
statements." Id. (emphasis in original). Because there was no
support in the record evidence for reading the statements together,
it was clear error for the district court to have done so.
Turning to the conflicts risk disclosures, the Court ruled that the
district court had not erred in its genericness analysis when it
found the conflicts disclosure more specific, in form and focus,
than the business principles statements. Id. at *15–16. Even so,
the Second Circuit held that the district court's price impact
analysis was based on an erroneous application of the
inflation-maintenance theory. Specifically, even though the
district court credited a finding by defendants' expert that the
alleged misrepresentations were "unlikely, in a vacuum, to
consciously influence investor behavior," it incorrectly judged
price impact according to what would have happened if the alleged
corrective disclosures in 2010 had been made at the time of the
alleged misrepresentations, which spanned from 2007 through 2010.
Id. at *17.
In determining that was error, the Court summarized the holdings of
two prior Second Circuit inflation-maintenance cases, in addition
to its understanding of the Supreme Court's ruling in Goldman. The
Court explained that, in Waggoner v. Barclays PLC, 875 F.3d 79 (2d
Cir. 2017), there was a "tight fit between corrective disclosure
and misrepresentation" because the corrective disclosure at issue
there (an enforcement proceeding initiated by the New York Attorney
General) focused on a trading platform that was the subject of the
allegedly misleading statements in the company's securities
filings. ATRS III, 2023 WL 5112157 at *17. The Court also explained
that the link between misstatement and disclosure was equally
strong in In re Vivendi, S.A. Sec. Litig., 838 F.3d 223 (2d Cir.
2016). In that case, the "company's repeated statements regarding
its comfortable liquidity situation were later contradicted by a
body of information . . . all of which revealed that its cash flow
was anything but strong." ATRS III, 2023 WL 5112157 at *18. In
contrast, the Second Circuit noted the Supreme Court had explained
in Goldman that a gap in genericness between misrepresentation and
corrective disclosure reduces the likelihood that investors would
understand the specific disclosure to have actually corrected the
generic misrepresentation. In such a scenario, the inference that a
back-end price drop can serve as a proxy for the front-end
misrepresentation's price impact starts to break down. Id. at *19
(quoting Goldman, 141 S. Ct. at 1961). Thus, in that type of
situation, the question for a price impact analysis is not whether
the alleged specific corrective disclosures would have dissipated
inflation if made at the time of the alleged generic
misrepresentation; instead, the question is whether a similarly
generic truthful statement made at the time of the alleged generic
misrepresentation would have dissipated inflation. Id.
The district court therefore erred in judging price impact based on
the news coverage and commentary surrounding the alleged corrective
disclosures. The corrective disclosures, the Court held, were too
different from the alleged generic misrepresentations. The
commentary plaintiffs relied on discussed the issue of conflicts of
interest but did "not suggest that the market relied on the
conflicts statements" themselves. Id. at *23 (emphasis in
original). Defendants, in contrast, identified over 880 analyst
reports, none of which referenced the alleged misrepresentations,
and showed that other analyst reports touching on the conflicts
issue did not refer to the alleged misstatements either. Id. at
*24. As such, the Court held that plaintiffs had not established a
sufficient link between the alleged corrective disclosures and
misrepresentations to establish price impact, and that defendants
had established by a preponderance of the evidence that the
challenged representations had no such impact—i.e., defendants
had severed the link between the alleged misrepresentations and the
price plaintiffs paid for the company's securities. Id.
The Court provided as "[g]uidance moving forward" that courts must
conduct a "searching price impact analysis" where (1) there is a
"considerable gap" between the genericness of the alleged
misstatement and the alleged corrective disclosure; (2) the
corrective disclosure does not directly refer to the alleged
misstatement; and (3) plaintiff claims that a company's generic
disclosure was misleading by omission. Id. at *22.
In a separate concurrence, Judge Richard J. Sullivan emphasized he
would have found that defendants had sufficiently rebutted the
presumption of reliance by showing that the company's stock price
was unaffected by earlier disclosures of its alleged conflicts of
interest, as he had indicated in his dissent in the prior case that
was appealed to the Supreme Court. Id. at *25 (citing Ark. Tchr.
Ret. Sys. v. Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc. (ATRS II), 955 F.3d 254, 275,
279 (2d Cir. 2020) (Sullivan, J., dissenting)). Judge Sullivan also
noted that "common sense tells us" the challenged statements were
"exceptionally 'general'" and "not capable of affect[ing] the
'price'" of the company's securities. Id. at *26. The concurrence
continued that the more "searching" price-impact analysis set forth
in the majority opinion should be applicable not only for
inflation-maintenance cases but for "all questions of reliance."
Id. at *26 (emphasis in original).
The difficulty and complexity demonstrated by this case, and with
these analyses in general, was identified in the concurrence and
acknowledged by the majority: The "predicament that the Supreme
Court has created for lower courts tasked with assessing reliance
at the class-certification stage of securities actions like this
one" is that "the Supreme Court [in Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans
& Tr. Funds, 568 U.S. 455, 480–82 (2013),] has held that
defendants may not challenge materiality at class certification,
while also acknowledging that materiality evidence may be
introduced to rebut price impact and reliance [in Goldman]." ATRS
III, 2023 WL 5112157 at *27. "This instruction places district
courts in a peculiar position," because, among other things "it's
hard to imagine how class-wide reliance based on the Basic
presumption can be established under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 without consideration of the statements' materiality."
Id. The majority opinion addressed this by recognizing that
evidence regarding the effect of generic statements was always
likely to overlap with evidence relevant to materiality, but that
its consideration was "by design" because the Supreme Court had
directed courts to consider "all record evidence relevant to price
impact," regardless of such overlap. Id. at *10. Borrowing a phrase
from Judge David F. Hamilton of the Seventh Circuit, the majority
likened having to analyze price impact without drawing conclusions
on materiality to trying to avoid "thinking about a pink elephant."
Id. at *2. You can't do it. But courts have been instructed that
this is the analysis that is required. As the majority recognized
in acknowledging Judge Sullivan's concerns regarding the difficult
task of thinking about materiality but not ruling on it, "Someday
the Supreme Court will revisit the issue. In the meantime, we have
work to do." Id. at *24. [GN]
GOLDMAN SACHS: 2nd Cir. Denies Certification in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel of Reuters reports that after 13 years of
litigation, three trips to a federal appeals court and one
ballyhooed U.S. Supreme Court case, Goldman Sachs has finally given
the securities defense bar a way to squelch shareholder class
actions based on non-specific corporate statements.
On August 10, 2023, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded
that Goldman shareholders cannot be certified as a class to pursue
claims that the bank misrepresented its commitment to avoiding
conflicts of interest during the subprime mortgage craze that led
to the 2008 financial crisis. It will likely take a litigation
miracle -- en banc review by the 2nd Circuit or another round at
the Supreme Court -- to revive the $13 billion class action.
(Plaintiffs' lawyer Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
didn't respond to my query.)
The new ruling vindicates the persistence of the bank and its
lawyers from Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and Sullivan
& Cromwell. Goldman, which did not respond to my query, told my
colleague Jody Godoy that it is "gratified" by the appellate
decision.
Other securities fraud class action defendants should also be
grateful for the 2nd Circuit's adoption and elaboration of
Goldman's "mismatch" arguments. In an era when shareholders
routinely file securities class actions whenever revelations of
corporate misconduct cause a drop in share prices, the Goldman
decision should make it easier for defendants to win dismissal when
they're accused of misrepresenting broad business practices.
n the Goldman case, as you surely recall, plaintiffs' lawyers
contended that Goldman's assurances about conflicts (as well as
even more anodyne statements about ethical business practices) kept
the bank’s share price artificially high. The bubble burst,
according to shareholders, after news reports in 2010 that Goldman
worked with a hedge fund short-seller to create and market
doomed-to-fail complex debt instruments, including the infamous
Abacus CDO at the heart of Goldman's $550 million settlement with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The 2nd Circuit ruled on August 10, 2023 that there was too wide a
gap between Goldman's general statements about conflict management
and the subsequent revelations about conflicts in specific CDO
deals to support plaintiffs' theory that the bank's alleged
misrepresentations propped up its share price.
That result, the appeals court said, was dictated by the Supreme
Court's 2021 decision in the Goldman case, which vacated a previous
2nd Circuit decision affirming class certification.
The Supreme Court agreed with Goldman that lower courts may
consider the generic nature of alleged misrepresentations in
weighing class certification. But -- more consequentially, as it
turns out -- Justice Amy Coney Barrett also said that trial courts
should be wary about inferring price impact when there is a
"mismatch" between generic alleged misrepresentations and specific
disclosures that cause the company's share price to drop.
"Under those circumstances, it is less likely that the specific
disclosure actually corrected the generic misrepresentation, which
means that there is less reason to infer front-end price inflation
-- that is, price impact -- from the back-end price drop," Barrett
wrote.
Goldman's lawyers had exhorted the 2nd Circuit to follow Jackson's
guidance. Otherwise, they argued, shareholders can cry securities
fraud whenever there's a stock drop merely by alleging that a
company has misrepresented general business practices.
In August 10, 2023's decision, the 2nd Circuit stopped short of
requiring a "precise match" between alleged misrepresentations and
subsequent corrective disclosures. But Judges Richard Wesley and
Denny Chin said the Supreme Court's Goldman decision, along with
2nd Circuit precedent in other cases alleging that corporate
misrepresentations kept share prices artificially high, mandates a
narrow gap between alleged misstatements and revelations of
corporate misconduct. (Judge Richard Sullivan joined the court's
holding that the Goldman class must be decertified but said in a
concurrence that the majority opinion added too much complexity to
a simple inquiry.)
"If a stock price decline follows a back-end, highly detailed
corrective disclosure -- containing, for example, "hard . . .
incriminatory" evidence regarding the company's wrongdoing --
courts must be skeptical whether the more generic, front-end
statement propped up the price to the same extent," the 2nd Circuit
majority said. "Ultimately, a court must determine not just whether
the defendant spoke on topics generally important to investment
decision-making, but instead whether the defendant's generic
statements on that topic were important in that regard."
You can see why that will be helpful to other defendants. Imagine,
for instance, a pharmaceutical company that is hit with a
securities fraud suit after its shares drop in the wake of a recall
of a particular drug or medical device.
If shareholders allege that the company lied about its testing or
production safety protocols, that's probably a sufficient match
under the 2nd Circuit's Goldman framework. But if the alleged
misrepresentation is based only on generic safety assurances, the
company can argue that, under the Goldman framework, it's too big
an inferential jump to attribute the share price decline to
investors' lost faith in general statements about safety.
In the only widely publicized study of so-called event-driven
securities class actions, law professor Emily Strauss, now at the
University of California College of the Law, San Francisco, found
that such cases represented more than 15% of securities class
action filings between 2010 and 2015. (Strauss, whose paper is
titled "Is Everything Securities Fraud?", defined the category as
securities class actions in which the primary victims of corporate
misconduct are not shareholders.) Strauss concluded that
event-driven shareholder class actions in the time period of her
study were actually dismissed at a significantly lower rate than
cases in which shareholders are the primary victims. The cases also
resulted in relatively higher settlements.
Strauss didn't respond to my query about the potential impact of
the 2nd Circuit's Goldman ruling on the sort of cases she studied.
My bet, though, is that you're going to hear a lot more from
defendants about a mismatch between general corporate assurances
and events like products recalls, oil spills and False Claims Act
settlements.
And if those arguments succeed, defendants can thank Goldman Sachs.
[GN]
GOOGLE LLC: Bermudez Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial in Wiretap Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs JOSE M. BERMUDEZ, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Order dated July 10, 2023 entered in the lawsuit
styled IN RE: GOOGLE, INC. COOKIE PLACEMENT CONSUMER PRIVACY
LITIGATION, Case No. 1-12-md-02358, in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware.
The Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in 2012 alleging that
Google circumvented certain privacy settings on two commonly used
web browsers so that it could track users via cookies despite
privacy settings that should have prevented the tracking.
After the Honorable Sue Robinson granted a motion to dismiss in
full, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed in
part and remanded, affirming the dismissal of the three federal law
claims under the Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications Act, and
the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, as well as four California state
law claims under the Unfair Competition Law, the California
Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the California
Invasion of Privacy Act, and the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act. The Third Circuit reversed the dismissal of the
remaining two state law claims for violation of the privacy
protections conferred by the California Constitution and for
intrusion upon seclusion under California tort law.
In 2016, and with the help of a mediator, the parties negotiated a
$5.5 million cy pres-only settlement in connection with the two
remaining claims, with the funds to be awarded to six organizations
that would have used the money to promote public awareness,
education, and research related to browser security. The settlement
included $1,000 service awards for the class representatives,
$1,925,000 in attorney's fees, $90,929.26 in costs, and up to
$500,000 in administration fees, all to be taken from the
settlement fund (leaving roughly half for the cy pres recipients).
Judge Robinson certified the settlement class under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), approved the settlement agreement, and
approved attorney's fees and costs in a fairly terse order dated
February 17, 2017.
On appeal, the Third Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that cy
pres-only Rule 23(b)(2) class settlements were not per se unfair,
but that the court had concerns over the fairness of two aspects of
the settlement: (1) the broad class-wide release of claims for
money damages; and (2) the selection of the six cy pres
recipients.
On remand, following the retirement of Judge Robinson, the case was
reassigned to Judge Eduardo C. Robreno. The parties filed a renewed
motion for preliminary approval and attempted to address the Third
Circuit's concerns by: (1) requesting class certification under
both Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3); and (2) including a neutral party to
be approved by the Court to choose the cy pres recipients.
The Court held a preliminary fairness hearing on February 25, 2021.
The Court then ordered the parties to file an additional joint
brief addressing: (1) whether the proposed Rule 23(b)(3) class
could meet the Third Circuit's ascertainability requirement; (2)
whether the proposed settlement met the Rule 23(e), Girsh, and
Prudential fairness factors; and (3) whether a Rule 23(b)(2)
injunctive class without the broad claims releases would be an
acceptable alternative.
On October 15, 2021, the Court granted the motion to preliminarily
certify the class and approve the settlement but expressed concern
regarding final approval. The Court also required the parties to
re-publish the notice of the settlement.
In response to the notice, the parties received two objections and
39 opt-out requests. Class counsel then filed a motion for final
class certification and approval of the settlement.
On July 10, 2023, after a fairness hearing, and for the reasons
stated in Court's memorandum, Judge Robreno concluded that
satisfaction of all parts of the ascertainability prerequisite are
necessary when certifying a settlement class under Rule 23(b)(3).
Given that class counsel concede that they cannot meet the
feasibility prong of the ascertainability prerequisite, the Court
denied final class certification. Without a certifiable class, it
is unnecessary to opine on the fairness of a settlement for the
proposed class.
The appellate case is captioned as IN RE: GOOGLE, INC. COOKIE
PLACEMENT CONSUMER PRIVACY LITIGATION, Case No. 23-2377, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on Aug.
3, 2023.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants JOSE M. BERMUDEZ, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by:
Brian R. Strange, Esq.
STRANGE & BUTLER
12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 207-5055
Defendants-Appellees GOOGLE LLC, et al., are represented by:
Anthony J. Weibell, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: (650) 493-9300
- and -
Lisa M. Coyle, Esq.
BLANK ROME
1271 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (862) 754-7659
- and -
Douglas H. Meal, Esq.
ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE
222 Berkley Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617)-880-1800
- and -
Susan M. Coletti, Esq.
FISH & RICHARDSON
222 Delaware Avenue, 17th Floor
P.O. Box 1114
Wilmington, DE 19899
Telephone: (302) 778-8434
- and -
Edward R. McNicholas, Esq.
ROPES & GRAY
2099 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20006
- and -
Edward P. Boyle, Esq.
VENABLE
151 W 42nd Street, 49th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 307-5500
- and -
David N. Cinotti, Esq.
PASHMAN STEIN WALDER HAYDEN
21 Main Street
Court Plaza South, Suite 200
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 488-8200
- and -
Travis S. Hunter, Esq.
Rudolf Koch, Esq.
RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER
920 N King Street
One Rodney Square
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 651-7564
GORDON ELECTRIC: Bullock Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gordon Electric
Supply, Inc. The case is styled as Justin Bullock, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Gordon Electric
Supply, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06874 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 4, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Gordon Electric Supply -- https://www.gordonelectricsupply.com/ --
is a full-line electrical distributor offering online sales of
electrical supplies, lighting, and data communication
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
GOSHI INC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goshi, Inc. The case
is styled as Mairoby Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Goshi, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06801
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Goshi, Inc. -- https://goshi.com/ -- offers GOSHI Exfoliating
Shower Towel scrubs skin clear and washes body clean in all those
hard-to-reach spots and is designed for all skin types.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ian Piasecki, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (347) 745-0445
Email: ipiasecki@mizrahikroub.com
GOURMET IMPORTS LP: Bullock Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gourmet Imports LP.
The case is styled as Justin Bullock, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Gourmet Imports LP, Case No.
1:23-cv-06853 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 4, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Gourmet Imports -- http://www.gourmetimports.com/-- is a specialty
food importer & distributor in Los Angeles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
HARTFORD LIFE: Faces Class Action Over May 2023 Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that
Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company faces a proposed class
action over a "massive and preventable" cyberattack purportedly
detected in May 2023.
According to an August 4 notice letter, the Connecticut-based
insurance company was affected by a data breach that targeted
MOVEit, a popular file transfer platform. Per the notice letter
sent on Hartford's behalf, Pension Benefit Information (PBI) -- a
third-party vendor the company partners with -- uses MOVEit to
transfer files.
As a result, the personal information of Hartford customers was
compromised when cybercriminals infiltrated PBI's MOVEit transfer
software between May 29 and 30 of this year, the notice explains.
The 44-page lawsuit claims that thousands of individuals have been
impacted by the breach, which compromised at least consumers'
names, dates of birth and Social Security numbers.
The suit argues that Hartford failed to take reasonable steps to
ensure the private data was safeguarded, and neglected to timely
notify victims of the breach. Though the company purports to have
learned of the incident in late May 2023, notices were not sent out
to affected individuals until early August, more than two months
later, the case relays.
In addition, the notice letter provided only "basic details" about
the cyberattack and did not address how the unauthorized third
party gained access, what data was stolen or what measures are
being taken to protect customer information in the future, the
complaint contends.
The filing charges that Hartford's offer of a limited two-year
subscription for identity theft monitoring services is "wholly
inadequate" in light of the lifelong risks of fraud and illegal
schemes that victims now face due to the defendant's negligence.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States whose
personal information was exposed to unauthorized third parties as a
result of the data breach reportedly discovered by Hartford Life
and Accident Insurance Company on May 29, 2023. [GN]
HARVARD PILGRIM: Jano Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harvard Pilgrim
Health Care, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Ilirjan Jano,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Harvard
Pilgrim Health Care, Inc., Point32Health, Inc., Case No.
4:23-cv-11569-NMG (D. Mass., July 12, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Harvard Pilgrim -- https://www.harvardpilgrim.org/ -- is a leading
not-for-profit health services company serving members in
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire & beyond.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 398-5600
Fax: (617) 507-6020
Email: jason@blockesq.com
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Must Face Class Action Over Disabled Printers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Hurler, writing for Gizmodo, reports that printers are one of
the great necessary evils in our modern world, much to the chagrin
of consumers. Now a federal judge has ruled that HP must face a
class action lawsuit, in which the plaintiffs argue that the
company's all-in-one printers brick themselves when the ink runs
low.
The lawsuit was filed in June in the Northern District of
California federal court, but the Associated Press reports that on
Aug. 15, U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman tossed out the
company's attempt to dismiss the suit. The lawsuit argues that HP's
all-in-one printers cease to function once any of its ink
cartridges run dry -- including all non-printing functions. In
other words, if ink levels in one of the four cartridges (black,
cyan, yellow, magenta) are deemed too low by the printer, users
have found they are unable to scan or fax an item.
"What HP fails to disclose is that, if even one of the ink
cartridges is too low, empty, or damaged, the scanning function on
the 'all-in-one' printer will be disabled and will not work as
advertised," the complaint reads. "None of HP's advertising or
marketing materials disclose the basic fact that its All-in-One
Printers do not scan documents when the devices have low or empty
ink cartridges."
HP did not immediately return Gizmodo's request for comment on the
pending case.
The plaintiffs initially filed the lawsuit last year. Judge Freeman
dismissed that lawsuit, but allowed them to refile, with the
updated complaint submitted earlier this summer.
This is not the first time HP has landed in hot water over shady
practices concerning its printers. Gizmodo previously reported that
HP printers were rejecting third-party ink, forcing consumers to
buy the company's own overpriced ink cartridges. HP is not alone,
however, in allegedly bricking its printers when the ink runs dry
-- Canon faced a similar lawsuit back in 2021. Likewise, Epson was
accused of having printers shut down after some arbitrary amount of
use. [GN]
HOMERO VILLARREAL: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Homero Villarreal,
LLC. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Homero Villarreal, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-06819 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Homero Villarreal, LLC is a responsible for organizing, directing
and evaluating food and beverage services for all LondonHouse
outlets and banquets since 2017.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
HOSPITALITY STAFFING: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Felix Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTANY FELIX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOSPITALITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-03522-AT (N.D. Ga., Aug. 8, 2023)
alleges violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant lost control over its
employees' and customers' highly sensitive personal information in
a data breach by cybercriminals ("Data Breach"). The Data Breach
compromised the "personally identifiable information" belonging to
employees and customers, including their Social Security numbers,
driver's license numbers, and financial account numbers. As a
result, the Plaintiff and proposed Class Members no longer have
control over their most sensitive information, cannot stop others
from viewing it, and cannot prevent criminals from misusing it,
says the suit.
The Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on
reasonable cybersecurity protocols or implement reasonable security
measures, causing it to lose control over the access to personal
information. The Defendant's negligence is evidenced by its failure
to prevent, detect, or stop the Data Breach before criminals gained
access to the Defendant's systems and stole the information
belonging to the Plaintiff and Class Members, the suit alleges.
HOSPITALITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS LLC provides hospitality staffing
services. The Company specializes in personnel for housekeeping,
janitorial, stewarding, laundry, food, beverage, and ground
maintenance. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
3535 Piedmont Road
Building 14, Suite 230
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (404) 320-9979
Facsimile: (404) 320-9978
Email: mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com
- and -
Jean S. Martin, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
Francesca K. Burne, Esq.
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 222-4702
Email: Jeanmartin@ForThePeople.com
Fburne@ForThePeople.com
HOUSING AUTHORITY: Carlson Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHANE CARLSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF LOS
ANGELES, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
A-23-875528-C (D. Nev., 8th Jud., Clark Cty., August 8, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendant for negligence, invasion of
privacy, breach of contract, and breach of implied contract.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated individuals stored within its network
systems following a data breach between January 15, 2022, through
December 31, 2022. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach.
As a result, the personal information of the Plaintiff and Class
members were compromised and damaged through access by and
disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the
suit.
Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles is state-chartered
public agency that provides affordable housing to low-income
individuals and families in Los Angeles, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Kind, Esq.
KIND LAW
8860 South Maryland Parkway, Suite 106
Las Vegas, NV 89123
Telephone: (702 337-2322
Facsimile: (702) 329-5881
E-mail: mk@kindlaw.com
- and -
George Haines, Esq.
Gerardo Avalos, Esq.
FREEDOM LAW FIRM
8985 S. Eastern Ave., Suite 350
Las Vegas, NV 89123
Telephone: (702) 880-5554
Facsimile: (702) 385-5518
E-mail: ghaines@freedomlegalteam.com
HUNTER WARFIELD: Perrucci Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hunter Warfield, Inc.
The case is styled as Ruby Perrucci, on behalf of herself and all
similarly situated individuals v. Hunter Warfield, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-00872-CMH-WEF (E.D. Va., July 5, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Hunter Warfield, Inc. is a debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
KELLY GUZZO PLC
3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: (703) 424-7570
Fax: (703) 591-9285
Email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
HYUNDAI AMERICA: McCrory Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as James McCrory, Tracy Miles, Brenda Smith Watson,
Patricia Taylor, Shona Thomas, Tyler Baker, Deneen Brown, Jonathan
Carano, Latricia Ford, Brad Hoschar, Marie Hudson, Hannah Jones,
Cara Taylor Long; Richard Topa; Jordan Tribble; Anita Victory;
Theresa Wolle, and others similarly situated v. HYUNDAI AMERICA,
INC.; HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY; HYUNDAI MOTOR GROUP; KIA AMERICA,
INC.; KIA CORPORATION; and HYUNDAI-MOBIS CO., LTD., Case No.
8:23-cv-01196 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia on Aug. 4, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-03468-ELR to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Product Liability.
Hyundai Motor America -- http://www.hyundaiusa.com/us/en-- doing
business as Hyundai Motor North America is the operating subsidiary
that oversees all operations of Hyundai Motor Company in Canada,
Mexico, and the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Elizabeth Tran, Esq.
Kevin J. Boutin, Esq.
Niall P. McCarthy
COTCHETT PITRE AND MCCARTHY LLP
840 Malcom Road Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Phone: (650) 697-6000
Fax: (650) 697-0577
Email: kboutin@cpmlegal.com
nmccarthy@cpmlegal.com
- and -
Adam Tamburelli, Esq.
David Brian Fernandes, Esq.
Jay M. Lichter, Esq.
Roland Tellis, Esq.
BARON & BUDD PC-CA
15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
Encino, CA 91436
Phone: (818) 839-2333
Fax: (214) 520-1181
Email: atamburelli@baronbudd.com
dfernandes@baronbudd.com
rtellis@baronbudd.com
- and -
Hannah Brown, Esq.
Theresa Vitale, Esq.
COTCHETT PITRE AND MCCARTHY LLP
2716 Ocean Park Boulevard Suite 3088
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Phone: (310) 392-2008
Fax: (310) 310-0111
Email: tvitale@cpmlegal.com
- and -
Nimish R. Desai, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery St., 29th fl.
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 956-1000
Email: ndesai@lchb.com
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Judge Refuses to Approve Vehicle Theft Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge on Aug. 16
declined to approve a proposed settlement in a class-action lawsuit
prompted by a surge in Hyundai and Kia vehicle thefts, saying it
fails to provide "fair and adequate" relief to vehicle owners.
The proposed settlement, announced in May, could be valued at $200
million and covers about 9 million 2011-2022 model year Hyundai and
Kia vehicles in the U.S., the companies said at the time.
These cars are not equipped with push-button ignitions and
immobilizing anti-theft devices. That has allowed thieves to easily
steal them using just a screwdriver and a USB cord, creating a
recent rash of auto thefts across the country.
The proposed settlement would offer vehicle owners cash payments
for theft-related damage and a voluntary recall to update
theft-protection software. But U.S. District Judge James Selna
raised concerns about the process for calculating payments and the
adequacy of the software update in preventing future thefts.
The two automakers announced that update early in 2023, saying it
would address a security flaw that was exposed on TikTok and other
social media sites. But in May, The Associated Press reported that
thieves were still driving off with Kia and Hyundai vehicles at
alarming rates.
The news agency gathered data from eight U.S. cities and found that
in seven of them, police had reported substantial year-over-year
increases in theft reports through April.
In an Aug. 11 letter, the attorneys general of six states and the
District of Columbia urged Judge Selna to require automakers to
install antitheft technology known as engine immobilizers in all
theft-prone Hyundai and Kia vehicles, possibly in combination with
a vehicle buyback program, in place of the update and cash
payments. [GN]
IDOLL INC: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Idoll Inc. The case
is styled as Shivan Bassaw, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Idoll Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06846
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Idoll Media Inc. is a multi-media corporation, covering the
‘model agency industry’ in its entirety.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ian Piasecki, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (347) 745-0445
Email: ipiasecki@mizrahikroub.com
INDIANA: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Child Welfare System
------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Nelson, writing for Indianapolis Star, reports that a class
action lawsuit accuses the Indiana Department of Child Services,
its director and Gov. Eric Holcomb of violating foster children's
rights by failing to address sweeping problems within the state's
child welfare system.
The suit, filed Aug. 16 on behalf of 10 foster children in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, alleges the
state violated federal and constitutional law through a number of
policy failures. The class action is filed on behalf of more than
11,000 Indiana kids in the DCS system.
"Indiana is failing in its most fundamental duty as custodian --
keeping foster children safe and healthy," the complaint states.
"The very system that was designed to protect foster children often
compounds their trauma and causes lifelong harm."
The children and their attorneys said problems within DCS are
widely known to state officials, who refuse to address them. They
cited the scathing letter written by the former DCS director Mary
Beth Bonaventura about the governor's appointment of DCS Director
Eric Miller, who she warned at the time was "the greatest threat to
this agency and child welfare."
IndyStar has reached out to Holcomb and DCS officials for comment.
DCS declined to comment.
Suit alleges DCS practices cause additional harm to vulnerable
children
The suit alleges DCS violated the American Disabilities Act by
placing vulnerable children in overly restrictive settings and
adding unnecessary trauma, the Child Welfare Act of 1980 and the
Fourteenth Amendment by not protecting their right to maltreatment
or risk of harm.
In one case, the suit states a 15-year-old girl was removed from
her home by DCS after being raped and molested by her stepfather.
The complaint says DCS placed the teen in the care of her
grandparent, who is not a licensed foster parent and was known to
sell pain medication for gas money.
Shortly after the girl moved with her grandmother, her DCS case
manager was fired and the girl was sexually abused by a neighbor.
The suit says DCS suspected the abuse but did not remove her from
the home. Instead, they prohibited contact between the girl and the
neighbor. The suit says the girl was sent over for dinner with the
neighbor unsupervised. The suit did not state whether further abuse
occurred during the visit.
The teen was eventually placed in a different home, but since
developed disordered eating and panic attacks. In the six months
following the sexual abuse, the girl received no therapy or
psychological evaluation, the suit says.
In another case, the suit alleges DCS shuffled a boy to 22 foster
homes, each placement not lasting more than a year. The suit says
the constant changes further added to his trauma of his
stepmother's murder and father's drug-related arrest.
"(The child's) trauma compounded every time he was forced to share
his trauma with a new therapist," the complaint states, "and,
according to DCS records, (the child's) inconsistent treatment
eroded his trust in medical and mental health professionals."
Suit calls for sweeping changes of Indiana child welfare system
The suit calls for a series of changes within DCS, including lower
caseloads, more appropriate placements for children and more
accountability. Plaintiffs are also seeking attorney fees.
Broadly, the allegations are nearly identical to a lawsuit filed in
2019 against DCS, its director and the governor for violating the
rights of children with open DCS cases.
That suit raised similar issues, including high case worker
turnover and alleges the state inadequately responded to child
abuse and unnecessarily placed children in institutions.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the lawsuit
demanding changes last year. [GN]
INTELLIHARTX LLC: Terwilliger Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Robert Joseph Terwilliger, Edwin Rodriguez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
INTELLIHARTX, LLC and FORTRA LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00074 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio on Aug. 3, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01509-JRK to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Federal
Trade Commission Act.
IntelliHartx, LLC -- https://www.itxcompanies.com/ -- is a
healthcare revenue cycle management company based in McLean,
Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan Swann Taylor, Esq.
TAYLOR & KNIGHT, GP
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 600
Knoxville, TN 37929
Phone: 865-971-1701 F: 865 971-1705
Email: jstaylor@taylorknightlaw.com
- and -
Andrea McKellar, Esq.
MCKELLAR LAW GROUP, PLLC
117 28th Avenue N.
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: 615-866-9699 F:615-866-1278
Email: andie@mckellarlawgroup.com
- and -
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73120
Phone: (405) 235-1560 F: (405) 239-2112
Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Samantha Gerken, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI - FRANKLIN
4031 Aspen Grove Drive, Ste. 290
Franklin, TN 37067
Phone: (615) 772-9014
- and -
Catherine Williams Anglin, Esq.
PAINE TARWATER & BICKERS-KNOXVILLE
2200 Riverview Tower
900 South Gay Street
Knoxville, TN 37902
Phone: (865) 525-0880
- and -
Mary P. Brogan, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER-CLEVELAND
127 Public Square, Ste. 2000
Cleveland, OH 44114
Phone: (216) 861-7020
Fax: (216) 696-0740
Email: mbrogan@bakerlaw.com
IRAN: D.C. Court Denies Renewed Bid to Certify Class in Burks Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALAN BURKS, et al., Plaintiffs v. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF
IRAN, IRANIAN REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS, Defendants, Case No.
16-cv-1102 (CRC) (D.D.C.), Judge Christopher R. Cooper of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia denies the Plaintiffs'
Renewed Motion to Certify a Class.
The Plaintiffs are a group of U.S. servicemen (and their families
and estates) who were killed or injured in terrorist attacks in
Iraq from late 2006 to 2007 involving explosive devices known as
explosively formed penetrators ("EFPs"). In its last memorandum
opinion in the case, the Court addressed the Plaintiffs' motions
for a default judgment as to liability and to certify a class under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
To start, with respect to three of the four Plaintiffs, the Court
concluded that it had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ("FSIA") and that, because they
had properly effected service, the Court had personal jurisdiction
over the Defendant the Islamic Republic of Iran.
As for the motion to certify a class, although the Court found that
the Plaintiffs had satisfied the Rule 23(a) prerequisites to
certification, it was not convinced that the Plaintiffs had shown
that common issues predominate over individualized ones or that
class treatment would be superior to individual claims. Because the
Court thought Plaintiffs might be able to allay its concerns about
predominance and superiority, it denied their motion for class
certification without prejudice to renewal, after a hearing on the
matter.
As for their motion for a default judgment, the Court denied the
motion without prejudice to renewal, following a final ruling on
the propriety of class certification. After holding a hearing for
the Plaintiffs to address the Court's doubts about the Rule 23(b)
factors, during which the Plaintiffs orally renewed their motion
for class certification, Judge Cooper has considered the Plaintiffs
arguments and now definitively denies the motion.
Beginning with predominance, Judge Cooper still harbors some doubts
that PX-44 alone could constitute a one-stop source of common proof
as to class members' identities and the causes of their injuries.
His concerns about individualized identification and causation
elements are largely assuaged.
As to Rule 23(b)'s superiority requirement, Judge Cooper says it
remains the case that the relatively large amount of damages at
stake and the existence of other cases evidencing potential class
members' strong motivation to file their own actions weigh heavily
against class certification.
As to the question whether issue certification under Rule 23(c)(4)
is appropriate, because Rule 23(b)'s superiority requirement is not
satisfied, Judge Cooper says he cannot certify an issue class with
respect to liability under Rule 23(c)(4). The Court has already
determined that class treatment of this case as a whole would not
be superior to individual or other multi-plaintiff actions.
Certifying only the question of Iran's responsibility for EFP
attacks would not change that analysis. Judge Cooper therefore
declines the Plaintiffs' request to certify an issue class under
Rule 23(c)(4).
Having now settled the class certification motion, nothing stands
in the way of awarding Plaintiffs a default judgment, a conclusion
that follows directly from the Court's previous determination that
it has jurisdiction over Iran under the FSIA. As promised, then,
the Court invites the Plaintiffs to file a renewed motion for
default judgment as to liability.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Certify a Class is
denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 28, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2fbbdfu6 from Leagle.com.
J.F.K. CONSTRUCTION: Membreno Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against J.F.K. Construction
Services Corp. The case is styled as Polidecto Membreno,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
J.F.K. Construction Services Corp., John Francis Kennedy, Case No.
1:23-cv-05919 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 4, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Acts.
J.F.K. Construction Services Corp. -- https://jfkconst.com/ --
provide quality home remodeling since 1979.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
JAGUAR LAND: Faces Class Suit Over Defective I-Pace Batteries
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Lambrecht of Inside EVs reports that the Jaguar I-Pace is an
agile and sporty electric crossover. Used prices are dramatically
falling, and these attractive EVs are becoming quite affordable in
the second-hand market. However, before going out and buying one,
prospective owners might want to take a step back.
The Jaguar I-Pace uses LG Energy Solution batteries, the same
manufacturer that produced batteries for the Bolt, Bolt EUV, and
Kona Electric. There were several isolated incidents in which these
vehicles caught fire, sparking questions about the battery packs.
In November 2020, LG Energy Solution initially denied that its
battery cells were the source of the fires, but agreed to corporate
with the manufacturers. However, nearly a year later, LG Energy
Solution agreed to pay GM $1.9 billion and Hyundai around $623
million as part of a recall.
The origin of these potential battery fires was a folded anode tab,
courtesy of the Korean battery supplier. Equipped with the same
manufacturer's battery packs, the I-Pace hit the news as early as
2021 due to battery fires. In the summer of 2022, an owner's 2019
I-Pace caught fire while charging in his Florida home.
Owner Gonzalo Salazar said JLR hadn't helped him very much and left
him with the task of cleaning up all the debris left on the road.
In May 2023, Jaguar issued a recall for 6,367 I-Paces, affecting
vehicles of all model years (2019 to 2024). The recall surrounded
the battery packs overheating, which could give rise to a battery
fire. Jaguar says it can complete an OTA software update for the
fix, though it can only be done at Jaguar centers. Moreover, the
manufacturer says it will replace modules or the entire battery, if
necessary, free of charge.
But a new lawsuit thickens the plot. A woman in California reported
that her I-Pace, already on its second battery (installed in 2021),
stalled while driving in April 2023. She was "stranded in the
middle of a street and blocking people from exiting their parking
spaces." Upset with Jaguar's dealings of the matter, she sued.
The suit says the British automaker knew about the battery issues
well before issuing the recall. Moreover, many owners have reported
other battery-related issues with the crossover.
Since April of this year, the car has consistently had problems! A
few months ago, it started turning off suddenly!! Yes, suddenly
even while driving! This was very alarming. I took it to the dealer
in Cincinnati where it stayed for almost a month to be fixed! -
Kentucky I-Pace owner
Another owner, whose NHTSA report was featured in the lawsuit,
expressed outrage over a similar experience.
Was driving vehicle downhill on a small hill in Palm Springs when
multiple error messages appeared in rapid succession on the
information display, including 'traction battery fault - safe to
drive with caution'. This was immediately followed by "pull over
and stop the car" but before I had the chance to do so ALL the
systems in the car ceased to operate and all electrical systems
shut down. The breaks would not work, the steering would not work.
I was still traveling down hill and unable to stop the car. The car
continued for approximately 1/2 a mile and went through two stop
signs. - California I-Pace owner
Nevertheless, current I-Pace owners must only charge their vehicles
to around 75% before receiving their updates. Only time will tell
who is truly at fault for the I-Pace's numerous potential issues.
[GN]
JOY'S PLACE: Underpays Direct-Care Assistants, Prince Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHASTA PRINCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOY'S PLACE, INC. and JOY BLACK, Defendants,
Case No. 1:23-cv-01544 (N.D. Ohio, August 8, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendants for failure to pay the Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees for all hours worked, including
overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Ohio's Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a direct-care
assistant from January 2023 until July 2023.
Joy's Place, Inc. is an operator of assisted living facilities in
Geauga County, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert B. Kapitan, Esq.
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
The Heritage Building, Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Boulevard
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
E-mail: robert@lazzarolawfirm.com
anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
JSP LIFE: Fails to Pay Health Aides' OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
--------------------------------------------------------------
LINDON MORRISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JSP LIFE AGENCY INC. d/b/a JSP HOME CARE SERVICES, JOSE
NICANOR RODRIGUEZ and NIEVES RODRIGUEZ, as individuals, Case No.
1:23-cv-06943 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 7, 2023) seeks to recover overtime
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was regularly required to
work 112 hours per week from February 2020 until December 2022
(accounting for short sleep and quick meal breaks only when
possible), and 18 hours per week from January 2023 until present.
The Defendants allegedly did not pay the Plaintiff time and a half
for hours worked over 40 or 44 for residential employees and did
not pay the Plaintiff an extra hour at the legally prescribed
minimum wage for each day worked over 10 hours. The Plaintiff was
paid by the Defendants a flat hourly rate of $30.00 per hour for
all hours worked from February 2020 until present, the suit
claims.
As a result, the Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and
liquidated damages in an amount exceeding $139,590,000. The
Plaintiff also seeks interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all
other legal and equitable remedies this Court deems appropriate.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a home health aide
from February 2020 until present.
JSP is a licensed home care services provider in the New York City
area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
KAYE-SMITH ENTERPRISES: Krefting Suit Moved to District of Oregon
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD KREFTING, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KAYE-SMITH ENTERPRISES INC.
and BOEING EMPLOYEE CREDIT UNION, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-220
(W.D. Wash.), Judge Jamal N. Whitehead of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, transfers the
action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.
Plaintiff Krefting filed this putative class action against
Defendants Boeing Employees' Credit Union ("BECU") and Kaye-Smith
Enterprises on Feb. 17, 2023, alleging damages caused by a data
breach and unauthorized access to his personally identifiable
information. Over 100 days earlier, Richard Smith filed a putative
class action against Kaye-Smith stemming from the same data breach
in the District of Oregon in Smith et al. v. Kaye-Smith Enters.,
Inc., 3:22-cv-01499-AR (D. Or.).
Smith now moves for limited intervention in this action, arguing
Krefting's case should be stayed or transferred to the District of
Oregon under the "first-to-file rule," which permits district
courts to decline jurisdiction over an action when a complaint
involving essentially the same parties and issues has already been
filed in another district.
BECU's printing vendor, Kaye-Smith, experienced a data breach in
June 2022 that affected thousands of BECU customers. BECU notified
its customers, like Krefting and Smith, of the data breach.
Krefting and Smith each filed a putative class action on behalf of
themselves and other BECU members who were impacted by the June
2022 data breach incident involving data stored by Kaye-Smith.
On Oct. 6, 2022, Smith filed his current action against Kaye-Smith
Enterprises in the District of Oregon, on behalf of a nation-wide
class of impacted individuals.
Smith defined the proposed class as follows: All persons residing
in the United States whose personally identifiable information
Kaye-Smith obtained, stored, and/or shared and which was exposed to
an unauthorized party as the result of the data breach referenced
in BECU's correspondence to Plaintiff Smith dated July 25, 2022.
On Feb. 17, 2023, Krefting filed this action against both BECU and
Kaye-Smith Enterprises, on behalf of two classes of individuals, a
nation-wide class and a class of individuals residing in the State
of Washington.
Krefting defines his proposed classes as follows:
Nationwide Class All persons whose Private Information was
compromised as a result of the Data Breach.
Washington Subclass All persons residing in Washington whose
Private Information was compromised as a result of the Data
Breach.
On Jan. 6, 2023, Magistrate Judge Armistead for the District of
Oregon appointed Smith's counsel as interim class counsel in the
Smith Lawsuit.
On April 13, 2023, Smith moved to intervene and to transfer or stay
this action. Kaye-Smith does not oppose the motion. But Krefting
opposes Smith's request. And so does Defendant BECU.
Smith argues that he has a right to intervene in the Krefting
Lawsuit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) or, in the alternative, that
he should be granted permissive intervention under Fed. R. Civ. P.
24(b)(1).
Although Smith has not demonstrated that he is entitled to
intervention as a matter of right, Judge Whitehead is convinced
that Smith should be permitted to intervene permissibly because he
satisfies the requirements of Rule 24(b)(1)(b). Permissive
intervention requires (1) an independent ground for jurisdiction;
(2) a timely motion; and (3) a common question of law and fact
between the movant's claim or defense and the main action. Judge
Whitehead holds that Smith meets the requirements for permissive
intervention. He allows Smith to intervene for the limited purpose
of his request to either transfer the case to the District of
Oregon or to stay the case pending resolution of the Smith
Lawsuit.
Smith seeks to invoke the first-to-file rule, asking the Court to
either transfer the case to be consolidated with the first-filed
Smith Lawsuit or to stay this case pending resolution of the Smith
Lawsuit. In determining whether to apply the first-to-file rule,
courts consider the (1) chronology of the lawsuits, (2) similarity
of the parties, and (3) similarity of the issues.
Judge Whitehead applies the first-to-file rule in this case. Thus,
the only remaining question is whether the case should be stayed or
transferred. He finds that transfer of this case to the District of
Oregon would best serve the interest of justice and efficiency.
Given the similarity of the parties and issues, a transfer of the
action will eliminate the risk of inconsistent rulings and serve
the principles of efficiency, economy, and comity by avoiding
duplicate and inefficient actions proceeding in separate districts.
Whether the cases should be consolidated will be left to the
District of Oregon's sound discretion.
For these reasons, Smith's motion for leave for limited
intervention to transfer or stay action is granted. Smith is
granted limited intervention pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
24(b)(1)(b). Krefting's case and all pending motions are
transferred to the District of Oregon.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 28, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/m9wwzcv8 from Leagle.com.
KOCHAVA INC: Must Face Privacy Class Action, Court Rules
--------------------------------------------------------
David Krueger, Esq., of Benesch, disclosed that in the rapidly
evolving digital world, plaintiffs' attorneys have found renewed
interest in pursuing class action claims under the California
Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) and similar laws, arguing that
third-party companies are unlawfully intercepting and eavesdropping
on their online activity.
The Northern District of California's recent decision in Greenley
v. Kochava, Inc. offers insight on some of the hot issues in the
realm of data privacy for businesses operating in the digital
space, particularly those involved in data brokering and app
development.
Kochava, Inc., the defendant, is a data broker that provides a
software developer kit (SDK) to app developers to assist them in
developing their apps. In return, the app developers allow Kochava
to obtain location data from app users via its SDK. Kochava then
sells customized data feeds to its clients, such as Airbnb,
Disney+, and Kroger, to assist in advertising and analyzing foot
traffic at stores or other locations.
The plaintiff, a California resident, filed a putative class action
suit on behalf of similarly situated California residents, alleging
that Kochava collected personal information, geolocation data, and
communications from his cellular telephone without his consent.
This data included visits to sensitive locations, advertisement
clicks, and specific communications from SDK-installed apps. This
conduct, according to the plaintiff, violated CIPA and the Computer
Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA), amongst other laws.
Kochava moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff had failed to
plausibly allege standing (that is, actual or concrete injury from
the alleged eavesdropping) and plausible claims under California
law. The court found that the plaintiff had legal standing to
pursue his claims, rejecting Kochava's argument that the plaintiff
had consented to the data collection through the installation of
the SDK-embedded third-party apps on his phone. The court noted
that the plaintiff was not only unaware of his ability to opt-out
but also unaware of Kochava's data collection altogether.
The court also found that Kochava's data collection practices could
potentially violate California's privacy laws. The plaintiff
alleged that Kochava had circumvented attempts to safeguard users'
privacy, such as Apple's framework that requires users to
affirmatively opt-in to allowing data brokers to track their device
unique identification number for advertisers on their iPhones. The
court found that the information Kochava allegedly secretly
collected, including geolocation data, sexual orientation, and
medical conditions, is the exact type of personal information users
regularly expect to keep private absent knowing and voluntary
consent and disclosure.
This decision is notable for businesses that collect and use
personal data. Candidly, the court's decision finding that the
plaintiff had standing and plausibly alleged injury is no surprise.
Challenging standing is a hot litigation trend owing to the Supreme
Court's semi-recent decision in Ramirez v. TransUnion. But the
reality is that the Court's decision in Ramirez involved relatively
narrow and specific facts. While challenging standing may be
plausible depending on the specific circumstances, it is -- in the
author's opinion -- generally a waste of time unless the alleged
legal violations are truly technical in nature. And (allegedly)
secretly monitoring someone's online activity and selling
information on their sexual proclivities to interested third party
buyers? Eh, all cases are fact dependent, but that seems hard to
sell as a mere "technical" statutory violation.
Regardless, with respect to the underlying allegations themselves,
Greenley underscores the importance of understanding and complying
with privacy laws and regulations, which require businesses to
inform individuals that their personal data is being collected or
stored and to obtain a written release from the individual.
Businesses that fail to comply with privacy laws could face
lawsuits from individuals who claim that their personal data was
collected or used without their consent.
Businesses should review their data collection and use practices to
ensure they are in compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
They should also consider seeking legal advice to understand the
potential risks and liabilities associated with the use of personal
data. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, staying informed
and proactive is the best defense. [GN]
LADLES SOUPS: Faces Servers' Class Action Over Tip Policy
---------------------------------------------------------
S.C. Lawyers Weekly reports that the plaintiff-server filed this
purported class action, alleging that Ladles Soups restaurants had
a policy of withholding their servers' credit card tips. The Ladles
Soups restaurant for which plaintiff worked is not a party to this
appeal. Since plaintiff had no employment relationship with
appellants (other Ladles Soups restaurants and franchisors), he
lacks standing to sue them under the South Carolina Payment of
Wages Act (SCPWA).
We affirm summary judgment for appellants while certification of
the purported class remained pending.
The Ladles Soups franchise agreement is devoid of any reference to
franchisees' compensation policies. The owner of Ladles Soups-James
Island, the franchise at which plaintiff worked testified in her
deposition that her restaurant operates as an independent
contractor separate and apart from the Franchising Respondents; the
Franchising Respondents had no authority to set Ladles Soups-James
Island's compensation policy; and the Franchising Respondents did
not have a policy for how to handle credit card or cash tips.
Corey Paul, another franchise owner, testified in his deposition
that the franchise agreement did not direct owners how to
compensate employees and there was no policy on how to handle
credit card or cash tips. Julie Dyke, owner of Ladlessoups Mount
Pleasant, also testified in her deposition that there was no
franchise-wide policy about handling credit card tips.
Even if all franchises had a policy of withholding tips, we find no
evidence an agency relationship existed that changed the
relationship of plaintiff to employee-employer with any of the
Respondents. Therefore, we find the circuit court did not err in
granting summary judgment to Respondents on plaintiff's SCPWA claim
because none of the Respondents were plaintiff's employer.
As to the Franchising Respondents, plaintiff further asserts the
circuit court erred in granting summary judgment because there was
a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Respondents came
into possession of credit card tips claimed by plaintiff through
their royalty fees from Ladles Soups franchisees, including Ladles
Soups-James Island. We disagree.
For even a percentage of the tips claimed by plaintiff to have come
into the Franchising Respondents' possession, they would have to
have been first collected by plaintiff's employer, Ladles
Soups-James Island, who would have then had to have paid a portion
of the tips to Ladles Franchising, Inc. The owner of Ladles
Soups-James Island testified in her deposition that she did not pay
a percentage of the tips to the franchise, and plaintiff has not
provided a scintilla of evidence to the contrary.
Viewing the evidence and its reasonable inferences in the light
most favorable to plaintiff, we find the evidence as a whole is
susceptible of only one reasonable inference: that the Franchising
Respondents never came into possession of plaintiff's credit card
tips. Thus, no jury issue existed.
Affirmed.
Chappell v. Ladles Soups -- James Island, LLC (Lawyers Weekly No.
012-034-23, 14 pp.) (Per Curiam) Appealed from Charleston County
Circuit Court (Bentley Price, J.) Benjamin Scott Whaley LeClercq
and David Ashley for appellant; Peter Brandt Shelbourne, Kerry
Koon, Michael Evan Lacke, Paul Ferrara and Janet Kleinhardt Ferrara
for respondents. South Carolina Court of Appeals (unpublished) [GN]
LIFELABS: Settles Class Action Suit Over Cyberattack for $4.9M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Ballard and Tanya Fletcher of CBC report that LifeLabs could
pay at least $4.9 million and up to $9.8 million to settle a
class-action lawsuit arising from a 2019 cyberattack that
compromised patient data.
Claims administrator KPMG, in an emailed statement, also linked to
by LifeLabs' website, said a settlement has been negotiated over
the breach that exposed information from 15 million customers,
primarily in B.C. and Ontario.
If the settlement is approved, the statement said, Canada's largest
lab testing company will pay a guaranteed $4.9 million and up to
$4.9 million more depending on the number of claims made.
Anyone who was a LifeLabs customer on or before Dec. 17, 2019, can
file a claim. They will be eligible for $50 to $150 in
compensation, "from which will be deducted court-approved legal
fees, disbursements and taxes."
"Class members may receive more or less than $50, depending on the
number of claims filed and the legal fees and disbursements
approved by the court," KPMG said.
Class counsel will seek 25 per cent of the settlement for legal
fees.
KPMG said if the settlement is approved, LifeLabs will be released
from all claims and potential claims related to the breach.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice will hold a virtual hearing
on Oct. 25 to consider approval of the settlement and legal fees.
'Significant' breach
In the August 10, 2023 statement, KPMG said personal info from 8.6
million people, including provincial health card numbers, was
stolen. Test requests and results were swiped from 131,957 people.
In December 2019, LifeLabs disclosed the breach. Company president
Charles Brown wrote that information related to about 15 million
customers, mainly in B.C. and Ontario, may have been accessed
during the breach.
LifeLabs pays ransom after cyberattack exposes information of 15
million customers in B.C. and Ontario
B.C. Health Minister Adrian Dix said the province was notified
weeks earlier but did not inform the public right away over
concerns about secondary attacks.
A joint investigation by Ontario and B.C.'s information and privacy
commissioners called the breach "significant."
It found the company failed to implement reasonable safeguards to
protect personal health information, which violated B.C.'s personal
information protection law, Ontario's health privacy law and the
Personal Health Information Protection Act.
LifeLabs failed to protect personal health information of millions,
commissioners say
LifeLabs customers who are members of the class can remain in the
process, object to the settlement or opt out of the settlement,
KPMG said, but those who opt out will not receive any benefits if
the settlement is approved. The firm has details on those options
online.
If approved, KPMG said, further notice will be provided on how to
claim a portion of the settlement funds. [GN]
M & M RENTALS: Settlement Claim Submission Deadline Set Nov. 28
---------------------------------------------------------------
IF YOU RENTED ONE OF DEFENDANTS' APARTMENTS LOCATED AT 102-120 D
STREET, 233 E. FIRST STREET, OR 117 ½ F STREET IN SALIDA,
COLORADO, FROM APRIL 25, 2015 TO THE PRESENT,
THIS CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS.
What's This About and Who's Included? Plaintiffs filed this class
action lawsuit ("Litigation") against the Defendants John G. Mehos,
William G. Mehos, William G. Mehos (in his capacity as trustee of
the William G. Mehos Living Trusts Number 1, Number 2, and Number
3), Constantine Mehos, and M & M Rentals, LLC ("Defendants")
alleging that Defendants violated Plaintiffs' rights by renting out
apartments that were uninhabitable and by wrongfully retaining
tenants' security deposits. Defendant has denied and continues to
deny Plaintiffs' claims, and Defendants deny any wrongdoing or
liability of any kind to Plaintiffs or to any member of the
classes.
Who Is Included In The Settlement Classes? The first class ("Class
1") includes all persons who resided at the D Street apartments on
May 2, 2017. The second class ("Class 2") includes any person whose
security deposits was not returned after renting one of Defendants'
apartments in Salida located at 102-120 D Street apartments, 233 E.
1st Street, and 117 ½ F Street from April 24, 2017 to present. The
third class ("Class 3") includes any person who rented an apartment
from Defendants at 102-120 D Street apartments, 233 E. 1st Street,
and 117 ½ F Street from April 24, 2015 to present.
How Can I Get A Payment? You may be eligible to obtain a payment
based upon your prior tenancy at one of the addresses listed above.
You must qualify and submit a valid Claim Form in order to obtain a
payment. You can complete a paper or online version of a Claim
Form. You must do this by November 28, 2023 Alternatively, you can
visit the Settlement website at www.MehosSettlement.com and fill
out and submit the electric Claim Form by November 28, 2023. You
can request a copy of the Claim Form by calling 1-888-230-0024 or
sending an email to MehosSettlement@atticusadmin.com.
What Happens If I Do Nothing At All? You must timely return a valid
Claim Form to receive a cash payment from this settlement. If you
do nothing, you will get no money from the settlement. But, unless
you exclude yourself, you will not be able to start a lawsuit,
continue with a lawsuit, or be part of any other lawsuit against
Defendants about the legal issues in this case.
Do I Have a Lawyer in the Case? The Court appointed Matthew K.
Hobbs of Matthew K. Hobbs, P.C., P.O. Box 609, Salida, CO 81201,
and Charles J. Cain and Brad Kloewer of Cain & Skarnulis, PLLC,
P.O. Box 1064, Salida, CO 81201 to represent the Class Members.
These lawyers are called Class Counsel. If you want to be
represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own
expense, and enter your appearance in the lawsuit through your own
lawyer.
What Are My Options? If you are a Class member, you have the
following options: (1) submit a claim form to receive a payment;
(2) do nothing and do not receive any payment from this settlement
but remain in the Class(es); (3) exclude yourself from the
Class(es) and settlement; (4) remain in the Class(es) and object to
the settlement; (5) remain in the Class(es) and ask the Court for
permission to speak at the fairness hearing. If you remain in the
settlement, you will be bound by all of the Court's orders and
judgment. Staying in the Class(es) also means that you can't sue or
be part of any other lawsuit against Defendant. For further
information about this lawsuit and settlement and your options, you
may visit the website or call the toll-free number listed below
1-888-230-0024 WWW.MEHOSSETTLEMENT.COM [GN]
MANDERLY GROUP: Fails to Pay Technician's OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE VALENTIN, as an individual and on the behalf of similarly
situated persons v. MANDERLY GROUP I, LLC and JOSHUA DOLGIN
(Individually), Case No. 1:23-cv-05144 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 4, 2023)
seeks to recover overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law for Defendants' failure to
pay overtime wages to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
persons.
The Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees worked in excess of 40
hours per week but Defendants' did not allegedly pay them overtime
wages at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of
pay. For example, the Plaintiff worked 107.5 hours total in the pay
period of Feb. 21, 2022, to March 6, 2022, but was only paid
straight time for 80 hours, the lawsuit claims. Not only did the
Defendants fail to pay Plaintiff time and one-half his regular rate
of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours within a work
week during one or more weeks of employment, but the Defendants
failed to pay the Plaintiff any sum at all for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours within a work week, the suit asserts.
As a result of these alleged practices, the Plaintiff is owed lost
wages and liquidated damages as a result of not being paid
overtime.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a maintenance
technician beginning on October 1, 2022, until his termination on
May 31, 2023.
Manderly Group is a multi-family real estate investment and
property management company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathan C. Volheim, Esq.
Chad W. Eisenback, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Telephone (630) 568-3056
Facsimile: (630) 575-8188
E-mail: nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com
ceisenback@sulaimanlaw.com
MARKETSTAR QOZ: Gustafson Sues Over WARN Act Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Michael Gustafson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MARKETSTAR QOZ BUSINESS, LLC; Case No.
1:23-cv-00080-BSJ (D. Utah, July 3, 2023), is brought for
collection of unpaid wages and benefits for 60 calendar days
pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
of 1988 (the "WARN Act").
The Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant until he was terminated
as part of, or as a result of a mass layoff and/or plant closing
ordered by Defendant. As such, Defendant is liable under the WARN
Act for the failure to provide Plaintiff and the other similarly
situated former employees at least 60 days' advance written notice
of termination, as required by the WARN Act, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff, was an employee who was employed by the Defendant
and worked at or reported to the Ogden Facility until his
termination without cause on June 30, 2023 and thereafter.
The Defendant was a Utah corporation which maintained a facility in
Ogden, UT (the "Ogden Facility").[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
100 Church Street, 8th FL
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 581-5005
Fax: (212) 581-2122
Email: stuart@lankmill.com
- and -
Charles Johnson, Esq.
STRINDBERG SCHOLNICK BIRCH HALLAM HARSTAD THORNE
40 South 600 East
Salt Lake City, Utah 84102
Phone: 801.359.4169
Fax: 801.359.4313
Email: chad@idahojobjustice.com
- and -
Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
THE GARDNER FIRM, PC
210 S. Washington Ave.
Mobile, AL 36602
Phone: (251) 433-8100
Fax: (251) 433-8181
Email: molsen@thegardnerfirm.com
MED SPA HOLDINGS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Dotoli Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA DOTOLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MED SPA HOLDINGS LLC, Defendant, Case No.
0:23-cv-61503-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 7, 2023) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.
MED SPA HOLDINGS LLC Operates beauty and healthcare centers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street Suite 1744
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
MEDBAR CORP: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medbar, Corp. The
case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Medbar, Corp., Case No. 1:23-cv-06878
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 4, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Medbar Corporation -- https://www.medbar.com/ -- wholesales medical
equipments. The Company distributes surgical instruments, dental
and electro-medical equipments, prosthetic appliances, and medical
supplies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
MERCER LAMOUR BRANDS: Shuman Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercer Lamour Brands,
Inc. The case is styled as Mohammad Shuman, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mercer Lamour Brands,
Inc., Case No. CACE23016924 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Aug. 14,
2023).
Mercer Lamour Brands, Inc. doing business as Crooks and Castles --
https://crooksncastles.com/ -- was founded in 2002 by Dennis
Calvero and Rob Panlilio which crafted a clothing brand that
focuses on urban culture and mythology.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Phone: (202) 709-5744
Fax: (866) 893-0416
Email: shawn@sjlawcollective.com
MERCHANTS BUILDING: Carino Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Merchants Building
Maintenance Company. The case is styled as Amber Carino, on behalf
of the general public and all other "aggrieved employees" v.
Merchants Building Maintenance Company, Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 23STCV19383 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
Aug. 14, 2023).
Merchants Building Maintenance -- https://mbmonline.com/ -- is a
facilities services company providing window cleaning
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Otkupman, Esq.
OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC
5743 Corsa Ave., Suite
Westlake Village, CA 91362
Phone: (818) 293-5623
Fax: (888) 850-1310
Email: roman@OLFLA.com
MI MEXICO: Faces Ortega Suit Over Meat Market Staff's Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
RUBEN ORTEGA JUAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MI MEXICO MINI MARKET & GROCERY
INC. (D/B/A MI MEXICO MEAT MARKET), CECILIO LEZAMA, RENE LEZAMA,
and JAEL LEZAMA, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06978 (S.D.N.Y.,
August 8, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law
including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to pay spread of hours wages, failure to furnish
wage notices, and failure to furnish wage statements.
Plaintiff Ortega Juarez was employed by the Defendants at Mi Mexico
Meat Market as a produce clerk from approximately March 2017 until
on or about June 7, 2023.
Mi Mexico Mini Market & Grocery Inc. is an owner and operator of a
Mexican food market under the name Mi Mexico Meat Market, located
at 1526 Westchester Ave., Bronx, 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: Whitley Ordered to File Amended Complaint v. Precythe
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, D'ANDRE WHITLEY, Plaintiff v. ANNE L. PRECYTHE, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00898-MTS (E.D. Mo.), Judge
Matthew T. Schelp of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, orders the Plaintiff to:
a. file a signed, amended complaint on a Court-provided form;
and
b. either pay the $402 filing fee, or a fully-completed
"Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying
Fees or Costs" that is accompanied by the certified inmate
account statement required by 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(2).
The matter is before the Court on review of a complaint that was
purportedly filed by self-represented Whitley. On July 10, 2023, 14
inmates incarcerated at the Missouri Eastern Correctional Center
("MECC") filed a putative "class action" lawsuit pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 against six prison officials. The Plaintiffs
alleged the Defendants violated their federally-protected rights by
allowing them to be restrained while the Correctional Emergency
Response Team searched their housing unit. Although the caption of
the complaint included the Plaintiff's name among the list of
plaintiffs, he did not personally sign the complaint, and he has
neither paid the $402 filing fee nor filed a motion seeking leave
to proceed without prepayment of that fee.
Because the Court does not allow multiple prisoners to join
together in a single lawsuit under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, 13 plaintiffs were severed from the originating case,
and new cases were opened for each one. The case at bar is one of
those cases.
Judge Schelp finds that the complaint is defective because the
Plaintiff did not personally sign it. Rule 11(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure requires an unrepresented party to
personally sign all of his pleadings, motions, and other papers,
and requires courts to strike an unsigned paper unless the omission
is promptly corrected after being called to the party's attention.
Similarly, the Court's Local Rules require self-represented parties
to sign all of their filings.
Additionally, the complaint alleges violations of the rights of a
group of inmates as a whole. While federal law authorizes the
Plaintiff to plead and conduct his own case personally, he lacks
standing to bring claims on behalf of others. Finally, as a
non-attorney, self-represented litigant, the Plaintiff may not
represent another person in federal court.
Because the Plaintiff is self-represented, Judge Schelp gives him
the opportunity to file a signed, amended complaint to set forth
his own claims for relief. The Plaintiff is advised that the
amended complaint will replace the original complaint. It is
important that the Plaintiff allege facts explaining how each the
Defendant was personally involved in and directly responsible for
harming him. If he fails to file an amended complaint on a
Court-provided form within 30 days in accordance with the
instructions set forth, the Court will dismiss the action without
prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff.
Additionally, the Plaintiff must either pay the $402 filing fee, or
file a fully-completed Application to Proceed in District Court
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs that is accompanied by a certified
copy of his inmate account statement detailing his inmate account
for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the
complaint. If he fails to either pay the $402 filing fee or file an
Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or
Costs, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice and
without further notice.
Accordingly, the Clerk will mail to the Plaintiff a copy of the
Court's form Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint Under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983. The Clerk will mail to the Plaintiff a copy of the
Court's form Application to Proceed in District Court Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs.
Within 30 days of the date of the Order, the Plaintiff will file a
signed amended complaint in accordance with the foregoing
instructions.
Within 30 days of the date of the Order, the Plaintiff must either
pay the $402 filing fee, or file an Application to Proceed in
District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs along with 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 the Order, the Court
will dismiss the action without prejudice and without further
notice.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 28, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2sbmbp5d from Leagle.com.
MISSOURI: Wilson v. Precythe Suit Can Proceed in Forma Pauperies
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID WILSON, Plaintiff v. ANNE L. PRECYTHE, WARDEN
HANCOCK, MAJOR MINCHUE, LT. JONES, LT. HANNEWINKLE, and SGT.
McDANIEL, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-CV-00869-NCC (E.D. Mo.),
Magistrate Judge Noelle C. Collins of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, grants Wilson's
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and denies his
motions for appointment of counsel.
The matter comes before the Court on the motion of Wilson for leave
to commence the civil action without prepayment of the required
filing fee. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(b)(1), a prisoner
bringing a civil action in forma pauperis is required to pay the
full amount of the filing fee. If the prisoner has insufficient
funds in his or her prison account to pay the entire fee, the Court
must assess and, when funds exist, collect an initial partial
filing fee of 20% of the greater of (1) the average monthly
deposits in the prisoner's account, or (2) the average monthly
balance in the prisoner's account for the prior six-month period.
After payment of the initial partial filing fee, the prisoner is
required to make monthly payments of 20% of the preceding month's
income credited to the prisoner's account. The agency having
custody of the prisoner will forward these monthly payments to the
Clerk of Court each time the amount in the prisoner's account
exceeds $10, until the filing fee is fully paid.
In support of his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
Wilson has submitted his certified inmate account statement. The
account statement shows an average monthly deposit of $28.27. Judge
Collins therefore assesses an initial partial filing fee of $5.65,
which is 20% of the Plaintiff's average monthly deposit.
Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to
dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. To avoid dismissal, a plaintiff must demonstrate a
plausible claim for relief, which is more than a "mere possibility
of misconduct." When reviewing a pro se complaint under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1915(e)(2), the Court must give it the benefit of a liberal
construction. However, even pro se complaints are required to
allege facts which, if true, state a claim for relief as a matter
of law. In addition, affording a pro se complaint the benefit of a
liberal construction does not mean that procedural rules in
ordinary civil litigation must be interpreted to excuse mistakes by
those who proceed without counsel.
On July 10, 2023, 14 inmates incarcerated at the Missouri Eastern
Correctional Center ("MECC"), including Wilson, 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 Wilson and his fellow inmates to be restrained with
plastic zip-ties for an excessive amount of time while the
Correctional Emergency Response Team searched their housing unit.
The Plaintiff was the only inmate to sign the complaint, file a
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and submit 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, it severed the complaint on July 13, 2023, opening new cases
for the thirteen inmates who had not signed the complaint or the
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. In its order, the
Court noted that this case would proceed as to the Plaintiff only.
The Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant who brings this civil
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging that he was
placed into restraints for an excessive amount of time. Because he
is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court has reviewed his
complaint under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915.
Based on that review, Judge Collins has determined that the
complaint is deficient and subject to dismissal. In particular, he
has no standing to bring claims on behalf of other prisoners.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff has not provided such a statement. That
is, he has not demonstrated that his own constitutional rights were
violated, or identified the defendants who violated them. Instead,
most of the complaint focuses on the experiences of other inmates.
However, because the Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant,
Judge Collins gives him the opportunity to file an amended
complaint in accordance with her instructions described in her
Memorandum and Order. The amended complaint should only contain the
Plaintiff's personal claims, and not claims on behalf of others.
After receiving the amended complaint, the Court will review it
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 he 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, the Plaintiff has filed two motions to appoint counsel.
After reviewing, Judge Collins finds that the appointment of
counsel is not warranted at this time. She has determined that the
Plaintiff's complaint is deficient and has ordered him to file an
amended complaint. She will entertain future motions for
appointment of counsel as the case progresses.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis is granted. The Plaintiff must pay an initial partial
filing fee of $5.65 within 30 days of the date of this Order. He is
instructed to make his remittance payable to "Clerk, United States
District Court," and to include upon it: (1) his name; (2) his
prison registration number; (3) the case number; and (4) the
statement that the remittance is for an original proceeding.
The Plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel are denied at
this time.
The Clerk of Court will send to the Plaintiff a copy of the Court's
prisoner civil rights complaint form. The Plaintiff will file an
amended complaint on the Court-provided form within 30 days of the
date of the Order, in accordance with the instructions set forth in
the Memorandum and Order. If the Plaintiff fails to file an amended
complaint on the Court-provided form within 30 days of the date of
the Order, in accordance with the instructions set forth, the Court
will dismiss the action without prejudice and without further
notice. Upon receipt of the Plaintiff's amended complaint, the
Court will review it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 28, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/fvy65kjs from Leagle.com.
MORRIS MOHAWK: Faces Consumer Class Action in Kentucky
------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Welman, writing for SBC Americas, reports that a new class
action lawsuit in Kentucky is taking a page from the state's
playbook when it comes to dealing with offshore gambling sites.
Kentucky resident Billi Jo Woods filed the class action against the
online gambling site Bovada and its ownership, which includes
Morris Mohawk Gaming Group, Alwyn Morris, Calvin Ayre, and Harp
Media BV.
Woods alleges she lost thousands of dollars gambling on Bovada,
which she alleges violated Kentucky law by accepting wagers from
residents of the state.
Defendants have violated Kentucky law, which governs Plaintiff's
and the Class's claims, and Defendants have illegally profited from
tens of thousands of consumers. Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf
of herself and a Class of similarly situated individuals, brings
this lawsuit to recover their losses, as well as costs and
attorneys' fees," the suit read.
The suit relies on an old Kentucky law that allows those who have
sustained losses from gambling to seek restitution from those that
profited off them. It is the same statute invoked in a 2010 lawsuit
where the state of Kentucky successfully sued PokerStars for $300
million in damages.
The complaint cited both members of Congress and the American
Gaming Association in its assertion that Bovada is not operating
within the scope of the law. It is seeking co-defendants who have
also lost more than $5 in a 24-hour period gambling on the site and
reside in Kentucky.
Woods's suit is accurate that both Congress and the AGA have put
pressure on the Department of Justice to take action against
offshore operators like Bovada and America's Cardroom with no real
results so far. [GN]
MORRIS MOHAWK: Woods Sues Over Illegal Web-Based Gambling
---------------------------------------------------------
BILLI JO WOODS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. MORRIS MOHAWK GAMING GROUP, ALWYN MORRIS, CALVIN AYRE,
and HARP MEDIA BV, Case No. 3:23-cv-00053-GFVT (E.D. Ky., Aug. 8,
2023) alleges that the Defendants have violated Kentucky law, which
governs Plaintiff's and the Class's claims, and Defendants have
illegally profited from tens of thousands of consumers.
The Defendants tout their websites as a "trusted source for gaming
and betting," and state that those "looking to blow off some steam
with a little slot or table game session will find what they're
looking for in our massive Bovada betting casino that offers a Live
Dealer experience plus hundreds of standard web-based games."
Bovada has evaded the laws of Kentucky and other states. Bovada has
advertised and presented itself to consumers in Kentucky as a
legitimate online business. But this is false. In fact, Bovada is
an illegal enterprise. Bovada's online presence and advertising
provided an aura of legitimacy and legality to Plaintiff and class
members, says the suit.
Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and a Class of
similarly situated individuals, brings this lawsuit to recover
their losses, as well as costs and attorneys’ fees. As a result
of the Defendants' operation of its games, the Plaintiff and each
member of the Class have lost money wagering on Defendant' games of
chance.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class, seeks an order
requiring the Defendants to cease operation of its gambling
devices; and/or awarding the recovery of all lost monies, interest,
and reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs to the extent
allowable.
Specifically excluded from the Class are Defendants, Defendants'
officers, directors, agents, trustees, parents, children,
corporations, trusts, representatives, employees, principals,
servants, partners, joint ventures, or entities controlled by
Defendants, and their heirs, successors, assigns, or other persons
or entities related to or affiliated with Defendants and/or
Defendants' officers and/or directors, the judge assigned to this
action, and any member of the judge's immediate family.
Mr. Woods began gambling on the Bovada websites in 2023 and
continued to gamble on www.bovada.lv and www.bovada.com at least
until July 2023.
The Defendants own and operate the online casino
websites,www.bovada.com and www.bovada.lv. offer hundreds of
gambling options on www.bovada.com and www.bovada.lv, including
sports betting, slots, poker, table, and numerous other games.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip G. Fairbanks, Esq.
Bartley K. Hagerman, Esq.
MEHR FAIRBANKS TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
201 West Short Street, Suite 800
Lexington, KY 40507
Telephone: (859) 225-3731
Facsimile: (859) 225-3830
E-mail: pgf@austinmehr.com
bkh@austinmehr.com
- and -
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
Matthew A. Girardi, Esq.
Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
MYLAN NV: Investors Appeal Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Miller of Bloomberg Law reports that Mylan N.V. and multiple
current and former officers should face class action claims that
the pharmaceutical company misled investors by concealing antitrust
price fixing issues and fraud related to EpiPen rebates,
shareholders said in an appeal.
A district court judge shouldn't have tossed the case, because
Mylan hid from the public for more than seven years issues
pertaining to its compliance with government rebate rules and
collusive activity with other generic drugmakers, according to the
filing in the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Mylan allegedly overcharged Medicaid hundreds of millions of
dollars, misclassifying its allergic reaction treatment. [GN]
NETRADUYNE INC: Ross Sues Over Illegal Biometric Info Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erishaun Ross, individual, and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Netraduyne, Inc.; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-01443-LAB-JLB (S.D. Cal., Aug. 7, 2023)
seeks to redress and curtail Defendants' unlawful collections,
obtainments, use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's
sensitive and proprietary biometric identifiers and/or biometric
information, in violation of the Biometric Information Privacy
Act.
The Plaintiff asserts that these biometric identifiers or biometric
information which Netradyne extracts is unique to a particular
individual in the same way that a fingerprint uniquely identifies a
particular individual. Specifically, the van which the Plaintiff
drove for Mercy Home were equipped with Netradyne dash cams. At
times, the Plaintiff would receive alerts that she was exhibiting
distracted driver behavior. Such alerts were premised upon
Netradyne's facial recognition technology. Netradyne collected and
retained Plaintiff's biometric information each time that she drove
a Mercy Home van, the Plaintiff alleges.
The Netradyne had no written policy, made available to the public,
establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently
destroying biometric information when the initial purpose for
collecting or obtaining such biometric information has been
satisfied or within three years of the individual's last
interaction with Netradyne, whichever occurs first. Additionally,
Netradyne disclosed, redisclosed, or otherwise disseminated
Plaintiff's biometric information to its customer -- Mercy Home --
and Netradyne's third party service providers without the
Plaintiff's consent, says the suit.
Netradyne failed to permanently destroy Plaintiff's and the Class
Members' biometric identifiers, or biometric information following
the conclusion of each virtual try-on experience and instead
retained Plaintiff’s and the Class Members' biometric identifiers
or biometric information, the suit added.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Mission of Our Lady Mercy, Inc.
from January 5, 2022, through March 31, 2023.
Netradyne sells proprietary dash cams and accompanying monitoring
platform and services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Leah M. Beligan, Esq.
Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq.
BELIGAN LAW GROUP, LLP
19800 MacArthur Blvd., Ste. 300
Newport Beach, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 224-3881
E-mail: lmbeligan@bbclawyers.net
jbeligan@bbclawyers.net
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
5000 Rockside Road
Liberty Plaza, Suite 520
Independence, OH 44131
Telephone: (216) 525-8890
E-mail: james@bswages.com
- and -
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
FRADIN LAW
8401 Crawford Ave., Ste. 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com
NIO INC: Faces Suit Over False Shanghai Factory Construction
------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Anderson of Carscoops reports that a class of Nio shareholders
are suing the car manufacturer for allegedly lying about building
its own factory in Shanghai as it was gearing up to go public in
the U.S. in 2018.
A U.S. judge has ruled that Nio investors can proceed as a class in
a lawsuit seeking damages from the car manufacturer as well as its
executives and underwriters due to the decline in share price that
occurred in March 2019 when Nio canned its Shanghai factory plants.
This announcement came as a shock and was made despite Nio
asserting that the factory was already "under construction" at the
time of its IPO.
While the defendants have denied the allegations, U.S. District
Judge Nicholas Garaufis issued an order to certify the class of
investors who purchased Nio shares in the September 2018 IPO as
well as a class of investors who purchased shares between October
8, 2018 and March 5, 2019.
Reuters notes that investors believed Nio's planned factory in
Shanghai would alleviate its reliance on a Chinese state-owned
manufacturer that some had viewed as "third tier." Citing former
employees, the lawsuit alleges that construction at the factory
never started due to the lack of necessary construction permits. It
is also alleged that underwriters including Morgan Stanley and
Goldman Sachs did not properly vet the EV maker's statements.
Nio's share price fell approximately 30% when it announced that
plans for the Shanghai factory had been scrapped in March 2019.
While U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis has said the lawsuit
can proceed as a class, Reuters reports that securities class
actions like this rarely go to trial and that they typically result
in a settlement. [GN]
NTA PRECISION: Faces Yates Class Suit Over Biometrics Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTOINETTE YATES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NTA PRECISION AXLE CORP., a foreign
corporation; BARTON STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC., an Illinois
corporation, Case No. 2023LA000824 (Ill. Cir., Aug. 4, 2023) sues
the Defendant for collecting, storing, and using the Plaintiff's
and other similarly situated individuals' biometric identifiers and
biometric information without informed written consent, in direct
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
The Plaintiff contends that NTA has violated (and continues to
violate) the BIPA because it did not:
(i) properly inform the Plaintiff and the Class members in
writing of the specific purpose and length of time for
which their facial geometry scans were being collected,
stored, and used, as required by the BIPA;
(ii) provide a publicly available retention schedule and
guidelines for permanently destroying Plaintiff's and the
Class's facial geometry scans, as required by the BIPA;
nor
(iii) receive a written release from Plaintiff or the members of
the Class to collect, capture, or otherwise obtain facial
geometry scans, as required by the BIPA.
The Plaintiff never signed a written release allowing NTA to
collect or store facial geometry. On behalf of herself and the
Class, the Plaintiff seeks: injunctive and equitable relief as is
necessary to protect the interests of the Plaintiff and the Class
by requiring Defendants to comply with the BIPA's requirements for
the collection, storage, and use of biometric identifiers and
biometric information as described herein; liquidated damages for
each of the Defendant's violations of the BIPA; and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs and expenses pursuant.
The Plaintiff worked for NTA (through Barton Staffing) as a parts
loader on the Assembly Line in Carol Stream, Illinois from June 1,
2022 until October 31, 2022.
NTA manufactures steel products used for automotive and industrial
applications.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cynthia N. Pietrucha, Esq.
PIETRUCHA LAW FIRM, LLC
1717 N. Naper Blvd., Suite 200
Naperville, IL 60563
Telephone: (630) 344-6370
E-mail: cpietrucha@pietruchalaw.com
- and -
Matthew R. Custardo, Esq.
CUSTARDO LAW, LLC
650 Warrenville Road, Suite 100
Lisle, IL 60532
Telephone: (630) 557-1451
E-mail: matthew@custardolaw.com
PRESIDIO BRANDS: Faces Meilan Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
GINGER MEILAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PRESIDIO BRANDS, INC. D/B/A EVERY MAN JACK, Case No.
1:23-cv-22905 (S.D. Fla., Aug. 4, 2023) contends that the Defendant
promotes and markets its goods and services, in part, by sending
unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
On June 17, 2023, July 1, 2023, and July 15, 2023, the Defendant
sent a text message solicitation to the Plaintiff's cellular
telephone.
The Plaintiff registered her cellular telephone number on the
National Do-Not-Call Registry on September 2021. The Plaintiff
never provided her telephone number to the Defendant, and never
signed any type of authorization permitting or allowing the
placement of solicitation text messages, the suit claims.
The Class that the Plaintiff seeks to represent are:
All persons in the United States who from four years prior
to the filing of this action through the date of class
certification (1) the Defendant placed more than one text
message call within any 12-month period; (2) where the
person's telephone number that had been listed on the
National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days; (3)
regarding Defendant’s property, goods, and/or services.
The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's
alleged unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the
peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to the
Plaintiff and the Class members.
The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and
members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies.
The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Miami-Dade County,
Florida.
Presidio Brands is an apparel and accessories company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
PRIORITY DISPATCH: Appeals Dismissal Bid Denial in Peter FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority Dispatch, Inc. filed an appeal from the District Court's
Order dated July 5, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled Glenn
Peter, Kevina Mitchell, Angela Sanchez, Clayton Neel, and Saviour
Banda, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
PRIORITY DISPATCH, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00606-MRB, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this suit was
brought on October 19, 2022, under the Illinois and Michigan wage
laws, the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio
Constitution challenging the unlawful misclassification of the
Plaintiffs as independent contractors instead of employees.
On December 19, 2022, the Defendant filed motion to dismiss and
compel arbitration.
On July 5, 2023, Judge Michael R. Barrett entered an Order denying
Defendant's motion to dismiss. Judge Barrett also denied as moot
Plaintiffs' February 16, 2023 and February 28, 2023 motions for
leave to file a sur-reply to Defendant's motion to dismiss and
compel arbitration.
The appellate case is captioned as Glenn Peter, et al. v. Priority
Dispatch, Inc., Case No. 23-3637, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on Aug. 3, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that appellant
brief is due on September 12, 2023 and appellee brief is due on
October 12, 2023.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant PRIORITY DISPATCH, INC. is represented by:
Russell Jay Taylor, Jr., Esq.
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY
10 W. Market Street, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 637-1777
Plaintiffs-Appellees GLENN PETER, et al., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Matthew W. Thomson, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Hagens Berman Files Data Breach Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Following the 2023 MOVEit data breach, attorneys at leading
consumer-rights law firm Hagens Berman filed five nationwide
class-action lawsuits against Progress Software and various other
organizations for compromising the sensitive personal information
of an estimated 40 million people.
If your personal data was compromised in the 2023 MOVEit data
breach, fill out the form to find out your rights.
Data compromised in the 2023 MOVEit data breach includes contact
information, dates of birth, social security numbers, pension
information, medical records, billing data and banking information.
More than 600 organizations were hacked, including banks, schools
and government agencies.
"This is a cybersecurity disaster of staggering proportions," said
Sean Matt, partner at Hagens Berman and attorney leading the
lawsuits against Progress. "Millions of individuals are now at the
mercy of cybercriminals due to a single security vulnerability in
the design of the MOVEit software. The data compromised in this
incident — social security numbers, banking information and even
the names of people's children — will undoubtedly lead to years
of strife and concern."
"This is not just a data breach, but an unacceptable breach of the
public's trust in Progress and other companies that have a
responsibility to protect the private data they collect," Matt
added.
Hagens Berman filed its latest class-action lawsuit against
Progress Software on Aug. 15, 2023, accusing it of negligence,
unjust enrichment and breach of contract. The firm's prior lawsuits
against Progress also name Johns Hopkins University and Health
System, Pension Benefit Information and PBI Research Services.
The firm plans to file additional complaints against other
co-defendants involved in the data breach. According to attorneys,
the full scope of other involved parties is still being revealed,
and those affected will be made aware via mailed letters detailing
the breach of their sensitive information by Progress Software's
MOVEit.
How Progress Failed to Live Up to Its Promises
According to the lawsuit, in June 2023, hackers from the well-known
Russian cybergang, Clop, discovered a security vulnerability in
MOVEit, a managed file transfer software owned by Progress Software
used by many organizations to store, manage and distribute
information. Progress markets MOVEit as a software that "guarantees
the security of sensitive files both at-rest and in-transit," and
promises data security compliance.
The vulnerability had existed since 2021, according to the lawsuit,
but was never rectified due to Progress's negligence, and hackers
were able to exploit this vulnerability and gain access to
sensitive personal data collected by organizations that used the
software, the lawsuit states.
Because many of the organizations impacted by the data breach
handle data on behalf of others, who in turn received that data
from third parties, the security vulnerability discovered in the
MOVEit software and Progress's reckless mismanagement of its data
allowed hackers to slip past the defenses of a vast, interconnected
web of companies and institutions.
The list of affected organizations continues to grow, according to
attorneys.
Attorneys say Progress failed those whose data it stored in several
key manners, including its failure to monitor and maintain basic
network safeguards, failing to maintain adequate data retention
policies, not training staff on data security, failing to comply
with industry standards of data security, and failing to encrypt
users' private Information, among other shortcomings that led to
the compromised information of tens of millions of people.
"Progress and others using the MOVEit software were regularly
handling essentially the most important and sensitive personal
information of millions of individuals, liaising with government
entities, insurers, and health care providers," Matt said.
"Progress had every reason to anticipate cybercrimes, yet it did
little to prevent them, and its negligence falls just short of
welcoming hackers through the front door with open arms."
Even in the wake of this massive data breach, attorneys say
Progress has made no assurances that it has adequately enhanced its
data security practices to sufficiently safeguard from a similar
vulnerability in MOVEit in the future.
What Action Should Be Taken by Those Impacted by the MOVEit Data
Breach?
The lawsuit states, "Hackers such as Clop can and do offer for sale
unencrypted, unredacted Private Information to criminals. The
exposed Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members can, and
likely will, be sold repeatedly on the dark web."
Hagens Berman's attorneys suggest that anyone who believes they may
have been affected monitor their financial accounts for any
suspicious activity. Experts recommend consumers freeze their
credit with all three credit reporting agencies. If you elect to
use any paid service to protect yourself from identity theft
because of the MOVEit data breach, be sure to save receipts
itemizing your payments. You may be eligible for reimbursement
through future legal actions.
Hagens Berman has extensive experience litigating cases of this
nature. The firm was one of only a select few chosen to lead the
lawsuits against T-Mobile for its 2021 breach, in response to which
the carrier has agreed to pay $350 million into a settlement fund
for customers. The firm has also filed a case against T-Mobile on
behalf of more than 37 million consumers whose data was compromised
in a separate 2022 data breach, among other cybersecurity cases.
Find out more about Hagens Berman's lawsuits on behalf of people
impacted by the 2023 MOVEit data breach.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation law
firm with a tenacious drive for achieving real results for those
harmed by corporate negligence and fraud. Since its founding in
1993, the firm's determination has earned it numerous national
accolades, awards and titles of "Most Feared Plaintiff's Firm,"
MVPs and Trailblazers of class-action law. More about the law firm
and its successes can be found at www.hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm
for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw.
Contacts
Ash Klann
ashk@hbsslaw.com
206-623-9363 [GN]
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Faces Data Breach Class Action in Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Styf, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that plaintiff
Kenneth Okonoski filed a class action lawsuit against Progressive
Casualty Insurance Co. as one of the approximately 347,100
customers who were part of a Progressive data breach.
Progressive failed to safeguard personal identifiable information
including names, addresses, Social Security numbers, driver's
license numbers and financial information of its customers and
allowed that information to be viewed and stolen, the Progressive
class actions alleges.
"For the rest of their lives, plaintiff and the class Members will
have to deal with the danger of identity thieves possessing and
misusing their Private Information," the data breach class action
states. "Plaintiff and class members will have to spend time
responding to the Breach and are at an immediate, imminent, and
heightened risk of all manners of identity theft as a direct and
proximate result of the data breach."
Third-party call center employees shared Progressive login
credentials with unauthorized users, class action says
Progressive learned May 19 that some of its third-party call center
employees had shared login credentials with unauthorized
individuals, who then accessed the Progressive system and data.
The unauthorized access could have potentially been ongoing over a
long period of time. Some of the employees started at the company
in 2021 but most were hired during or after fall 2022, the data
breach class action claims.
Progressive then notified potentially affected customers Aug. 1,
nearly three months after it initially learned of the Progressive
data breach, according to the class action.
Progressive faced a class action lawsuit in 2021 that claimed the
company would systematically lower the cash value of loss vehicles
in Pennsylvania by applying erroneous adjustments in order to pay
less for total loss claims.
Was your personal information revealed in the Progressive data
breach? Let us know in the comments.
The plaintiff is represented by William B. Federman of Federman and
Sherwood.
The Progressive data breach class action lawsuit is Okonoski v.
Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., Case No. 1:23-cv-01548-PAG, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio Eastern
Division Cleveland. [GN]
QUICK MED: Moore Sues Over Radiology Technologists' Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID MOORE On behalf of himself and all others similarly-situated
v. QUICK MED URGENT CARE, LLC, QUICK MED URGENT CARE OF YOUNGSTOWN,
LLC, and QUICK MED URGENT CARE OF CORTLAND, LLC, Case No.
4:23-cv-01535-JRA (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 7, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants allegedly never paid overtime to Mr. Moore or other
Radiology Technologist overtime when they worked more than 40 hours
in a single week, or even when they worked more than 80 hours in a
two week pay period. The Defendants further failed to pay Mr. Moore
and other Radiology Technologist overtime pay through a policy and
practice of requiring these employees to clock out when they
travelled between Quick Med locations, and to then clock back in
when they arrived at the Quick Med location they were travelling
to, the Plaintiff claims.
Mr. Moore and the FLSA Collective Class Members are entitled to all
legal and equitable remedies, including back pay, liquidated
damages, pre-judgment and post-litigation costs, and other
compensation pursuant to the FLSA. The FLSA Collective Class
Members are all current and former non-exempt employees of the
Defendants who (1) who were paid on an hourly basis, (2) who worked
40 or more hours during any single week of their employment, and
(3) were not paid overtime when they worked 40 or more hours in a
single workweek.
Mr. Moore was employed by the Defendants as a radiology
technologist on October 27, 2021.
Quick Med owns and operates multiple urgent care health facilities
throughout northern Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris Wido, Esq.
SPITZ, THE EMPLOYEE'S ATTORNEY
25825 Science Park Drive, Suite 200
Beachwood, OH 44122
Telephone: (216) 291-4744
Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
E-mail: Chris.Wido@Spitzlawfirm.com
R.T.G. FURNITURE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Williams Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
TONY WILLIAMS and TRAVIS HOUSTON, and other similarly-situated
individuals v. R.T.G. FURNITURE CORP, d/b/a ROOMS TO GO, a Florida
Profit Corporation, and SE INDEPENDENT DELIVERY SERVICES, INC., a
Florida Profit Corporation, Case No. 8:23-cv-01755 (M.D. Fla., Aug.
4, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime
compensation due to misclassification of employee status under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
In 2019, the Plaintiffs were employed in managerial level
positions, performing duties which qualified them as exempt
employees under the FLSA. However, during mid-late 2019, the
Defendant SEIDS transitioned more of its management
responsibilities for warehousing and distribution duties at the
RTG-owned warehouse where Plaintiffs worked to members of RTG's
management. The Plaintiffs' performance of non-managerial and/or
nonexempt work accounted for the majority of the work the
Plaintiffs performed during each work week after January 2020.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as nonexempt employees,
performing majority nonmanagerial work duties, from January 2020,
through the end of their employment with the Defendants, on
September 10, 2020.
Despite the removal of the Plaintiffs' managerial duties and
responsibilities and assignment of majority non-managerial duties,
the Plaintiffs continued to only be paid a set salary, without
making any provision for the payment of overtime pay for the hours
worked in excess of 40 in a given work week, says the suit.
On September 10, 2020, the Plaintiffs were terminated from their
employment with the Defendants by RTG human resources.
The Plaintiffs were originally hired by SEIDS in or around 1996.
R.T.G. Furniture Corporation is an American furniture company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Peter M. Hoogerwoerd, Esq.
Corey L. Seldin, Esq.
REMER, GEORGES-PIERRE & HOOGERWOERD, PLLC
2745 Ponce De Leon Blvd.
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 416-5000
E-mail: pmh@rgph.law
cseldin@rgph.law
RYS HOLDINGS: Property Not Accessible to Disabled, Foster Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
LELAND FOSTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RYS HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-01545-JJH (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 8, 2023) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff patronized the Scramblers
restaurant on the Defendant's property, and he plans to return to
the property to avail himself of the goods and services offered to
the public at the property. The Plaintiff has encountered
architectural barriers at the subject property. The barriers to
access at the property have endangered his safety and protected
access to the Defendant's place of public accommodation, the suit
asserts.
The Plaintiff seeks injunction requiring the Defendants to make
such readily achievable alterations as are legally required to
provide full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,
facilities, privileges, and advantages on its property to disabled
persons.
RYS HOLDINGS, LLC owns and operates the property a shopping center
known as "Executive Shoppes at Secor" located at Lucas County,
Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF OWEN DUNN, JR.
6800 W. Central Ave., Suite C-1
Toledo, OH 43617
Telephone: (419) 241-9661
Facsimile: (419) 241-9737
Email: dunnlawoffice@sbcglobal.net
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Certification Motion Dismissal Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------
Nikiforos Iatrou, Esq., Casey Halladay, Esq., and Akiva Stern,
Esq., of McCarthy Tétrault, disclosed that the Federal Court of
Appeal has upheld the Federal Court's dismissal of a certification
motion in Jensen v Samsung Electronics Co Ltd (2021 Federal Court
1185). The appeal stems from the underlying Federal Court decision
of Justice Gascon (the 'motion judge') and follows its Quebec
counterpart's ruling in Hazan v Micron Technology Inc (2023 QCCA
132), which upheld a lower court's decision to scrutinise a class
action at the authorisation phase where the plaintiff's pleadings
were "mere assertions" (2023 QCCA 132 at para 10).
Background
The plaintiffs in Jensen commenced the proposed class action in May
2018, seeking C$1 billion in damages from the defendants: three
leading manufacturers of dynamic random-access memory chips (DRAM),
a kind of semiconductor memory chip used in most computer products,
including mobile phones and laptops. The plaintiffs alleged that
the defendants breached Sections 45 and 46 of the Canadian
Competition Act by conspiring through direct communications in
private meetings and public statements - or signalling - to each
other to suppress the global supply of DRAM and increase DRAM
prices.
In February 2019 the plaintiffs brought a motion to certify the
action as a class proceeding.
The lower court's decision
At the Federal Court of Canada, the motion judge dismissed the
plaintiffs' motion because their claim disclosed no reasonable
cause of action for breach of Sections 45 or 46 of the act (2021
Federal Court 1185 at para 69). The motion judge concluded that, at
best, the facts pleaded would support an allegation that the
defendants had engaged in "conscious parallelism", which is not in
and of itself unlawful, nor is it sufficient to establish the
defendants entered into an unlawful agreement - an "essential and
prominent" component of a Section 45 conspiracy (2021 Federal Court
1185 at para 147; 2023 FCA 89 at para 59, citing 2021 Federal Court
1185 at para 146):
[T]he Statement of Claim essentially invents a fictitious scenario
of intent, communications and coordination between the Defendants
that do not exist in or flow from the documents the Plaintiffs
claim to paraphrase.
Given the absence of material facts to support the plaintiffs'
conspiracy claim, the motion judge held that the plaintiffs were
similarly unable to establish the minimum evidentiary basis (ie,
"some basis in fact") for their proposed common issues.
The appeal
The plaintiffs appealed the decision of the motion judge, who they
alleged erred in finding that the plaintiffs' claim did not plead a
reasonable cause of action and that the plaintiffs failed to
provide some basis in fact for the conspiracy-related common
issues.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, "wholeheartedly" agreeing
with the motion judge's approach to certification:
No rubber stamping
The court's role and duty must go beyond conducting a symbolic
review of a proposed class action at the certification stage. The
certification process is a "meaningful screening device" for
speculative claims. The analysis at this stage must be more than
superficial.
Probing the evidence
While courts should refrain from conducting a full-blown merits
analysis on certification, they should not allow purely speculative
pleadings to be certified. Striking this balance requires the
courts to engage in some level of evidentiary investigation to
ensure that the allegations fairly represent the underlying
evidence relied on to support their claim.
No change in law
The court rejected the plaintiffs' submission that their approach
to the evidentiary investigation was a departure from the
traditional two-step approach set out in Hollick v Toronto (City)
(2001 SCC 68). In fact, it held that the test could not reasonably
be applied without first deciding whether there is some basis for
the allegations - which requires a review of some minimal
evidence.
The appeal court stressed that even at the certification stage, the
allegations and the material facts and evidence put forward by the
plaintiff need to be scrutinised. Such analysis does not uproot the
entire class proceedings scheme as a result.
Key takeaways
The Federal Court of Appeal's decision sets out clearly how courts
should strike the proper balance between assessing minimal evidence
to support a claim and avoiding a full merits analysis. Both the
Court of Appeal and the motion judge rejected the plaintiffs'
contention that a requirement to lead some evidence to substantiate
the allegations would necessitate a merits analysis at
certification. While this evidentiary burden is low, it "cannot be
so low as to be devoid of any meaning" (2023 FCA 89 at para 69).
The decision also builds on the Federal Court of Appeal's
commentary in Mohr v Hockey Canada (2022 FCA 145; leave to appeal
to the Supreme Court denied in 2023 CanLII 31588 (SCC)) on the
scope of permissible evidence in these types of motions, dismissing
the notion that courts are confined solely to the pleadings in
determining whether they disclose a reasonable cause of action.
[GN]
SANTO DOMINGO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, De La Cruz Says
---------------------------------------------------------
MODESTO DE LA CRUZ; MONICA LOPEZ; and ANGELA CONTRERAS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. SANTO DOMINGO STOP RESTAURANT, INC.; RAFAEL
CONCEPCION; and MARIA CONCEPCION, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-04206 (D.N.J., Aug. 7, 2023) is an action against the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Plaintiff De La Cruz was employed by the Defendants as delivery
driver. Plaintiff Lopez was employed as cook's helper. Plaintiff
Contreras was employed as waitress.
SANTO DOMINGO STOP RESTAURANT, INC. owns and operates chain of
restaurants in Newark, and New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Harrison, Esq.
HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOC., LTD
110 State Highway 35, 2nd Floor
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (888) 239-4410
Email: dharrison@nynjemploymentlaw.com
SENTAI FILMWORKS: Discloses Viewers' Info to Meta, James Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK JAMES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SENTAI FILMWORKS, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-03928 (N.D.
Cal., Aug. 4, 2023) sues the Defendant for collecting and sharing
highly sensitive and specific information about consumers' video
consumption habits without their informed written consent, in
violation of the Video Privacy Protect Act.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant disclosed personally
identifiable information (PII) -- including a record of every
documentary video consumed by the Plaintiff and class members—to
unrelated third parties without their informed written consent. The
Defendant allegedly installed computer code on its website, called
the "Meta Tracking Pixel," which tracks and records the Plaintiff
and Class members' private video consumption. This code collects
the Plaintiff and class members' video-watching history and
discloses it to Meta Platforms, Inc. Meta, in turn, uses the
Plaintiff and class members' video consumption habits to deliver
targeted advertisements to them, says the Plaintiff.
Accordingly, when a visitor watches a video on Hidive while logged
into Facebook, Hidive compels a visitor's browser to transmit an
identifying "computer cookie" to Meta called "c_user," for every
single event sent through the Meta Tracking Pixel. The c_user
cookie contains that visitor's unencrypted Facebook ID. By
compelling a visitor's browser to disclose the c_user and fr
cookies alongside event data for videos, Sentai knowingly discloses
information sufficiently permitting an ordinary person to identify
a specific individual's video viewing behavior, the Plaintiff
claims.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of similarly situated
individuals defined as all persons in the United States who have
Facebook and hidive.com accounts, and viewed videos on hidive.com
on or before December 24, 2022.
Mr. James created a hidive.com account In December 2021 and began
paying for a subscription to watch videos on the website.
Sentai develops, owns, and operates hidive.com, a streaming video
platform broadcasting over 500 different types of anime
videos.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
Stefan Bogdanovich, 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: ltfisher@bursor.com
ndeckant@bursor.com
sbogdanovich@bursor.com
SERVE AUTOMATION: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Ramos Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM RAMOS, on behalf of the State of California, and others
similarly situated and aggrieved, v. SERVE AUTOMATION INC., a
Delaware Corporation; CULINARY SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., a
California Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
23STCV18704 (Cal. Super., Aug. 7, 2023) alleges that the Defendants
failed to compensate the Plaintiff and aggrieved employees for all
hours worked, resulting in the underpayment of minimum and overtime
wages.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to compensate the
Plaintiff and aggrieved employees for all hours worked by virtue
of, Defendants' automatic deduction and time rounding policies, and
failure to relieve employees of all duties/employer control during
unpaid meal periods or otherwise unlawful practices for missed or
improper meal periods
The aggrieved employees were also required to complete
off-the-clock work outside of scheduled shifts due to work-related
phone calls and/or messages they received to their phones/mobile
devices and were required to respond to, including communications
from supervisors regarding scheduling and/or other work tasks,
resulting in the underpayment of wages owed to aggrieved employees,
the Plaintiff adds.
Accordingly, the aggrieved employees were not paid for all hours
worked due to the Defendants' policy and/or practice of paying
according to scheduled hours worked instead of actual time worked,
time rounding policies and practices, and/or mandated off-the-clock
work policies and/or practices. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks to
recover civil penalties (75% payable to the Labor and Workforce
Development Agency and 25% payable to aggrieved employees) for the
Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff brings this action under the PAGA, as a
representative action on behalf of the State of California and all
aggrieved employees. The "Aggrieved Employees" include:
a. All non-exempt workers who were directly employed by Culinary
Services of America regardless of where those non-exempt
workers were assigned or staffed to work -- in California at
any time from one year plus 65 days from the filing of the
initial Complaint through the present ("PAGA Period");
b. All non-exempt workers who were assigned/staffed to work at
Serve Automation by Culinary Services of America and/or any
other staffing/temporary service agencies at any location in
California at any time during the PAGA Period; and
c. All non-exempt workers who were directly employed by Serve
Automation to work at any location in California at any time
during the PAGA Period.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee
with a job title of general helper and/or a similar title(s) and/or
similar position(s) from August 2022, through April 3, 2023.
Serve Automation operates under the name Stellar Pizza. It owns,
operates, and/or manages multiple California locations, including
the yards, offices, trucks and/or facilities and/or other
location(s) in Hawthorne and Gardena, California.[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
SHAKE SHACK: Fails to Pay Restaurant Managers' OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROXANNE TETREAULT, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated v. SHAKE SHACK ENTERPRISES, LLC, Case No. CACE-23-016623
(Fla. Cir., Aug. 8, 2023) sues the Defendant for failing to pay
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all current and
former overtime-wage exempt Restaurant Managers at any level below
the level of Assistant General Manager or General Manager employed
by the Defendant in the United States at any time within the
applicable liability period.
Shake Shack classifies its RMs as exempt from the overtime pay
requirements, yet requires the Plaintiff and other RMs to perform
primary duties that are non-exempt in nature, including preparing
and cooking food, working on the expo line, stocking, counting
inventory, cleaning, running the cash register, and providing
customer service, the Plaintiff asserts.
Because RMs are classified as exempt, Shake Shack has uniformly
failed to accurately track or record hours worked by RMs and has
failed to pay the Plaintiff and other RMs for all hours worked, as
well as overtime premium pay for hours worked over 40 in a
workweek, the Plaintiff claims.
The Plaintiff was employed by Shake Shack as an RM in Florida, and
regularly worked over 40 hours in a workweek for Shake Shack's
benefit.
Shake Shack is an American fast casual restaurant chain based in
New York City.[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
SKYBRIDGE CAPITAL: Faces Rabbitte Suit Over FTX Fraud Conspiracy
----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK RABBITTE, MARK GIRSHOVICH, BRANDON ORR, LEANDRO CABO, RYAN
HENDERSON, MICHAEL LIVIERATOS, ALEXANDER CHERNYAVSKY, GREGG
PODALSKY, VIJETH SHETTY, CHUKWUDOZIE EZEOKOLI, MICHAEL NORRIS,
EDWIN GARRISON, SHENGYUN HUANG, JULIE PAPADAKIS, VITOR VOZZA, KYLE
RUPPRECHT, WARREN WINTER, AND SUNIL KAVURI, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. SKYBRIDGE CAPITAL II,
LLC, SEQUOIA CAPITAL OPERATIONS, LLC, THOMA BRAVO, LP, PARADIGM
OPERATIONS LP, MULTICOIN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC, TIGER GLOBAL
MANAGEMENT, LLC, RIBBIT MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, ALTIMETER CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT, LP, AND K5 GLOBAL ADVISOR, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-22949
(S.D. Fla., Aug. 7, 2023) contends that MDL Defendants directly
perpetrated, conspired to perpetrate, and/or aided and abetted the
FTX Group's multi-billion-dollar fraud for their own financial and
professional gain.
According to the complaint, because of these schemes, the FTX Group
imploded, and over $30 billion in value evaporated almost overnight
when the FTX Group filed its emergency Chapter 11 bankruptcy
petition in Delaware. FTX experienced a meteoric rise in success
due in no small part to an aggressive promotional campaign
bankrolled and supported by Domestic VC Defendants Sequoia, Thoma
Bravo, Paradigm, SkyBridge, Multicoin Capital, Tiger Global, Ribbit
Capital, Altimeter, and K5 Global. By October 2021, after securing
another series of investments, FTX Trading had reached a valuation
of $25 billion, representing a sizable and speedy return on the
Domestic VC Defendants' initial investments, the suit says.
Allegedly, in March 2022, SBF met with Mr. David Soloman, CEO of
Goldman Sachs, to discuss FTX's IPO. With the prospect of an IPO
imminent, Domestic VC Defendants could cash out with massive
returns on their equity stakes and leave Class Members to bear the
losses resulting from SBF's fraud. But this was all predicated on
keeping customer deposits flowing into FTX accounts, and concealing
SBF's fraud until just after the sale.
The Plaintiffs seek an order enjoining the Domestic VC Defendants
from continuing to conduct business through fraudulent or unlawful
acts and practices and to commence a corrective advertising
campaign. On behalf of the Classes, the Plaintiffs also seek an
order for the restitution of all monies made from these Domestic VC
Defendants' investments in or other business dealings with FTX,
which were made resulting from acts of fraudulent, unfair, or
unlawful competition.
Mr. Rabbitte purchased or held legal title to and/or a beneficial
interest in any fiat or crypto currency deposited or invested
through an FTX Platform.
SkyBridge is an alternative asset manager with its principal office
in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
Anny M. Martin, Esq.
Eric I. Niehaus, Esq.
Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
Patton L. Johnson, Esq.
Kenneth P. Dolitsky, Esq.
Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
Hadiya K. Deshmukh, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 750-3000
Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
amartin@rgrdlaw.com
ericn@rgrdlaw.com
bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
pjohnson@rgrdlaw.com
kdolitsky@rgrdlaw.com
shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
hdeshmukh@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
John C. Herman, Esq.
Candace smith, Esq.
HERMAN JONES LLP
3424 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 1650
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: (404) 504-6555
Facsimile: (404) 504-6501
E-mail: jherman@hermanjones.com
csmith@hermanjones.com
- and -
David Boies, Esq.
Alexander Boies, Esq.
Brooke Alexander, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Telephone: (914) 749-8200
E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com
aboies@bsfllp.com
balexander@bsfllp.com
- and -
Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
3250 Mary Street, Suite 202
Coconut Grove, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 740-1423
E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com
joseph@moskowitz-law.com
STAR SNACKS: Copeland Sues Over Mislabeled Cashew Products
----------------------------------------------------------
GLADYS COPELAND; and MARIE MCFARLAND, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STAR SNACKS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00468 (M.D. Ala., Aug. 8, 2023) is an
action alleging that the Defendant's marketing of its Imperial
Whole Cashews violates Alabama and federal food laws.
According to the complaint, expecting that the product was only
whole cashews as depicted on the front label in large font listing
"WHOLE CASHEWS" and the picture on the front of the package, the
Plaintiffs were surprised and disappointed when they opened said
product and learned of its true contents; such was not whole
cashews. The Defendant markets a product that is deceptively
labeled and formed as only WHOLE CASHEWS, when the containers are
actually a mixture of some whole but predominately splits and
pieces of cashews, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs and other class members would not have even
purchased the product at all had they known that the Product was
principally partial nuts and not as represented. The Plaintiffs and
class members in purchasing the product suffered injury in fact and
lost money as a result of Defendant's false, unfair, and misleading
practices, as described herein, the suit alleges.
Star Snacks Company., LLC manufactures and distributes nuts and
seeds. The Company offers cashews, pea, almonds, mixed, and
pistachio nuts, as well as edible sunflower seeds and dried fruits.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles M. Thompson, Esq.
2539 John Hawkins Pkwy.
Suite 101-149
Hoover, AL 35244
Telephone: (205) 995-0068
Facsimile: (866) 610-1650
Email: cmtlaw@aol.com
- and -
R. Stephen Griffis, Esq.
R. STEPHEN GRIFFIS, PC
2100 Riverhaven Drive, Suite 1
Hoover, AL 35244
Telephone: (205) 402-7476
Email: rsglaw@bellsouth.net
SWCA INC: Fails to Pay OT & Double Time Wages, Shreckengost Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RANIE SHRECKENGOST, individually and for others similarly situated
v. SWCA, INCORPORATED, an Arizona for-profit corporation, Case No.
2:23-at-00755 (E.D. Cal., Aug. 4, 2023) alleges that the Defendant
deprived the straight time employees of "time and a half" overtime
pay, as well as "double time" pay they are owed for all hours
worked after 12 in a day and after eight on their seventh
consecutive workday, in violation of the California Labor Code and
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.
The straight time employees regularly worked more than 40 hours a
week. But SWCA did not pay its straight time employees overtime or
double time. Instead, SWCA paid the Straight Time Employees the
same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those after 8 in a
day and 40 in a week. Specifically, SWCA paid Ms. Shreckengost
approximately $26/hour for all hours worked, including those after
8 in a workday and/or 40 in a workweek, the suit claims.
In addition, SWCA also uniformly failed to provide the straight
time employees with compliant meal and rest periods. Despite
depriving their required meal and rest periods, SWCA uniformly
failed to pay these employees the required one hour of premium pay
for each day SWCA denied them an off-duty meal or rest period,
asserts the suit.
The Putative Class of similarly situated employees is defined as:
All employees who worked for, or on behalf of, SWCA in
California who were paid straight time for overtime at any
Time during the past 4 years (the "Straight Time
Employees").
The Plaintiff worked for SWCA as a field biologist in and around
Sacramento, California from August 2021 until May 2022.
SWCA is a global environmental consulting firm with operations
across the country, including in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William M. Hogg, Esq.
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: whogg@mybackwages.com
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
SWEETWATER FRANCHISE: Faces Turner Class Suit Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action alleges that potentially thousands of current and former
Sonic Drive-In employees have had their personal information
exposed in a data breach Sweetwater Franchise Group, LLC and
Alford, Holloway, & Smith, PLLC (AHS) failed to prevent.
The 35-page case explains that public accounting firm AHS provides
financial services for Sonic franchisee Sweetwater, which operates
approximately 30 locations throughout Florida, Mississippi and
Texas. On February 23 of this year, AHS discovered that an
unauthorized party had accessed its network and stolen files that
contained private data belonging to employees who have worked at
one of Sweetwater's Sonic locations within the past decade, the
complaint claims.
According to the lawsuit, the cyberattack compromised employees'
names and Social Security numbers.
The filing argues that the incident was a direct result of the
defendants' failure to properly safeguard the personal information
by implementing adequate cybersecurity measures. Per the suit, AHS
received employees' unencrypted data from Sweetwater, which it then
stored in an "Internet-accessible environment."
"The unencrypted [personally identifiable information] of [the
plaintiff] and Class Members may end up for sale on the dark web,
or simply fall into the hands of companies that will use the
detailed [personally identifiable information] for targeted
marketing without the approval of [the plaintiff] and Class
Members," the case says, stressing that victims now face a
significant risk of identity theft and fraud due to the defendants'
negligence.
The plaintiff, whose employment at Sweetwater's Sonic restaurant in
Wauchula, Florida ended about 10 years ago, says she received a
notice on July 17 informing her that her information was involved
in the data breach.
Not only was the letter sent by AHS unreasonably delayed, but it
also failed to disclose the specific vulnerabilities and root
causes of the intrusion, the complaint contends.
The filing alleges that AHS's and Sweetwater's handling of employee
data was out of line with industry standards and has subjected
those whose information was exposed to "years of constant
surveillance of their financial and personal records, monitoring,
and loss of rights."
To make matters worse, the defendants "knew or should have known
that AHS's computer systems were a target for cybersecurity
attacks, including attacks involving data theft, because warnings
were readily available and accessible via the internet," the suit
claims.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone whose personally identifiable
information was actually or potentially compromised in the data
breach that is the subject of the notice AHS sent to the plaintiff
and class members on or around July 17, 2023. [GN]
SYRACUSE ASC: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Greco Class Suit Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GRETCHEN GRECO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff-Respondent v. SYRACUSE ASC,
LLC, DOING BUSINESS AS SPECIALTY SURGERY CENTER OF CENTRAL NEW
YORK, Defendant-Appellant (Appeal No. 1.), 228 CA 22-01218 (N.Y.
App. Div.), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New
York, Fourth Department, reverses the appeal from the order of
Judge Donald A. Greenwood of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County,
entered June 28, 2022, denying the motion of the Defendant to
dismiss the complaint.
The order insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the
law without costs, the motion to dismiss the complaint is granted,
and the complaint is dismissed.
The Plaintiff commenced the putative class action seeking to
recover damages allegedly arising when an unknown third party
gained unauthorized access to certain personal information
belonging to her and others, which was stored on the Defendant's
computer system. The Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on
the ground that, inter alia, the Plaintiff lacked standing to bring
the action because she had not alleged an injury-in-fact. In Appeal
No. 1, the Defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from that
part of an order denying its motion to dismiss the complaint. In
Appeal No. 2, it appeals from a subsequent order denying its motion
to stay all proceedings pending the Court's resolution of Appeal
No. 1.
In Appeal No. 1, the Appellate Division agrees with the Defendant
that Supreme Court erred in denying its motion to dismiss the
complaint. In order to possess standing, the Plaintiff was
required, inter alia, to have suffered "an injury-in-fact." The
injury-in-fact requirement necessitates a showing that the party
has an actual legal stake in the matter being adjudicated and that
the party has suffered a cognizable harm that is not tenuous,
ephemeral, or conjectural, but is, instead, sufficiently concrete
and particularized to warrant judicial intervention. An alleged
injury will not confer standing if it is based on speculation about
what might occur in the future or what future harm might be
incurred.
The core of the analysis remains the same: whether the Plaintiff
has suffered a "sufficiently concrete" and non-speculative injury
to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement.
Having considered all relevant circumstances as alleged in the
complaint, the Appellate Division concludes that the Plaintiff has
not alleged an injury-in-fact and thus lacks standing. Perhaps most
importantly, she has not alleged that any of the information
purportedly accessed by the unknown third party has actually been
misused. The Plaintiff failed to allege an injury-in-fact since the
potential for future misuse of her data and possible economic harm
is too "conjectural, tenuous, and hypothesized" to constitute an
interest that is sufficiently concrete to confer standing.
To the extent that Plaintiff also contends that she established an
injury-in-fact by virtue of the cost of identity protection and
other mitigation efforts, the Appellate Division concludes that
such mitigation efforts cannot confer standing absent a
sufficiently concrete injury-in-fact legitimizing or warranting
such efforts. A plaintiff "cannot manufacture standing merely by
inflicting harm on themselves based on their fears of hypothetical
future harm that is not certainly impending." Reviewing the
complaint, the Appellate Division concludes that the Plaintiff has
not otherwise alleged an injury-in-fact that would confer standing
to bring the action.
Considering its determination, the Appellate Division does not
address the Defendant's remaining contentions in Appeal No. 1. The
appeal from the order in Appeal No. 2 is dismissed because it has
been rendered moot by the Appellate Division's determination in
Appeal No. 1.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 28, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2unn5ke6 from Leagle.com.
WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP, WHITE PLAINS (MELISSA
A. MURPHY-PETROS -- melissa.murphy-petros@wilsonelser.com -- OF
COUNSEL), FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKENSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP, WHITE PLAINS
(DOUGLAS G. BLANKENSHIP OF COUNSEL), FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
TEACHERS INSURANCE: Faces Jentz Class Suit Over MOVEit Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Merod of K-12 Dive reports that a retired teacher filed a
class-action lawsuit against TIAA this week over the retirement
fund's handling of clients' personal data following the cyberattack
on the file transfer software platform MOVEit that exposed TIAA
data.
The data breach affected some 2.3 million TIAA clients, according
to the lawsuit filed on August 7, 2023 in U.S. District Court in
New York. The suit alleges TIAA did not use "reasonable security
procedures and practices" to protect clients' sensitive
information.
TIAA clients' names, Social Security numbers, birth dates,
addresses and genders were compromised during the data breach,
according to the lawsuit. TIAA declined to comment on the matter.
Dive Insight:
The cyberattack on MOVEit goes far beyond the scope of TIAA's
millions of clients. It's estimated that the ransomware group,
Clop, compromised over 600 organizations and 40 million individuals
in the attack. Experts also project the mass exploit will bring
years of fallout.
The MOVEit data breach has impacted organizations across many
industries, and the education sector is no exception. TIAA is a
prime example: The retirement fund provides services to over 5
million people from more than 15,000 institutions, managing almost
$1 trillion in assets.
K-12 victims include the New York City Department of Education and
the Minnesota Department of Education.
The lawsuit seeking over $5 million in damages claims TIAA did not
encrypt stored personal data nor delete it once the information was
no longer needed. Had the named plaintiff known the retirement fund
would not adequately protect her personal information, the lawsuit
said, she would not have provided her sensitive data.
The TIAA class-action lawsuit comes months after a state judge
dismissed a somewhat similar class-action lawsuit against
educational technology company Illuminate Education. The judge in
that case said the plaintiffs failed to establish standing or prove
any instance of actual identity theft following a 2021 Illuminate
data breach that leaked academic, behavior and demographic
information of 3 million students.
Meanwhile, federal efforts are newly underway to bolster K-12
cybersecurity and prevent further cyberattacks, especially at the
school district level.
The Biden administration and its Education and Homeland Security
departments on August 7, 2023 announced plans to establish a
government coordinating council to organize cybersecurity
activities and communications.
The initiatives to step up K-12 cybersecurity, presented along with
a White House summit on the issue, include an FCC proposal to
invest up to $200 million over three years to improve school and
library cybersecurity, updated guidance from the FBI and the
National Guard Bureau on how schools can report incidents,
cybersecurity training and more. [GN]
TELADOC HEALTH: Ma Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Hui Ma and Lead Plaintiff Leadersel Innotech ESG filed an
appeal from the District Court's Opinion and Order dated July 5,
2023 and Judgment dated July 6, 2023 entered in the lawsuit
entitled IN RE TELADOC HEALTH, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
1:22-cv-04687-DLC, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is a federal
securities class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants
that purchased or otherwise acquired Teladoc securities between
October 28, 2021 and April 27, 2022, both dates inclusive, seeking
to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.
On August 23, 2022, Leadersel Innotech ESG was appointed as lead
Plaintiff.
On November 3, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
first amended complaint. On December 6, the Plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint.
On December 7, the Court ordered that the Defendants' November 3
motion shall be terminated as moot.
On January 20, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended class action complaint which the Court granted on
July 5 through an Order entered by Judge Denise L. Cote.
On July 6, judgment was entered for the Defendants; accordingly,
the case was closed.
The appellate case is captioned as IN RE TELADOC HEALTH, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 23-1112, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on Aug. 4, 2023.
Plaintiff-Appellant Hui Ma is represented by:
Brian Schall, Esq.
BRIAN SCHALL
2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (424) 303-1964
Movant-Appellant Leadersel Innotech ESG is represented by:
Irina Vasilchenko, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0848
Defendants-Appellees Teladoc Health, Inc., et al., are represented
by:
Audra J. Soloway, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
TEMASEK HOLDINGS: Faces Cabo Class Suit Over FTX Fraud Conspiracy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LEANDRO CABO, VITOR VOZZA, KYLE RUPPRECHT, WARREN WINTER, SUNIL
KAVURI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
TEMASEK HOLDINGS (PRIVATE) LIMITED, TEMASEK INTERNATIONAL (USA)
LLC, SOFTBANK GROUP CORP., SB GROUP US, INC., SOFTBANK INVESTMENT
ADVISERS (UK) LIMITED, SOFTBANK GLOBAL ADVISERS LIMITED, SINO
GLOBAL CAPITAL LIMITED, and SINO GLOBAL CAPITAL HOLDINGS, LLC.,
Case No. 3:23-cv-03974-AGT (N.D. Cal., Aug. 7, 2023) contends that
MDL Defendants directly perpetrated, conspired to perpetrate,
and/or aided and abetted the FTX Group's multi-billion-dollar fraud
for their own financial and professional gain.
According to the complaint, because of these schemes, the FTX Group
imploded, and over $30 billion in value evaporated almost overnight
when the FTX Group filed its emergency Chapter 11 bankruptcy
petition in Delaware. FTX experienced a meteoric rise in success
due in no small part to an aggressive promotional campaign
bankrolled and supported by Domestic VC Defendants Sequoia, Thoma
Bravo, Paradigm, SkyBridge, Multicoin Capital, Tiger Global, Ribbit
Capital, Altimeter, and K5 Global. By October 2021, after securing
another series of investments, FTX Trading had reached a valuation
of $25 billion, representing a sizable and speedy return on the
Domestic VC Defendants' initial investments, says the suit.
In March 2022, SBF met with Mr. David Soloman, CEO of Goldman
Sachs, to discuss FTX's IPO. With the prospect of an IPO imminent,
Domestic VC Defendants could cash out with massive returns on their
equity stakes and leave Class Members to bear the losses resulting
from SBF's fraud. But this was all predicated on keeping customer
deposits flowing into FTX accounts, and concealing SBF's fraud
until just after the sale.
The Plaintiffs seek an order enjoining the Domestic VC Defendants
from continuing to conduct business through fraudulent or unlawful
acts and practices and to commence a corrective advertising
campaign. On behalf of the Classes, the Plaintiffs also seek an
order for the restitution of all monies made from these Domestic VC
Defendants' investments in or other business dealings with FTX,
which were made resulting from acts of fraudulent, unfair, or
unlawful competition.
Mr. Cabo purchased or held legal title to and/or beneficial
interest in any fiat or cryptocurrency deposited or invested
through an FTX Platform.
Temasek is a global commercial investment company owned by the
Government of Singapore, with a portfolio valued at more than $280
billion.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
Steven N. Williams, Esq.
Christopher K.L. Young, Esq.
Louis A. Kessler, Esq.
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 500-6800
Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
swillliams@saverilawfirm.com
cyoung@saverilawfirm.com
lkessler@saverilawfirm.com
- and -
James R. Swanson, Esq.
Kerry J. Miller, Esq.
Benjamin D. Reichard, Esq.
C. Hogan Paschal, Esq.
Monica Bergeron, Esq.
FISHMAN HAYGOOD L.L.P.
201 St. Charles Avenue, 46th Floor
New Orleans, LA 70170-4600
Telephone: (504) 586-5252
Facsimile: (504) 586-5250
E-mail: jswanson@fishmanhaygood.com
kmiller@fishmanhaygood.com
breichard@fishmanhaygood.com
hpaschal@fishmanhaygood.com
mbergeron@fishmanhaygood.com
- and -
Robert L. Lieff, Esq.
P.O. Drawer A
Rutherford, California 94573
E-mail: rlieff@lieff.com
- and -
David Boies, Esq.
Alexander Boies, Esq.
Brooke Alexander, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Telephone: (914) 749-8200
E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com
aboies@bsfllp.com
balexander@bsfllp.com
- and -
Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
3250 Mary Street, Suite 202
Coconut Grove, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 740-1423
E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com
joseph@moskowitz-law.com
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: 11th Cir. Affirms Securities Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Mondaq, disclosed that
on August 8, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action
asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against
a direct-to-consumer marketing company and certain of its officers.
In re Tupperware Brands Corp. Sec. Litig., 2023 WL 5091802 (11th
Cir. Aug. 8, 2023). Plaintiff alleged that the company
misrepresented its financial performance as a result of a
fraudulent sales scheme orchestrated at the company's subsidiary.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower court's dismissal of
plaintiff's third amended complaint with prejudice, holding that
plaintiff failed to allege scienter on the part of the makers of
the challenged statements and failed to allege scheme liability.
Plaintiff alleged that the company had misstated various financial
metrics as a result of a fraudulent scheme at the company's
subsidiary, through which the subsidiary immediately recognized
revenue from shipping excess product that had not been ordered and
was likely to be returned. Id. at *2. Plaintiff argued that the
parent company should be held liable based on the knowledge of
lower-level corporate officials who allegedly "knew of or
orchestrated the fraud." Id. at *1.
The Court explained that, to adequately allege scienter with
respect to a corporation, "we first look 'to the state of mind of
the individual corporate official or officials who make or issue
the statement'" and, "[f]ailing that, we look to the state of mind
of the corporate officials who 'order or approve it or its making
or issuance, or who furnish information or language for inclusion
therein, or the like." Id. at *4. The Court rejected plaintiff's
argument for what the Court referred to as a "broader (and novel)
standard"—that scienter should be imputed to a corporation if a
"corporate official's fraudulent act is a proximate cause of a
materially false or misleading statement." Id. The Court emphasized
that alleged misconduct, standing alone, is not enough to render a
statement actionable where there is no connection between the
misconduct and the maker of the challenged statement. Id. at *4.
In applying this standard, the Court first assumed, without
deciding, that three officials at either the subsidiary or the
parent acted with the requisite intent in connection with the
fraudulent revenue scheme. Nevertheless, the Court concluded that
plaintiff failed to allege "the requisite connection between these
corporate officials and the public statements" made by the parent
and therefore failed to adequately allege scienter with respect to
the parent company. Id. at *5.
For one official, the managing director of the company's
subsidiary, the Court discounted allegations of confidential
employees that "it would be unusual for any communications from
[the subsidiary] to [the parent corporation] to occur without [his]
knowledge and approval" and that he "approved the sales figures
before they could be furnished to [the parent corporation]." Id.
The Court concluded that these allegations were insufficient to
create a "strong inference that [the official] was directly
involved in [the parent company's] public statements" because they
lacked particularized facts and failed to show why the confidential
witnesses would be familiar with the parent company's financial
reporting. Id. at *6. The Court emphasized that "engaging in
fraudulent conduct is not the same as being responsible for public
statements with material misrepresentations or omissions about that
fraudulent conduct." Id. The Court similarly rejected plaintiff's
allegations with respect to the company's group president for the
region, holding the allegations from a confidential witness who
worked in a different region lacked "any proximity to the offending
conduct." Id. at *7. While plaintiff argued that the official had
ordered employees to continue the sales scheme, the Court again
emphasized that this was "not the same as commanding a false or
misleading public statement." Id. Regarding a third official, a
vice president of operations at the company, the Court rejected the
allegation of a confidential witness that he had "visited [the
subsidiary] quarterly to review its operations and financial
results." Id. at *8. The Court noted that plaintiff had not
explained the basis for the confidential witness's conclusion or
described the official's activities with particularity. Id.
The Court also rejected plaintiff's claim for "scheme" liability.
While the lower court dismissed this claim for failure to allege
that defendants engaged in a "scheme aimed at deceiving or
defrauding investors," the Eleventh Circuit affirmed on different
grounds—that plaintiff's complaint failed to separate into a
different count each cause of action and therefore amounted to an
improper "shotgun pleading," which makes it "virtually impossible
to know which allegations of fact are intended to support which
claim(s) for relief." Id. The Court noted that the dismissal was
with prejudice because plaintiff had multiple opportunities to
amend and had notice of the pleading deficiency from the lower
court's order on a prior motion to dismiss. Id.
In re Tupperware Brands Corp. Sec. Litig. [GN]
TWITTER INC: Weinberg Sues Over Employment Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------
NHU WEINBERG, SAMANTHA GONGORA, JULIA STEELE, OMOLADE OGUNSANYA,
NANCI SILLS, KRISTA BESSINGER, IKUHIRO IHARA, and others similarly
situated v. TWITTER, INC., and X CORP., Case No. 3:23-cv-04016
(N.D. Cal., Aug. 8, 2023) sues the Defendants for sex, race, and
age discrimination in violation of the federal Family and Medical
Leave Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
involving Plaintiffs' separations from employment with Twitter
during the chaotic days following multi-billionaire Elon Musk's
purchase of the company.
Plaintiff Weinberg was separated from Twitter shortly after
returning from a medical leave. The Plaintiff and other employees
who have taken or were prepared to take a family or medical leave
have been entitled to the protections of the FMLA. Twitter's
layoffs following CEO Elon Musk's acquisition of the company have
disproportionately impacted employees like Weinberg who have taken
or who were preparing to take family or medical leave, the lawsuit
asserts.
Plaintiffs Weinberg, Gongora, Steele, Sills, and Bessinger, who are
female, challenge their terminations as the product of unlawful sex
discrimination against female employees. Twitter's conduct in
conducting layoffs that affected a higher proportion of women than
men constitutes unlawful discrimination against the Plaintiffs on
the basis of sex. Plaintiff Ogunsanya, who is Black, challenges his
termination as the product of unlawful race-based discrimination
against Black employees. Twitter's conduct in conducting layoffs
that affected a higher proportion of Black employees than other
employees constitutes unlawful discrimination against Plaintiff on
the basis of race in violation of Title VII, alleges the lawsuit.
Twitter's conduct in conducting layoffs that affected a higher
proportion of older employees (age fifty (50) and over) constitutes
unlawful discrimination against Plaintiffs Bessinger and Ihara on
the basis of age in violation of the ADEA.
Plaintiff Weinberg worked for Twitter from October 15, 2012, until
November 4, 2022. She was employed by Twitter as a Staff Software
Engineer, and met the Company's expectations throughout her
employment.
Plaintiff Gongora worked for Twitter from February 1, 2012, until
November 4, 2022. She was employed by Twitter as a Software
Engineer II, and met the Company's expectations throughout her
employment.
Twitter is a social media company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Bradley Manewith, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com; bmanewith@llrlaw.com
ULTIMATE FIGHTING: UFC Fighters May Join Antitrust Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Giancarlo Aulino, writing for Sportskeeda, reports that Ariel
Helwani recently revealed that there have been a few UFC fighters
that have enquired about how they can join the ongoing $1 Billion
class action lawsuit against the promotion.
During the Aug. 16 episode of The MMA Hour, the Canadian MMA
journalist addressed the class action lawsuit that began a decade
ago. He detailed what the lawsuit entailed and mentioned that
fighters who competed during the years specified are already
included.
He said:
"More than 1200 fighters who competed in live professional UFC
promoted mixed martial arts bouts in the US between December of
2010 and June, 2017. Couple fighters reached out to me and said,
'How can I join this?' And if you have fought in that time period,
you're just a part of it automatically. So there's nothing to like
sign up or join"
Based on the lawsuit, it appears as though fighters won't miss out
on anything as they are already included if they competed in the
UFC at the time. Ariel Helwani then credited Erik Magraken for his
coverage on the matter and included his video describing the
lawsuit and the promotion's methods in signing fighters to
long-term contracts to retain control.
It remains to be seen what the outcome of the class action lawsuit
will be and whether the UFC will attempt to settle.
Demetrious Johnson tells Ariel Helwani that a grappling match with
Bradley Martyn will happen
The episode of The MMA Hour was eventful as Demetrious Johnson
appeared and confirmed to Ariel Helwani that he will in fact be
grappling against Bradley Martyn in the future.
The reigning ONE flyweight champion mentioned that he doesn't have
any animosity with Martyn, but plans on grappling him after he
returns from competing in the IBJJF Master Worlds. He shared his
thoughts on the matchup and told The MMA Hour host that he intends
to prove that size doesn't matter as much as the technique does,
saying:
"Just because you're big, doesn't mean you could beat somebody who
is smaller. Yes, if I wasn't a trained athlete then yeah, he would
absolutely destroy me, but I've been spending the last 20 years of
my fu**ing life dealing with people who are bigger than me." [GN]
UNISON AGREEMENT: Faces Ahmed Suit Over Co-Investment Services
--------------------------------------------------------------
FAREED AHMED and AHLIA AHMED, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. UNISON AGREEMENT CORP., REAL ESTATE
EQUITY EXCHANGE INC., ODIN NEW HORIZON REAL ESTATE FUND, LP, and
UNISON INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06003-DG-SJB
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2023) alleges that the Defendants systematically
misrepresented services on their Websites as a "co-investment" by
which a homeowner may "unlock the value" of their home to induce
unsophisticated homeowners such as the Plaintiffs who, relying on
Defendants' representations, believe that Defendants will merely
share in a portion of the change in value of their home.
The Defendants obscure the fact that this agreement is a complex,
risky, and speculative option contract in which the homeowner bets
against the value of their own home increasing -- a deal which the
homeowner is essentially guaranteed to lose. In reality, the
agreement transfers the majority of the value of these homes to
Defendants, the lawsuit asserts.
Unison claims to provide a program in which it provides homeowners
with an upfront cash payment in exchange for a share of the change
in value when the home is sold. Specifically, on the Website,
Unison claims "we convert up to 17.5% of your home’s value to
cash, so you can live the life you really want. Unlike a loan,
there is no added debt, monthly payments, or interest. We share in
a portion of your home's change in value when you decide to
sell.” That statement is materially false. Based on Defendants'
deceptive conduct and unfulfilled promises, the Plaintiffs bring
claims on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons
for fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation, violation of Section
10b–5 of the Securities Exchange Act, violation of the Truth in
Lending Act, unjust enrichment, violations of New York's General
Business Law sections 349 and 350 and Article 12-D of the New York
Banking Law, rescission, an action to quiet title, slander of
title, and an action for declaratory judgment, added the lawsuit.
On behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons, the
Plaintiffs seek damages in excess of $1 Million, reccission,
statutory and punitive damages, and declaratory and injunctive
relief.
Plaintiffs Fareed Ahmed and Ahlia Ahmed are husband and wife and
were and are at all relevant times the owners in fee simple of 121
Dartmouth Loop, Staten Island, New York 10306.
Unison provides investment services in owner-occupied residential
real estate.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Randi Kassan, Esq.
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
E-mail: rkassan@milberg.com
sharris@milberg.com
UNITED COLLECTION: Falsely Represents Consumer Debt, Rivero Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
NATALIE RIVERO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., Defendant,
Case No. CACE-23-016624 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial , Broward Cty.,
August 8, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FDCPA by
using a represented itemization date in its debt collection letter
that is not the last statement date, the charge off date, the last
payment date, the transaction date, and the judgment date
associated with the consumer debt. By failing to use one of the
five itemization dates permitted under the FDCPA, the Defendant's
represented itemization date on the collection letter falsely
represents the amount and character of the consumer debt, the suit
asserts.
United Collection Bureau, Inc. is a debt collector with its
principal place of business located in Toledo, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
Shannon E. Gilvey, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
shannon@jibraellaw.com
UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Sexual Abuse in Incarcerated Women
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sydney Johnson, writing for KQED, reports that survivors of sexual
abuse on Aug. 16 filed a class-action lawsuit against guards and
officials at FCI Dublin, a federal women's prison where plaintiffs
argue there are inadequate systems for preventing, detecting,
investigating and responding to rape and sexual assault at the
facility.
The putative class-action suit comes after nearly a dozen
individual lawsuits were lodged against guards and officials at the
facility. Last month, two additional guards who worked at the
federal prison, pled guilty to sexually abusing multiple
incarcerated women, bringing the total to eight staff members at
FCI Dublin who have been charged in the scandal.
"This litigation shines a light on the systemic nature of the
abuse," said Amaris Montes, an attorney with Rights Behind Bars,
one of the law firms representing the eight plaintiffs in the
lawsuit. "It was not only the individual officers who were at fault
for the abuse, but the whole Bureau of Prisons system where
officers at every level literally watched as other officers
assaulted incarcerated people and helped to keep survivors silent
through retaliation."
The lawsuit alleges that for years, people incarcerated at the
low-security women's prison were subject to rampant and ongoing
sexual abuse, including rape and sexual assault, drugging, groping
and being forced to take explicit photos. It also claims women
incarcerated at the facility were subject to abuse during medical
exams and that immigrants were threatened with deportation if they
did not comply.
It further alleges that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) was
aware of the problems for decades at FCI Dublin, but that the
agency failed to respond to the heinous acts.
"Our clients allege that they were forced to engage in various sex
acts with officers under threat of retaliation or by being promised
basic necessities or special privileges," Montes said at a press
conference on Aug. 16. "Others were forced to act as lookouts while
officers sexually abused their friends and cellmates."
The lawsuit calls for a jury trial and names the eight individuals
charged so far, as well as FCI Dublin Warden Thahesha Jusino, BOP
Director Colette Peters and other officers at the facility.
The lawsuit alleges that the prison staff's sexual abuse of
incarcerated people at FCI Dublin violates the Eighth Amendment,
prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, as well as the Prison
Rape Elimination Act of 2003.
One plaintiff in the case is cited as having to remove her clothes
while officers masturbated in front of her. Another was forced to
strip and dance for an officer who was "well known for trading food
and basic goods with incarcerated individuals in exchange for
sexual acts," the complaint reads. Multiple plaintiffs said that
officers subjected them to relentless harassment, assault and rape,
or that they witnessed such behavior.
"We are someone's mom, we are someone's daughter. We are here to be
rehabilitated, but when we are abused, we cannot be," a plaintiff
in the suit named G.M. said in a press release. "We are asking for
change, and for these officers and this system to be held
accountable."
Maria, who experienced abuse while incarcerated at FCI Dublin, was
sent to solitary confinement for nearly two weeks after a guard who
abused her friend was exposed. Maria did not use her last name due
to privacy and safety concerns.
"I was abused and I saw my friends abused by guards," Maria told
reporters through a translator on Aug. 16. "They were supposed to
protect us. I saw them abusing, grabbing and groping."
Robin Lucas, who was formerly incarcerated at FCI Dublin, spoke to
reporters on Aug. 16 about the challenges of changing the violence
and culture at the facility, where she also experienced sexual
abuse decades ago.
In 1995, Lucas said she was assaulted while placed in the
segregated housing unit for men, the facility's maximum-security
confinement. She, along with two others incarcerated at the Dublin
prison, sued and reached a $500,000 settlement in 1998.
As part of the settlement, the Bureau of Prisons agreed to no
longer house women in the men's maximum security unit at the Dublin
facility. It also required the BOP to set up new training policies
for staff and to better inform people who are incarcerated about
how to report assault.
But now, almost 30 years later, Lucas said little has changed.
"I remember what it was like when I see these young girls get up
there," and come forward to report abuses, Lucas told KQED. "They
well up with fear and intimidation and hurt, but there is a drive
within them to speak up and say this is not right."
Five former FCI Dublin staff members were already convicted of
sexually abusing incarcerated women in the Department of Justice's
ongoing investigation into the notorious facility. They include
Chaplain James Highhouse, Warden Ray J. Garcia and three
correctional officers. A case is still pending for charges against
correctional officer Darrell Smith, according to federal
officials.
Highhouse was sentenced to 84 months in prison and Garcia was
sentenced to a 70-month term.
Nakie Nunley of Fairfield, who pleaded guilty in July, was charged
with having sex with five victims while working as a supervisor for
UNICOR, a call center staffed by women incarcerated at the prison.
Nunley threatened to transfer women or strip them of their
employment when confronted about the behavior, according to federal
officials. He was also charged with lying to federal investigators
with the U.S. attorney's office.
"Nunley admitted that he told another victim that if she wanted to
keep her job at UNICOR, she needed to pull down her underwear and
bend over," the U.S. attorney's office said in a release.
Andrew Jones of Pleasanton, who oversaw the prison's Food Services
Department, also pleaded guilty in July to sexually abusing
incarcerated people in multiple places near the FCI Dublin kitchen,
according to the U.S. attorney's office.
"This Office's ongoing investigation into FCI Dublin has revealed
significant findings of wrongdoing by multiple correctional
officers at that facility," said U.S. Attorney Ismail J. Ramsey of
the Northern District of California in a July press release
announcing the latest charges. "The Department of Justice has
repeatedly warned that criminal misconduct in the care and safety
of incarcerated persons will not be tolerated." [GN]
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY: Lopiano Testimony Barred From Niblock Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELIZABETH NIBLOCK and ALA HASSAN, Individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNIVERSITY OF
KENTUCKY, MITCH BARNHART, and ELI CAPILOUTO in their official
capacities, Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:19-394-KKC (E.D. Ky.),
Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington, grants the
Defendants' motion to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiffs'
expert witness Dr. Donna Lopiano.
In this action, the class Plaintiffs assert Title IX claims against
the University of Kentucky, Athletic Director Mitch Barnhart, and
President Eli Capilouto (collectively "UK"). The thrust of the
complaint is that UK's current varsity sports offerings do not
fully and effectively accommodate the interest and ability of its
female students. The matter is set for a bench trial on Aug. 7,
2023.
The Plaintiffs have offered Dr. Lopiano as an expert witness to
testify regarding UK's athletic offerings as they relate to Title
IX. UK seeks to exclude Lopiano's testimony, on grounds that
Lopiano's testimony amounts to impermissible legal conclusions on
the ultimate issue in this case: whether UK follows Title IX. The
Plaintiffs submit that they have no intention of offering testimony
about this ultimate issue, noting that consideration rests solely
with the trier of fact. The University counters that they are
framing Lopiano's proposed testimony incorrectly. UK also moves to
exclude other portions of Lopiano's proffered testimony on
qualification and reliability grounds. The Court conducted a
Daubert hearing on April 24, 2023.
For a proposed expert witness to survive a motion to exclude (1)
the witness must be qualified by knowledge, skill, experience,
training, or education; (2) the testimony must be relevant, meaning
that it will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or
to determine a fact in issue; and (3) the testimony must be
reliable.
UK argues that all of Lopiano's proposed opinions should be
excluded on the basis that they constitute impermissible legal
conclusions -- an argument that goes to the opinions' ultimate
relevancy. It further argues that any opinions that are not legal
conclusions are otherwise inadmissible for various reasons,
including Lopiano's qualifications and the reliability of some of
her opinions.
Based on her report prepared for the litigation and the testimony
provided at the Daubert hearing, it appears that Lopiano would
opine on five basic questions:
1. Whether, based on available participation data generated by
the University of Kentucky (UK) athletic department and other
documents reviewed for this case, the intercollegiate athletic
program has in the past and is currently accommodating the
interests and abilities of female students under Prongs One, Two or
Three of Title IX's participation options.
2. If the UK athletic program is not meeting the Prong One
proportionality participation option, whether UK has regularly and
properly assessed the interests and abilities of the
underrepresented sex for the purpose of identifying unmet interests
and abilities.
3. Whether the past, current, or proposed future UK athletic
program selection of sports for male and female athletes equally
accommodates the respective interests and abilities of male and
female athletes.
4. Whether UK's payment for scholarships, coaches, and/or
operating expenses of the current UK sideline cheerleading squad
and the dance team would enable UK to count these programs as
varsity sports and participants as varsity athletes.
5. Whether it is likely that UK's promise to add varsity stunt
or junior varsity soccer to its athletic program would enable it to
meet the effective accommodation of interests and abilities
standard and result in Prong One proportionality in 2021-22.
First, as to whether UK is accommodating female interests generally
under Title IX, though Judge Caldwell allowed limited testimony on
grounds irrelevant to the present case, she granted the Defendants'
motion to exclude to the extent that it involved Lopiano's
testimony about the requirements of Title IX or whether the
University was in compliance with those requirements.
Second, regarding Lopiano's testimony regarding which students
count under Title IX, Judge Caldwell opines that Dr. Lopiano's
testimony is unreliable, irrelevant, and unhelpful to the trier of
fact. Among other things, Dr. Lopiano did not examine the specifics
of UK's Cheer or Dance teams in performing her analysis. Further,
Dr. Lopiano agreed that she had "no idea" about the "UK dance or
cheer team members and the work they put in or the benefits they
are provided."
Third, about Lopiano's testimony regarding UK's survey methodology,
Judge Caldwell finds that Dr. Lopiano is not qualified to speak on
the adequacy of UK's athletic interest surveys. Dr. Lopiano
testified that she relied on her knowledge of surveys to compare
Title IX requirements with UK's practices and that she is not an
expert in survey design and instead relies on another survey design
expert in forming her opinions.
Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to exclude the expert testimony
of Dr. Lopiano is granted.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 28, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mumy45s5 from Leagle.com.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH: Class Action Over COVID Shutdown Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
WUSF Public Media reports that a Hillsborough County circuit judge
has certified a class action in a lawsuit about whether the
University of South Florida should return fees to students because
of a campus shutdown early in the COVID-19 pandemic.
Judge Darren Farfante issued an order on Aug. 14 approving a
request by named plaintiff ValerieMarie Moore to make the case a
class action that would apply to students enrolled at USF in 2020
and the spring semester of 2021.
The lawsuit is one of numerous cases in Florida and across the
country seeking refunds of money that students paid for services
that were not provided because of the pandemic.
The Florida Supreme Court last month said it will take up a case
that alleges the University of Florida breached a contract with a
student and should return fees.
The 1st District Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the University
of Florida, leading to the case going to the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, the 2nd District Court of Appeal last year refused a
request by the University of South Florida to dismiss Moore's
case.
The Supreme Court on Jan. 5 declined to take up an appeal by USF.
Farfante approved class certification despite objections from the
university.
"The court concludes that the proposed class is certifiable as a
damages class … because common issues concerning USF's uniform
course of conduct, which resulted in all students being treated the
exact same way and suffering the same type of readily quantifiable
damages, predominate over individual questions about the amounts of
fees paid by individual students," The Aug. 14 order said. "A
damages class is also the superior method to adjudicate this
controversy because it allows the students, who all have small
claims for damages, the ability to prosecute their claims in a
manageable and effective manner."
Adam Moskowitz, an attorney who will represent the class, issued a
statement on Aug. 15 that said hundreds of millions of dollars
"were collected from students across the country, for specific and
itemized services (like health center, athletics and transportation
fees) that were admittedly never provided." [GN]
VILLAGE PODIATRY: Suit Filed in Ga. Sup. Ct.
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Village Podiatry
Group II, LLC. The case is styled as John Doe, Individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Village Podiatry Group
II, LLC, Village Podiatry Group, LLC, Village Podiatry Group, PC,
collectively d/b/a VILLAGE PODIATRY CENTERS, Case No. 2023CV383709
(Ga. Sup. Ct., Fulton Cty., Aug. 4, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Damages."
Village Podiatry Centers -- https://www.villagepodiatrycenters.com/
-- offers comprehensive treatment of lower extremity injuries and
conditions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph B. Alonso, Esq.
AW LAW, LLC
1708 Peachtree Street, Suite 207
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (678) 928-4472
Fax: (678) 928-4472
Email: jalonso@alonsowirth.com
VIRGINIA UNION: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Virginia Union
University. The case is styled as Milagros Senior, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Virginia Union
University, Case No. 1:23-cv-07178-GHW (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Virginia Union University -- http://www.vuu.edu/-- is a private
historically black Baptist university in Richmond, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (917) 796-7437
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
danalgottlieb@aol.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Belliveau Files Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc. The case is styled as Cindy Belliveau, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc., Case No. 8:23-cv-01197-FWS-DFM (C.D. Cal., July
5, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. --
https://www.volkswagengroupofamerica.com/ -- is the North American
operational headquarters, and subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group of
automobile companies of Germany.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert L Starr, Esq.
Adam Morris Rose, Esq.
Theodore Richard Tang, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT STARR APC
23901 Calabasas Road Suite 2072
Calabasas, CA 91302
Phone: (818) 225-9040
Fax: (818) 225-9042
Email: robert@starrlaw.com
adam@starrlaw.com
theodore@starrlaw.com
W/R GROUP INC: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against W/R Group, Inc. The
case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. W/R Group, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-05847-JPO (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
W/R Group, Inc. -- https://www.wrgroup.com/ -- is a Scottsdale,
Arizona based distributor of skin care and other personal care and
wellness products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
- and -
Ara Vahe Naljian, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 584-5575
Email: analjian@steinsakslegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Ryan Stephen Carlson, Esq.
NUKK-FREEMAN AND CERRA, PC
26 Main Street, Ste. 202
Chatham, NJ 07928
Phone: (973) 665-9100
Fax: (973) 665-9101
Email: RCarlson@nfclegal.com
WALMART INC: Russell Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff DEBORAH RUSSELL filed an appeal from the District Court's
Order and Judgment dated July 5, 2023 entered in the lawsuit
entitled DEBORAH RUSSELL, Plaintiff v. WALMART, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 4:22-cv-02813-JST, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Oakland.
The suit was removed from the Superior Court of California County
of San Francisco to the Northern District of California on May 12,
2022.
Plaintiff Russell filed suit on behalf of a putative class,
alleging that Walmart owed her unpaid wages for the time she had
spent at self-checkout. The Court dismissed Russell's initial
complaint with leave to amend, concluding that Russell's "efforts
in using Walmart's self-checkout apparatus did not constitute
'work'" under California law.
On February 17, 2023, Plaintiff Russell filed an amended complaint
asserting a single claim "for restitution under theory of
quasi-contract and/or unjust enrichment" and alleging that
customers who choose self-checkout confer a benefit that would be
inequitable for Walmart to retain.
On March 3, 2023, Walmart filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.
On July 5, 2023, Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an Order granting in
full Walmart's motion to dismiss. The Clerk also entered judgment
and closed the file.
The appellate case is captioned as Deborah Russell v. Walmart,
Inc., Case No. 23-16062, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on Aug. 3, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Deborah Russell Mediation Questionnaire was due on
August 10, 2023;
-- Appellant Deborah Russell opening brief is due on October 2,
2023;
-- Appellee Walmart, Inc. answering brief is due on November 2,
2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant DEBORAH RUSSELL, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, is represented by:
David J. Gallo, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DAVID J. GALLO
12702 Via Cortina, Ste 500
Del Mar, CA 92014-3769
Telephone: (619) 509-3652
Defendant-Appellee WALMART, INC., a Delaware corporation, is
represented by:
Arwen R. Johnson, Esq.
KING AND SPALDING, LLP
633 W 5th Street, Suite 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 443-4335
- and -
Quyen L. Ta, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
50 California Street, Suite 3300
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 318-1200
WARNER BROS: Faces BPFWP Shareholder Suit
-----------------------------------------
Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, that in December 2, 2022, a separate purported
class action lawsuit captioned "Bricklayers Pension Fund of Western
Pennsylvania v. Advance/Newhouse Partnership," Case No.
2022-1114-JTL) was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
The complaint in the Bricklayers Action names Advance/Newhouse and
certain of the company's current and former directors as defendants
and generally alleges that former directors of Discovery and
Advance/Newhouse breached their fiduciary duties in connection with
the merger with the WarnerMedia Business of AT&T, and that
Advance/Newhouse aided and abetted these alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties. The Bricklayers Action seeks damages and other
relief.
On January 11, 2023, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated
the Bricklayers Action under the caption "In re Warner Bros.
Discovery, Inc. Stockholders Litigation," Consolidated Case No.
2022-1114-JTL. On March 9, 2023, the court appointed the plaintiffs
which filed the Bricklayers Action lead plaintiffs in the
consolidated action. On April 5, 2023, the court approved a
stipulated briefing schedule, and the remaining defendants in the
case (Advance/Newhouse, Robert Miron, Steven Miron, and Susan
Swain) responded to the complaint originally filed in the
Bricklayers Action on May 31, 2023.
Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. is a premier global media and
entertainment company that combines the WarnerMedia Business's
premium entertainment, sports and news assets with Discovery's
leading non-fiction and international entertainment and sports
businesses, thus offering audiences a differentiated portfolio of
content, brands and franchises across television, film, streaming
and gaming.
WARNER BROS: Faces Todorovski Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------
Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission,, that a class action lawsuit captioned
"Todorovski v. Discovery, Inc., et al.," Case No. 1:22-cv-09125 was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York.
The complaints named Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc., Discovery, Inc.,
David Zaslav, and Gunnar Wiedenfels as defendants. The complaints
generally alleged that the defendants made false and misleading
statements in SEC filings and in certain public statements relating
to the Merger, in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and sought damages and other
relief. On November 4, 2022, the court consolidated the Todorovski
complaint under case number 1:22-CV-8171, and on December 12, 2022,
the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.
On February 15, 2023, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint adding Advance/Newhouse Partnership and Advance/Newhouse
Programming Partnership, Steven A. Miron, Robert J. Miron, and
Steven O. Newhouse as defendants. The amended complaint continues
to assert violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and seeks damages and other
relief. On April 7, 2023, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.
Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. is a premier global media and
entertainment company that combines the WarnerMedia Business's
premium entertainment, sports and news assets with Discovery's
leading non-fiction and international entertainment and sports
businesses, thus offering audiences a differentiated portfolio of
content, brands and franchises across television, film, streaming
and gaming.
WARNER BROS: Police Fund Shareholder Suit Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------
Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, that the class action lawsuit captioned
"Collinsville Police Pension Board v. Discovery, Inc., et al.,"
Case No. 1:22-cv-08171 was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
The complaints named Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc., Discovery, Inc.,
David Zaslav, and Gunnar Wiedenfels as defendants. The complaints
generally alleged that the defendants made false and misleading
statements in SEC filings and in certain public statements relating
to the Merger, in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and sought damages and other
relief. On November 4, 2022, the court consolidated the
Collinsville complaint under case number 1:22-CV-8171, and on
December 12, 2022, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel.
On February 15, 2023, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint adding Advance/Newhouse Partnership and Advance/Newhouse
Programming Partnership, Steven A. Miron, Robert J. Miron, and
Steven O. Newhouse as defendants. The amended complaint continues
to assert violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and seeks damages and other
relief. On April 7, 2023, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.
Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. is a premier global media and
entertainment company that combines the WarnerMedia Business's
premium entertainment, sports and news assets with Discovery's
leading non-fiction and international entertainment and sports
businesses, thus offering audiences a differentiated portfolio of
content, brands and franchises across television, film, streaming
and gaming.
WAYFAIR LLC: Faces Suit Over Failure to Pay Customer Service Reps
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett of Top Class Actions reports that a trio of former
workers filed a class action lawsuit against Wayfair last month,
arguing the online furniture company failed to lawfully pay its
customer service representatives.
Wayfair is accused of violating the FLSA by allegedly not paying
its customer service representatives for time spent before their
shift logging into computer programs that were necessary to their
job function.
The group argues Wayfair instructed them to exclude their time
spent logging into the necessary programs -- which can allegedly
take more than 30 minutes to do -- from their clock-in time. [GN]
WG&R FURNITURE: Faces Parker Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA PARKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WG&R FURNITURE CO. and AUGUST HAVEN, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01049 (E.D. Wis., August 8, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection
Laws including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay an
agreed-upon wage, and unlawful deductions.
The Plaintiff worked as hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in the
position of sales associate at the Defendants' Green Bay, Wisconsin
location since November 2017.
WG&R Furniture Co. is furniture company, with a principal place of
business at 900 Challenger Drive, Green Bay, Wisconsin.
August Haven, LLC is furniture company, with a principal place of
business at 900 Challenger Drive, Green Bay, Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, 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
WORKHORSE GROUP: Court Enters Final Judgment in Farrar Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cormac J. Carney of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California enters Final Judgment in the case, SAM
FARRAR, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. WORKHORSE GROUP, INC., DUANE HUGHES, STEVE
SCHRADER, ROBERT WILLISON, and GREGORY ACKERSON Defendants, Case
No. 2:21-cv-02072-CJC-PVC (C.D. Cal.).
The matter came before the Court for hearing on the application of
the Parties for approval of the Settlement set forth in the
Stipulation of Settlement dated Jan. 13, 2023. Due and adequate
notice having been given of the Settlement, and the Court has
previously certified the Settlement Class, and has considered all
papers filed and proceedings held therein.
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge
Carney approves the Settlement and finds that said Settlement is,
in all respects, fair, reasonable, adequate to, and in the best
interests of the Plaintiffs, the Releasing Plaintiffs' Parties, and
each of the Settlement Class Members. Accordingly, the Settlement
is approved in all respects and will be consummated in accordance
with its terms and provisions. The Parties are directed to perform
the Stipulation.
The Action and all claims contained therein, as well as all the
Released Claims, are dismissed with prejudice as against each and
all of the Defendants. Upon the Effective Date, each of the
Released Defendants' Parties will be deemed to have, and by
operation of the Judgment will have, fully, finally, and forever
released, relinquished, and discharged the Lead Plaintiff, the
Releasing Plaintiffs' Parties, each and all the Settlement Class
Members, and the Lead Counsel from the Released Defendants' Claims,
except for those claims brought to enforce the Settlement or the
Stipulation.
All Settlement Class Members are bound by the Judgment, except
those persons listed on Exhibit 1 to the Judgment. Neither any
objection to the Court's approval of the Plan of Allocation
submitted by the Lead Counsel nor to any portion of the Order
regarding the Attorneys' Fee and Expense Application will in any
way disturb or affect the finality of this Judgment.
Without affecting the finality of the Judgment in any way, the
Court retains continuing jurisdiction over: (a) implementation of
the Settlement; (b) disposition of the Settlement Fund; and (c) all
Parties thereto for the purpose of construing, enforcing, and
administering the Stipulation and the Judgment.
After completion of the processing of all claims by the Claims
Administrator, the Escrow Agent will disburse the Net Settlement
Fund in accordance with the Stipulation and Plan of Allocation
without further order of this Court.
Pursuant to and in full compliance with Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Carney awards attorney fees of
$8,490,743.12 (in the same proportion of Settlement Cash and
Settlement Stock received by Settlement Class Members) and
reimbursement of litigation expenses in the amount of $112,027.51,
both to be paid from the Settlement Fund pursuant to the
Stipulation, upon entry of the Order. He awards the Lead Plaintiff
a compensatory award of $5,000 and the Additional Plaintiff a
compensatory award of $5,000, to be paid after the Effective Date.
Pursuant to and in full compliance with Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Carney finds and concludes that the
Plan of Allocation set forth in the Notice is in all respects fair
and reasonable and he approves the Plan of Allocation.
The Action is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice as to all
Defendants.
All agreements made and orders entered during the Action relating
to the confidentiality of information will survive the Order,
pursuant to their terms.
There is no just reason for delay in the entry of the Judgment and
immediate entry by the Clerk of the Court is expressly directed
pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 28, 2023 Final Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bdhkmp3h from Leagle.com.
WORLD WRESTLING: Brunzell Seeks to Restore Concussion Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In an exclusive for WrestlingNews.co, Steve Fall interviewed former
WWF/AEA star Jim Brunzell from The Killer Bees tag team. We have a
couple of highlights transcribed below and be sure to click on the
videos below for the entire interview.
Jim Brunzell on being in a Battle Royal with NFL players at
WrestleMania II:
"Everything was more or less choreographed. I don't know what the
insurance deal was. I mean, some of them were concerned about if
they should get hurt, who's going to pay for it. To me, I was just
glad I was a part of WrestleMania, you know, the fact that we were
in a Battle Royal with these guys. I would much rather be in a tag
match or something else but if you want to be included, and that's
where you are, then you go with it."
Jim Brunzell was asked about the class action lawsuit he and other
wrestlers filed against the WWE regarding concussion protocol. The
lawsuit was dismissed by US District Judge Vanessa Lynne Bryant in
September 2018 but Bruzell says he would like to resurrect it.
"Here's the whole premise of the lawsuit," Brunzell said. "The fact
that a number of us sustained head injuries, whether it be
concussions, knocked out, etc, you know, over our career with the
WWE. What the lawsuit said was if individuals, like if Jim Brunzell
winds up with early dementia, or you know, Alzheimer's or ALS or
something related to CTE, and you can't find out if you have CTE
until you're dead when they cut your brain open, in this lawsuit,
what they wanted the WWE to pay for our treatment in a nursing
home. That's basically what it was. There was no upfront money. It
was basically saying, hey, if Jim Brunzell has Alzheimer's or
dementia and he's got to go into assisted living, we'd like WWE to
contribute. It's $12- $15,000 a month to be in those. There were 50
to 60 members, talent, on this lawsuit that all had some impaired
injury over the course of 15 to 20 years, so I hope that they
resurrect that sucker because I think that's the least that we can
expect from the WWE." [GN]
YALE-NEW HAVEN HOSPITAL: Court Certifies Class in Ruilova Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAITY RUILOVA and EILEEN
BRANNIGAN, Individually and as representatives of a class of
similarly situated persons, on behalf of the YALE-NEW HAVEN
HOSPITAL AND TAX EXEMPT AFFILIATES TAX SHELTERED ANNUITY PLAN, v.
YALE-NEW HAVEN HOSPITAL, INC.; THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF YALE-NEW
HAVEN HOSPITAL, INC.; THE SYSTEM INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF YALE NEW
HAVEN HEALTH SERVICE CORP. AND SYSTEM AFFILIATES, THE RETIREMENT
COMMITTEE OF YALE NEW HAVEN HEALTH SERVICES CORP. AND SYSTEM
AFFILIATES; and DOES No. 1-20, Whose Names Are Currently Unknown,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00111-MPS (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Michael P.
Shea entered an order certifying class of:
"All participants and beneficiaries in the Yale-New Haven
Hospital
and Tax Exempt Affiliates Tax Sheltered Annuity Plan at any time
on
or after January 21, 2016 and continuing to the date of
judgment,
or such earlier date that the Court determines is appropriate
and
just, including any beneficiary of a deceased person who was a
participant in the Plan at any time during the Class Period."
Ther Plaintiffs Kaity Ruilova and Eileen Brannigan are appointed as
Class representatives and Miller Shah LLP and Capozzi Adler, P.C.
are appointed as Class counsel.
Yale New Haven, a subsidiary of Yale New Haven Health, is a
non-profit organization which provides medical and healthcare
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 28, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DQUOYL at no extra charge.[CC]
YELLOW CORP: Rivera Sues Over Mass Layoffs Without Prior Notice
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARMANDO RIVERA, JOHN FRANKLIN, JR., NICOLE GONZALEZ, RICHARD WEBB,
SCOTT WEBB, DARYL DEVINE, RICHIE RICHARDSON, PAUL ASHLEY, BRANDON
WILSON, DUSTIN PAGE, KIMBERLY SULLIVAN and CHRISTOPHER DOWDY, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. YELLOW
CORPORATION, YRC INC. (d/b/a YRC FREIGHT), USF HOLLAND LLC, NEW
PENN MOTOR EXPRESS LLC, and USF REDDAWAY INC., Case No.
23-50456-CTG (D. Del., Aug. 7, 2023) sues the Defendants for
failing to provide 60 days advance written notice as required by
the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, the
California Labor Code, and 90 days' notice as required by the New
Jersey Millville Dallas Airmotive Plant Job Loss Notification Act
and New York WARN Act, as well as the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff brings a claim under the New Jersey WARN Act for
damages to the New Jersey-based employees of the Defendants, for
severance pay equivalent to one week of pay for each full year that
he or she worked. In addition, the New Jersey-based employees are
entitled to an additional four weeks of severance pay, pursuant to
N.J. Stat. Ann. Section 34:21-2(b).
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs were terminated along with nearly
30,000 other similarly situated employees as part of, or as the
foreseeable result of mass layoffs or plant closings ordered by the
Defendants beginning on July 28, 2023. The Defendants failed to pay
the Plaintiff and each of the Class Members their respective wages,
salary, commissions, bonuses, health and life insurance premiums,
accrued holiday pay and accrued vacation for 60 days following
their respective terminations, and failed to provide employee
benefits including health insurance, for 60 days from and after the
dates of their respective termination, the lawsuit asserts.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a dock worker and
union steward from July 1998, until July 28, 2023.
Yellow Corporation is a less than truckload business with
operations throughout the United States in which carriers ship
goods from multiple shippers in single trailers.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher D. Loizides, Esq.
LOIZIDES, P.A.
1225 King Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 654-0248
Facsimile: (302) 654-0728
E-mail: loizides@loizides.com
- and -
Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP
270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 221-1747
Facsimile: (212) 221-1747
E-mail: jar@raisnerroupinian.com
rsr@raisnerroupinian.com
[*] Credit Unions Being Deposed for Class Suit Over Missing Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
CUtoday.info reports that a growing number of credit unions in this
region are being deposed for a class-action lawsuit involving
alleged missing information in its repossession notification
letters, according to the CrossState CU Association.
The lawsuit alleges some words are missing from the credit unions'
15-day notification letter that indicates if the sale is private or
public, and that borrowers are entitled to an itemized accounting
of the loan, the league explained.
The CrossState CU Association, which represents credit unions in
Pennsylvania and New Jersey, is urging credit unions to check their
letters for "all content requirements."
Case Serves as Reminder
"Credit unions have been dealing with this for decades. If a credit
union inadvertently misses one or two points of information on a
letter/notice, the notice can be invalidated and challenged," Julie
Bancroft, strategic marketing and communications officer with the
league, told CUToday.info. "A recent case prompted us to remind our
members they should regularly review their repossession
letters/notices for compliance and to reshare the available member
resources." [GN]
[*] Tailor-Made Class Suits Regarding Mass Disasters Discussed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Flood and Ashley Carnahan, writing for Fox News, report that
class-action lawsuits will be firmly in the cultural zeitgeist for
the foreseeable future after Hawaiian power companies were accused
of ignoring weather warnings amid the historic Maui wildfires,
according to legal guru Danny Karon.
"Class actions are critical to a properly functioning society,"
Karon told Fox News Digital.
Karon, an attorney and law professor who specializes in
class-action litigation, feels that mass disasters like the
devastating Maui fires are tailor-made for class actions to provide
relief for victims.
The main plaintiffs, Monica and Rede Eder, own a house in the
historic town of Lahaina, which was decimated by the wildfire.
Their suit is "on behalf of a class and subclasses of all persons
similarly situated."
"It didn't just victimize a couple of people like the three
plaintiffs who filed it, but rather thousands and thousands of
people across Hawaii. And that's the nature of a class action,"
Karon said.
"You see, a class action is intended to create a claim and
recovery, not just for the people who filed it, but for all these
other folks who haven't," he continued. "They're called
absent-class members, meaning people who didn't want to step up,
didn't have the time, the money, the temperament, the whatever to
make a federal case out of something."
The suit targets Hawaiian Electric Industries, which is the parent
company of HECO, MECO and HELCO. The lawsuit accuses the power
companies of ignoring weather warnings and keeping their power
lines energized despite the dangerous conditions. The plaintiffs
say the companies "inexcusably kept their power lines energized
during forecasted high fire danger conditions."
Karon said the rules allow other victims to be "swept into" the
case brought by others as long as certain elements are satisfied.
"You see, you can't just file a case and say, 'I'm going to make it
a class action.' No. The federal rules of civil procedure, meaning
the rules of court, require you to prove a number of elements or
steps to a court satisfaction before the judge will flip the switch
and turn an individual case . . . into a class action case. And
it's pretty darn tough. People think, 'oh, I'm going to make a
class action of it.' Not so fast," Karon said.
Karon believes the widespread property damage, horrific death toll
and even business-interrupted claims make the wildfire victims ripe
for mass relief.
"You've got a lot of people dipping into the single bucket that is
Hawaiian Electric looking to get paid, and I wonder whether the
company has that much money that they can satisfy all these
obligations," Karon said.
According to the suit, the National Weather Service had issued a
High Wind Watch and Red Flag Warning, cautioning that energized
power lines could make a fire develop more rapidly.
The suit alleges that by acting improperly during the historically
dangerous conditions, the companies "caused loss of life, serious
injuries, destruction of hundreds of homes and businesses,
displacement of thousands of people, and damage to many of Hawaii's
historic and cultural sites."
"Scores of people burned to death," the suit says. "Other victims
suffered severe burns, smoke inhalation and additional serious
injuries."
Karon feels that if the "facts are as alleged" and Hawaiian
Electric truly ignored warning signs, then trouble is on the
horizon for the power company. Investors have taken notice, as
shares have plummeted by 60% on fears the company may have to pay
big damages.
"It sure seems like on that set of facts -- a set of facts that
uniformly affects everybody, which is really the hallmark of the
class action, kind of a one-size-fits-all approach -- if that fact
is true, then, you know, it seems like a pretty darn good candidate
for a class action," Karon said.
"And if I'm Hawaiian Electric, I want to settle this thing and get
the heck out of there as fast as I can, not just because it's good
for business, but because it's good for my customers, it's good for
people, it's good for humanity," he continued. "It's what we should
do for each other."
In a statement to Fox News, Hawaiian Electric spokesperson Jim
Kelley said, "As has always been our policy, we don't comment on
pending litigation. Our immediate focus is on supporting emergency
response efforts on Maui and restoring power for our customers and
communities as quickly as possible. At this early stage, the cause
of the fire has not been determined, and we will work with the
state and county as they conduct their review."
Hawaiian Electric president and CEO Shelee Kimura noted at a news
conference on Aug. 14 that many factors go into a decision to shut
down power, including the possible effect on people who rely on
specialized medical equipment and firefighters who need power to
pump water. [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues $8MM Liability for Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison), has
reported $8 million accrued liability for asbestos suits at June
30, 2023, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Suits have been brought in New York State and
federal courts against the Utilities and many other defendants,
wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of
compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly
caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of the
Utilities. The suits that have been resolved, that are many, have
been resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts
that were not, in the aggregate, material to them. The amounts
specified in all the remaining thousands of suits total billions of
dollars; however, the Utilities believe that these amounts are
greatly exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous claims.
At June 30, 2023, Con Edison and CECONY have accrued their
estimated aggregate undiscounted potential liabilities for these
suits and additional suits that may be brought over the next 15
years as shown in the following table. These estimates were based
upon a combination of modeling, historical data analysis and risk
factor assessment. Courts have begun, and unless otherwise
determined on appeal may continue, to apply different standards for
determining liability in asbestos suits than the standard that
applied historically. As a result, the Companies currently believe
that there is a reasonable possibility of an exposure to loss in
excess of the liability accrued for the suits. The Companies are
unable to estimate the amount or range of such loss. In addition,
certain current and former employees have claimed or are claiming
workers' compensation benefits based on alleged disability from
exposure to asbestos. CECONY is permitted to defer as regulatory
assets (for subsequent recovery through rates) costs incurred for
its asbestos lawsuits and workers' compensation claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yckh4pum
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy Has $109MM Est. Liabilities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Energy Generation, LLC, at June 30, 2023 and December
31, 2022, has recorded estimated liabilities of approximately $109
million and $95 million, respectively, in total for
asbestos-related bodily injury claims, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "As of June 30, 2023, approximately $28 million
of this amount related to 250 open claims presented to us, while
the remaining $81 million is for estimated future asbestos-related
bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through 2055, based on
actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are updated on an annual
basis. On a quarterly basis, we monitor actual experience against
the number of forecasted claims to be received and expected claim
payments and evaluate whether adjustments to the estimated
liabilities are necessary."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/42wm8rze
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Has Pending Exposure Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Curtiss-Wright Corporation has been named in pending lawsuits that
allege injury from exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "To date, we have not been found liable or paid
any material sum of money in settlement in any asbestos-related
case. We believe that the minimal use of asbestos in our past
operations and the relatively non-friable condition of asbestos in
our products make it unlikely that we will face material liability
in any asbestos litigation, whether individually or in the
aggregate. We maintain insurance coverage for these potential
liabilities and we believe adequate coverage exists to cover any
unanticipated asbestos liability."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4bapayen
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Group Has $223MM Loss Reserves at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Group, Ltd., with respect to asbestos only, at June 30,
2023, had net asbestos loss reserves of $223 million, or 90.5%, of
total net A&E reserves, all of which was for assumed business,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Asbestos and Environmental ("A&E") exposures
represent a separate exposure group for monitoring and evaluating
reserve adequacy.
"Ultimate loss projections for A&E liabilities cannot be
accomplished using standard actuarial techniques. We believe that
our A&E reserves represent management's best estimate of the
ultimate liability; however, there can be no assurance that
ultimate loss payments will not exceed such reserves, perhaps by a
significant amount."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yc6kv7pp
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fluor Corp. Has $3MM Asbestos Reserve Expense
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fluor Corporation, in its press release issued on August 4, 2023,
has $3 million asbestos reserve expense, for the three months ended
June 30, 2023, according to the Company's Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://tinyurl.com/372h6c3b
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Defends 37,000 Pending PI Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, for the six months ended June
30, 2023, has recorded 37,000 claims pending, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "We are a defendant in numerous lawsuits
alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to
result from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products
manufactured by us or present in certain of our facilities.
Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple
defendants in state and federal courts. To date, we have disposed
of approximately 158,200 claims by defending, obtaining the
dismissal thereof, or entering into a settlement. The sum of our
accrued asbestos-related liability and gross payments to date,
including legal costs, by us and our insurers totaled approximately
$578 million through June 30, 2023 and $570 million through
December 31, 2022."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p8znsu4
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hess Corp. Faces Various Exposure Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Hess Corporation and its subsidiary HONX, Inc. have been named as
defendants in various personal injury claims alleging exposure to
asbestos and/or other alleged toxic substances while working at a
former refinery (owned and operated by subsidiaries or related
entities) located in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "On April 28, 2022, HONX, Inc. initiated a
Chapter 11 § 524G process in the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, to resolve
these asbestos-related claims. In February 2023, Hess, HONX, Inc.,
the Unsecured Creditors' Committee, and counsel representing
claimants, reached a mediated resolution of the matter, contingent
upon final approvals of all parties and confirmation by the
Bankruptcy Court. As of June 30, 2023, we have a provision of $116
million for the amounts expected to be funded to the § 524G trust
established for the settlement of claims, based on the mediated
resolution."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5njhffm7
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Still Faces Exposure Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (HII)and its
predecessors-in-interest are defendants in a longstanding series of
cases that have been and continue to be filed in various
jurisdictions around the country, wherein former and current
employees and various third parties allege exposure to asbestos
containing materials while on or associated with HII premises or
while working on vessels constructed or repaired by HII, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Huntington Ingalls states, "In some instances, partial or full
insurance coverage is available for the Company's liabilities. The
costs to resolve cases during the six months ended June 30, 2023
and 2022, were not material individually or in the aggregate. The
Company's estimate of asbestos-related liabilities is subject to
uncertainty because liabilities are influenced by many variables
that are inherently difficult to predict. Although the Company
believes the ultimate resolution of current cases will not have a
material effect on its condensed consolidated financial position,
results of operations, or cash flows, it cannot predict what new or
revised claims or litigation might be asserted or what information
might come to light and can, therefore, give no assurances
regarding the ultimate outcome of asbestos related litigation."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5erma88y
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll Rand Has $133.0MM Litigation Reserve
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll Rand Inc., has reported a total litigation reserve of
$133.0 million and $137.9 million as of June 30, 2023 and December
31, 2022, respectively, with regards to potential liability arising
from its asbestos-related litigation, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Asbestos related defense costs are excluded
from the asbestos claims liability and are recorded separately as
services are incurred. In the event of unexpected future
developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these
matters may be material to the Company's consolidated financial
position, results of operation or liquidity.
"The Company has entered into a series of agreements with certain
of its or its predecessors' legacy insurers and certain potential
indemnitors to secure insurance coverage and/or reimbursement for
the costs associated with the asbestos and silica-related lawsuits
filed against the Company. The Company has an insurance recovery
receivable for probable asbestos related recoveries of
approximately $154.0 million and $154.2 million as of June 30, 2023
and December 31, 2022, respectively, which was included in "Other
assets" in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The amounts
recorded by the Company for asbestos-related liabilities and
insurance recoveries are based on currently available information
and assumptions that the Company believes are reasonable based on
an evaluation of relevant factors. The actual liabilities or
insurance recoveries could be higher or lower than those recorded
if actual results vary significantly from the assumptions."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/85psb8fy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Manitex International, Inc., has been named as a defendant in
several multi-defendant asbestos-related product liability
lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Manitex states, "In certain instances, the Company is indemnified
by a former owner of the product line involved. In the remaining
cases the plaintiff has, to date, not been able to establish any
exposure by the plaintiff to the Company's products. The Company is
uninsured with respect to these claims but believes that it will
not incur any material liability with respect to these claims.
"On May 5, 2011, Company entered into two separate settlement
agreements with two plaintiffs. As of June 30, 2023, the Company
has a remaining obligation under these agreements to pay the
plaintiffs $855 without interest in 9 annual installments of $95 on
or before May 22 of each year. The Company has recorded a liability
for the net present value of the liability. The difference between
the net present value and the total payment will be charged to
interest expense over the payment period.
"It is reasonably possible that the estimated reserve for product
liability claims may change within the next 12 months. A change in
estimate could occur if a case is settled for more or less than
anticipated, or if additional information becomes known to the
Company.
"The Company has accrued $335 for settling a litigation matter
involving a product liability case. In addition, the Company has
recorded a charge of $487 for the estimated withdrawal liability
for pension payments that it may owe under a collective bargaining
agreement with the unions."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2nfmnaex
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Co-Defends 112 Personal Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc., has been named as co-defendant in 112
cases asserting claims on behalf of 162 plaintiffs alleging
personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "In every asbestos case in which we are named
as a party, the complaints are filed against multiple named
defendants. Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos
cases. We intend to vigorously defend these cases and believe we
will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases.
"While it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation, and although
our results of operations and cash flows for a particular period
could be adversely affected by asbestos-related lawsuits, claims
and proceedings, management believes that the ultimate resolution
of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition, liquidity or results of operations."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3myrefxw
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regal Rexnord Has 404 Pending Exposure Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Regal Rexnord Corporation has multiple lawsuits (with approximately
404 claimants) are pending in state or federal court in numerous
jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches
previously manufactured by the Rexnord PMC business' Stearns brand
of brakes and clutches and/or its predecessor owners, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Invensys and FMC, prior owners of the Stearns
business, have paid 100% of the costs to date related to the
Stearns lawsuits. Similarly, the Rexnord PMC business' Prager
subsidiary is the subject of claims by multiple claimants alleging
personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in a
product allegedly manufactured by Prager. However, all these claims
are currently on the Texas Multi-district Litigation inactive
docket, and the Company does not believe that they will become
active in the future. To date, the Rexnord PMC business' insurance
providers have paid 100% of the costs related to the Prager
asbestos matters. We believe that the combination of the Company's
insurance coverage and the Invensys indemnity obligations will
cover any future costs of these matters.
"In connection with the Company's acquisition of the Rexnord PMC
business, transaction documents related to the Rexnord PMC
business' acquisition of The Falk Corporation from Hamilton
Sundstrand Corporation were assigned to Rexnord Industries, and
provide Rexnord Industries with indemnification against certain
product related asbestos exposure liabilities. The Company believes
that, pursuant to such indemnity obligations, Hamilton Sundstrand
is obligated to defend and indemnify Rexnord Industries with
respect to asbestos claims, and that, with respect to these claims,
such indemnity obligations are not subject to any time or dollar
limitations."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5n7s96wf
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roger Corp. Has $60.2MM Asbestos Liabilities
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Corp., in its press release issued on August 3, 2023, has
reported $355,000 asbestos-related liabilities, current portion and
$59,884,000 asbestos-related liabilities, non-current portion, at
June 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, respectively, according to the
Company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p9p928v
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sempra Energy Has 2 Pending PI Suits at July 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy's indirect subsidiaries which were acquired as part
of the merger of Energy Future Holdings Corp. (EFH), were
defendants in personal injury lawsuits brought in state courts
throughout the U.S., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "As of July 31, 2023, two lawsuits are pending.
Additionally, approximately 28,000 proofs of claim were filed, but
not discharged, in advance of a December 2015 deadline to file a
proof of claim in the EFH bankruptcy proceeding on behalf of
persons who allege exposure to asbestos under similar circumstances
and assert the right to file such lawsuits in the future. The costs
to defend or resolve such claims and the amount of damages that may
be incurred could have a material adverse effect on Sempra's
results of operations, financial condition, cash flows and/or
prospects."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mrsbtjyx
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi Inc. in Legal Action on Insurance Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Valhi, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, NL Industries, Inc., is
involved in certain legal proceedings with a number of its former
insurance carriers regarding the nature and extent of the carriers'
obligations to NL under insurance policies with respect to certain
lead pigment and asbestos lawsuits, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "The issue of whether insurance coverage for
defense costs or indemnity or both will be found to exist for NL's
lead pigment and asbestos litigation depends upon a variety of
factors, and we cannot assure you that such insurance coverage will
be available.
"NL has agreements with certain of its former insurance carriers
pursuant to which the carriers reimburse it for a portion of its
future lead pigment litigation defense costs. We are not able to
determine how much NL will ultimately recover from these carriers
for defense costs incurred by NL because of certain issues that
arise regarding which defense costs qualify for reimbursement.
While NL continues to seek additional insurance recoveries, we do
not know if we will be successful in obtaining reimbursement for
either defense costs or indemnity. Accordingly, we recognize
insurance recoveries in income only when receipt of the recovery is
probable and we are able to reasonably estimate the amount of the
recovery."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mr2pxs7u
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vontier Corp. Reports $103.6MM Gross Liabilities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vontier Corporation, has $103.6 million and $105.2 million gross
liabilities associated with known and future expected asbestos
claims as of June 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, respectively,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3ct7wpkz
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Co. Defends 650 Personal Injury Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------------
WestRock Company has been named a defendant in asbestos-related
personal injury litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "As of June 30, 2023, there were approximately
650 such lawsuits.
"We believe that we have substantial insurance coverage, subject to
applicable deductibles and policy limits, with respect to asbestos
claims. We also have valid defenses to these asbestos-related
personal injury claims and intend to continue to defend them
vigorously. Should the volume of litigation grow substantially, it
is possible that we could incur significant costs resolving these
cases. We do not expect the resolution of pending asbestos
litigation and proceedings to have a material adverse effect on our
results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. In any
given period or periods, however, it is possible such proceedings
or matters could have an adverse effect on our results of
operations, financial condition or cash flows. At June 30, 2023, we
had $12.0 million reserved for these matters."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2td2axnx
*********
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 ***