/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230830.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, August 30, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 174
Headlines
3M CO: Tabb Suit Over Toxic Chemicals Removed to N.D. Ala.
AHRC HEALTH: Onate Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
ALICO INC: M.D. FL. Sinder Suit Stayed Pending Dismissal Bid
AMERICAN HONDA: Harmon Appeals Arbitration Bid Ruling in Fraud Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Coluzzi et al. Sue Over Miscalculation of Wages
BROADWAY JOE'S: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Escobar Claims
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Dismissal of Bell Class Suit Under Appeal
CELESTRON ACQUISITION: DPPs Get $72K in Attorneys' and Expert Fees
COINBASE INC: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Aggarwal Suit
COLUMBUS REGIONAL: Class of Plan Participants Certified in Goodman
COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY: Bids for Judgment in US Sugar Suit Granted
CR CLICKS: Faces Meilan Class Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages
D'URSO LANDSCAPING: Calles Seeks Landscape Laborers' Unpaid OT
DAEMEN UNIVERSITY: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DE LONGHI AMERICA: Ghaznavi Suit Dismissed Over Jurisdiction Issue
DIOCESE OF EL PASO: Grant of Second Plea to Jurisdiction Affirmed
DO IT BEST CORP: Miller Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
DST SYSTEMS: Court Approves Suit Settlement Over 401(k) Profit
EP GLOBAL: Faces Ferguson Suit Over Breached Personal Info
ERICSSON INC: Gutierrez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
EXONE COMPANY: Campanella Sues Over Desktop-ExOne Merger Deal
FLORIDA HEALTH: Andriano Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
GOLDMAN SACHS: 2nd Cir. Reverses Class Cert. in Disclosure Suit
GRANITE STATE: Class Settlement in Grenier Suit Wins Prelim. Nod
HOVG LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Collection of Debt
HP INC: Court Rejects Bids to Dismiss Class Suit Over Printer Ink
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Judge Delays $200M Settlement in Theft Suit
INDIANA COUNTY, IN: Faces Class Suit Over Foster Children Care
INFINITY PHARMACEUTICALS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Oct 16
INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE: Faces DeCarvalho Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
KING'S COLLEGE: Dantone Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
LADLES SOUPS: S.C. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Chappell Suit
LIVE NATION: Faces Donley Securities Suit Over Anticompetitive Acts
M-F ATHLETIC COMPANY: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MAMCO INC: Court Dismisses Morales Class Suit Without Prejudice
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Kostov Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
MAURICES INCORPORATED: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MCGEE AIR SERVICES: Robinson Suit Removed to N.D. California
MEMBERS LIFE INSURANCE: Bivens Files Suit in W.D. Wisconsin
MEMORIAL HEART: Jackson Files Suit in E.D. Tennessee
META PLATFORMS: Court Allows Swath of Medical Privacy Class Action
METROHEALTH SYSTEM: Savel Appeals Case Dismissal to 6th Cir.
MICHAEL PRIES: McCollum Appeal on May 25, 2023 Order Withdrawn
MIKU INC: Clardy Suit Removed to C.D. California
MILLIMAN INC: Soto Files Suit in W.D. Washington
MISSFRESH LIMITED: Faces Chen Securities Suit in NY Court
MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Rezendes Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
MULTICOIN CAPITAL: O'Keefe Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
MULTIPLAN CORP: Court OKs Settlement in Securities Suit
NABORS COMPLETION: Figueroa Awarded $713K in Damages & Attys.' Fees
NEW YORK TIMES: Class Suit Settlement Over Auto-Renewals Vacated
NEW YORK, NY: Court Stays Deadline in Teagle Suit
NEWMAN MEMORIAL: Ketner Files Appeal with Kansas Supreme Court
O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES: Cull Suit Removed to C.D. California
OPENDOOR TECH: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing
OPENDOOR TECH: Consolidated Suit Over Stock Offer Ongoing
OSATA ENTERPRISES: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PARK AVENUE: De La Cruz Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages
PEACHTREE ORTHOPAEDIC: Snider Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
PENSION BENEFIT: Feregrino Files Suit in D. Minnesota
PREMIER WASH: Greer Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
RESIDENTIAL ELEVATORS: Stout FCRA Suit Removed to S.D. California
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing in CA Court
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Consolidated Securities Suit Over Outage Ongoing
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Court OK's Settlement in Mehta Securities Suit
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Dismissal of Federal Antitrust Suit Under Appeal
ROCK-IT CARGO USA: Birdsong Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
RUA & SON MECHANICAL: Villacana Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SAFETY SHOE: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SAFEWAY INC: Settles Stewart Meat Sale Dispute for $107M
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Appellate Court Denies DRAM Suit Certification
SAN ANGEL 2: Flores Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wage
SARA COMPANION: Rivera Sues Over Unlawful & Unfair Compensation
SEBA ABODE: Court Certifies Classes in Wofford Lawsuit
SECURIX LLC: Divine Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi
SEVERN PEANUT COMPANY: Miller Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
SHAMROCK TOWING: Faces Anderson Suit Over Labor Law Violations
SOTERA HEALTH: Sued Over SEC Misfiling in IPO Issue
STANDARD INSURANCE: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in ELM
STERLING INVESTMENT: Arbitration Bid Denial in Coleman Appealed
STREAMLINE PERFORMANCE: Neadle Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
STRONGHOLD DIGITAL MINING: Faces Shareholder Suit Over IPO
SUNRISE GROWERS: Correa Sues Over Deceptive & Misleading Marketing
SUNSWEET GROWERS: Hinojosa Suit Removed to E.D. California
SUNWEST MIILING: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Brittany Suit Removed to C.D. California
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Carlson Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
THOMSON REUTERS: Appeals Certification Ruling in Brooks Suit
TIGER GLOBAL: O'Keefe Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
TODD ROKITA: Simpson Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
TORONTO, ON: Faces Class Suit Over Carding Practice by Police
TRACTOR SUPPLY: Day Sues Over Failure to Pay on Weekly Basis
TRES COLORI: Fields Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
TRUPHAE INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TSG INTERACTIVE: Alcantar Files Suit in D. Delaware
ULTIMATE FIGHTING: Court Certifies Anti-Trust Class Action Suit
UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Claims in Mansor Class Action
UNITEDLEX CORPORATION: Glusky Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
VITALITY GROUP: Elias Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
VO HOLDINGS LLC: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WALMART INC: Thomas Sues Over False and Misleading Representation
WALMART INC: Wins Summary Judgment vs Oettle
WASHINGTON COUNTY, OR: Aiona Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
WASHINGTON NEWSPAPER: Pileggi Seeks More Time to File Class Cert.
WESTERN DIGITAL: Faces Class Suit Over Storage Devices' Failures
WESTSIDE VETERINARY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
WHITMAN COLLEGE: Summary Judgment Hearing Set for Nov. 3
WOODMAN'S FOOD: Final Collective Certification Bid Due Sept. 19
WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Cantarero Suit Removed to C.D. California
YAMAHA CORPORATION: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
*********
3M CO: Tabb Suit Over Toxic Chemicals Removed to N.D. Ala.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JIMMY TABB, et al., Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 01-CV-2023-902361.00, was removed from
the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County,
Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama on August 14, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Alabama assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-01061-RDP to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable
based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or
selling aqueous film-forming foams and/or firefighter turnout gear
that Plaintiffs allege were used in firefighting activities,
thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate operating in
the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer
goods.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
M. Christian King, Esq.
Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq.
W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq.
Wesley B. Gilchrist, Esq.
LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C.
The Clark Building
400 North 20th Street
Birmingham, AL 35203-3200
Telephone: (205) 581-0700
E-mail: cking@lightfootlaw.com
hprater@lightfootlaw.com
lradney@lightfootlaw.com
wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com
AHRC HEALTH: Onate Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTONIO ONATE, JR., on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. AHRC HEALTH
CARE, INC., and CARE DESIGN NY, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-08292-AS-JW
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying an Hourly Employees Class:
"all hourly paid and non-exempt employees of Defendant AHRC
Health Care, Inc. for the period from six years prior to the
filing of the Complaint to the entry of judgment in this
case,
excluding employees in the Home Health Department;"
2. certifying a class of a salaried Employees Class:
"all salaried and overtime eligible employees of Defendant
for
the period from six years prior to the filing of the
Complaint
to the entry of judgment in this case, excluding employees in
the Home Health Department"
3. appointing Plaintiff Antonio Onate Jr. and Opt-in Plaintiff
Ciara Jones-Best as the Class Representatives of the Salaried
Employees Class, and Opt-in Plaintiff Natia Guillouete and
Opt-
in Plaintiff Roxanne Brazil as the Class Representatives of
the
Hourly Employees Class;
4. appointing McLaughlin & Stern, LLP as Class Counsel; and
5. awarding such other and further relief as the Court deems
just
and proper.
AHRC is a licensed home care services agency.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 1, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s94gnE at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason S. Giaimo, Esq.
Lee S. Shalov, Esq.
Brett R. Gallaway, Esq.
McLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP
260 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 448-1100
E-mail: jgiaimo@mclaughlinstern.com
lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com
bgallaway@mclaughlinstern.com
ALICO INC: M.D. FL. Sinder Suit Stayed Pending Dismissal Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
Alico, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that on February 17, 2023, a class
action complaint was filed in the Middle District of Florida
captioned "Sinder v. Alico, Inc. et al.," Case No. 2:23-cv-00107
asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act of 1934 against the company and certain of its current and
former officers on behalf of a putative class of investors who
purchased the company's common stock between February 4, 2021 and
December 13, 2022.
All discovery is stayed in the Sinder action pending a ruling on
the company's anticipated motion to dismiss.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company and
certain of its current and former officers made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose certain information
regarding the company's financial reporting and December 13, 2022
restatement of the company's previously issued financial
statements. Plaintiff seeks damages, interest, costs, expenses,
attorneys' fees, and other unspecified relief.
The court overseeing the Sinder case has ordered the plaintiff to
file an amended complaint on or before August 28, 2023. In
response, the company anticipated moving to dismiss the amended
complaint on behalf of all defendants, on or before October 27,
2023.
Alico, Inc. is a Florida agribusiness and land management company
owning approximately 72,000 acres of land and approximately 90,000
acres of mineral rights throughout Florida
AMERICAN HONDA: Harmon Appeals Arbitration Bid Ruling in Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs David Harmon, et al., filed an appeal from the District
Court's Opinion and Order dated July 12, 2023 entered in the
lawsuit entitled David Harmon, Ivan Kosin, Matthew Kosin, Shirley
Dunn, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated v.
American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06150-CPO-SAK, in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Between July 2018 and June 2021, Plaintiffs David Harmon, Ivan
Kosin, and Matthew Kosin entered into automobile lease agreements
with several of Defendant's franchised dealers. Plaintiff Shirley
Dunn entered into an automobile purchase agreement with one of
Defendant's franchised dealers on June 16, 2021. The Plaintiffs
allege that Defendant, by neglecting to itemize or disclose the
metric used to calculate the fees, arbitrarily inflates the
purchase prices of its vehicles at the expense of New Jersey
consumers. They allege that such conduct constitutes deceptive and
unconscionable business practices in violation of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, and has resulted in Defendant's unjust
enrichment. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs filed this suit on October
18, 2022.
On December 14, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to compel
arbitration.
On July 12, 2023, Judge Christine P. O'Hearn entered an Order
granting Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. The matter was
stayed pending the results of arbitration; all other pending
motions were deemed moot and administratively terminated.
The appellate case is captioned as David Harmon, et al. v. American
Honda Motor Co Inc., Case No. 23-2444, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on Aug. 15, 2023.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants DAVID HARMON, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated, et al., are represented by:
Donovan C. Bezer, Esq.
30 Park Avenue
Lyndhurst, NJ 07071
Telephone: (201) 677-8693
- and -
Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP
275 7th Avenue
7th Floor, Suite 410
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
BANK OF AMERICA: Coluzzi et al. Sue Over Miscalculation of Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
DIANE COLUZZI, MICHAEL MARCHELOS, and GARY LIEB individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BANK OF
AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-06885 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 4,
2023) arises out of the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York Wage
Theft Prevention Act.
Diane Coluzzi, one of the Plaintiffs, was an hourly, non-exempt
senior financial lending officer who worked for Bank of America in
the state of New York from 1998 through May 2021. Throughout the
Paycheck Protection Program loan program, Plaintiff Coluzzi worked
a substantial amount of overtime hours, often more than 30 in a
workweek. These overtime hours were paid at a rate of
one-and-a-half times her lower, base hourly rate, and did not
include her nondiscretionary PPP incentive pay. Moreover, by
failing to include nondiscretionary PPP incentive pay -- a
significant part of an employee's total weekly earnings -- Bank of
America violated the law and miscalculated its employees' regular
rates of pay.
Headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, Bank of America is a
financial services company that offers saving and current account,
investment and financial services, online banking, and mortgage and
non-mortgage loan facilities. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matt Dunn, Esq.
GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN PLLC
260 Fair Streets
Kingston, NY 12401
Telephone: (845) 255-9370
Facsimile: (845) 255-8649
E-mail: mdunn@getmansweeney.com
- and -
George A. Hanson, Esq.
Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
Caleb J. Wagner, Esq.
Yasmin Zainulbhai, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
ricke@stuevesiegel.com
wagner@stuevesiegel.com
zainulbhai@stuevesiegel.com
BROADWAY JOE'S: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Escobar Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ESCOBAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE ORIGINAL BROADWAY JOE'S PIZZA, INC.
d/b/a BROADWAY JOE'S PIZZA, LOUIS PORCO, and ROBERT PORCO, as
individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06866 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 4,
2023), alleges claims against the Defendants for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff Escobar was employed by Defendants at The Original
Broadway Joe's Pizza, Inc. d/b/a Broadway Joe's Pizza, from in or
around January 2002 through the present. Throughout his employment
period, Plaintiff performed primary duties as a delivery person,
re-packer of kitchen goods, and cleaner, while performing other
miscellaneous duties. However, the Defendants allegedly did not
pay Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant
violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and
NYLL. Among other things, the Defendants also failed to pay
Plaintiff the legally prescribed minimum wage for all his hours
worked.
Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and liquidated
damages in an amount exceeding $636,300. The Plaintiff also seeks
interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable
remedies this Court deems appropriate.
The Original Broadway Joe's Pizza, Inc. d/b/a Broadway Joe's Pizza,
is a corporation organized under the laws of New York with a
principal executive office at 5985 Broadway, Bronx, NY. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, New York 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Dismissal of Bell Class Suit Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 25, 2023, that in January 9, 2023 class action
suit against the company and several defendants captioned "Bell et
al. v. Cal-Maine Foodset al.," Case No. 1:22-cv-246, in the Western
District of Texas, Austin Division was dismissed on January 9,
2023.
On February 8, 2023, the plaintiffs appealed the lower court's
judgment to the United States court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, Case No. 23-50112.
Case filed in March 15, 2022 alleged that the defendants violated
the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices—Consumer Protection Act by
allegedly demanding exorbitant or excessive prices for eggs during
the COVID-19 state of emergency. The plaintiffs request
certification of a class of all consumers who purchased eggs in
Texas sold, distributed, produced, or handled by any of the
defendants during the COVID-19 state of emergency.
Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the company and other defendants from
selling eggs at a price more than 10% greater than the price of
eggs prior to the declaration of the state of emergency and damages
in the amount of $10,000 per violation, or $250,000 for each
violation impacting anyone over 65 years old.. On August 12, 2022,
the company and other defendants in the case filed a motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' class action complaint.
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. is primarily engaged in producing, grading,
packaging, marketing, and distributing fresh shell eggs based in
Mississippi.
CELESTRON ACQUISITION: DPPs Get $72K in Attorneys' and Expert Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE TELESCOPES ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No.
20-cv-03642-EJD (VKD) (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Virginia K.
DeMarchi of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, awards the Direct Purchaser
Plaintiffs attorneys' fees and expert fees in the amount of
$71,652.50.
On June 12, 2023, the Court issued an order finding that the
Defendants did not fully comply with its discovery orders regarding
the production of transactional data and concluding that monetary
sanctions are appropriate. DPPs ask for an award of sanctions in
the amount of $167,489. The Defendants object that this amount is
unreasonable and inconsistent with the Court's June 12, 2023 order.
Judge DeMarchi finds the matter suitable for decision without oral
argument.
In its prior order, the Court concluded that the Defendants failed
to timely complete production of their transactional data, as
required by the Court's prior discovery orders, and that they had
been careless in their representations to the Court about the
available sources of transactional data and the completeness of
their productions. Observing that DPPs should not have had to file
a motion to compel in order to obtain meaningful information about
the Defendants' sources of transactional data or the production of
responsive transactional data in usable form, the Court found that
DPPs are entitled to recover their reasonable attorneys' fees and
expenses associated with the filing of the motion and supporting
materials, the preparation of the reply (with the exception of
expert Christopher Groves' reply declaration), and preparation for
and participation in the April 4, 2023 hearing on the motion, under
Rule 37(b)(2)(C).
At the Court's direction, DPPs filed an application for an award of
attorneys' fees and expert fees for time spent preparing their
motion to compel, opposing the Defendants' request to have the
motion taken off calendar, preparing their reply in support of the
motion to compel, and preparing for and participating in the
hearing on their motion. In their application, DPPs also ask for an
award of fees for time associated with meet and confer efforts over
the course of nine months preceding the filing of their motion to
compel. They do not seek fees for time their expert spent preparing
his reply declaration or for time associated with conferences of
counsel after the April 4, 2023 motion hearing.
The Defendants do not object to the rates DPPs use to calculate the
attorneys' fees at issue, nor do they object that the time spent
for any particular task was unreasonable or excessive. However,
they strongly object to the DPPs' request for attorneys' fees
associated with meet and confer efforts as outside the scope of the
Court's June 12, 2023 order and not reasonably compensable in any
event. In addition, the Defendants contend that DPPs' counsels'
time entries are "impermissibly vague" and include block billing,
making them difficult to evaluate. As a remedy, they suggest a
"minimum 20% reduction" of DPPs' claimed hours for work performed
in connection with briefing and argument on the motion to compel.
Judge DeMarchi agrees with the Defendants that DPPs are not
entitled to recover fees for time spent engaged in "meet and confer
efforts" with defendants before DPPs filed their motion to compel.
Those efforts are an ordinary part of discovery, and parties are
required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as this
District's local rules, to engage in such efforts before burdening
the Court with a discovery dispute. As the Court previously
ordered, DPPs are entitled to recover attorneys' fees for time
spent on briefing and argument associated with their motion to
compel.
Having carefully reviewed the time records submitted by DPPs and
the supporting declaration of counsel, Judge DeMarchi finds that
the claimed rates are consistent with the prevailing rates in this
District for similar legal services. She also finds that the number
of hours claimed by DPPs for this work is reasonable, and the time
spent does not appear to be unnecessary, duplicative, or excessive.
As the Defendants do not contest the reasonableness of Mr. Groves'
billing rate or the number of hours claimed for his work, Judge
DeMarchi concludes that DPPs may recover expert fees in the amount
of $4,387.50 as part of the sanctions award.
Based on the foregoing, DPPs' application for attorneys' fees and
expert fees is granted in part and denied in part as follows: the
Defendants must pay DPPs a total of $71,652.50, comprising an award
of $67,265.00 in attorneys' fees, and $4,387.50 in expert fees.
Payment must be made no later than 30 days from the date of the
Order unless the parties stipulate to a different date.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2wc3bk35 from Leagle.com.
COINBASE INC: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Aggarwal Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MANISH AGGARWAL and MOSTAFA EL BERMAWY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
COINBASE, INC. and COINBASE GLOBAL INC., Defendants, Case No.
22-cv-04829-JSW (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jeffrey S. White of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California grants the
Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and stays all further
litigation pending the completion of arbitration.
Now before the Court for consideration is the motion to compel
arbitration filed by Coinbase Global, Inc. and Coinbase, Inc.
(together "Coinbase"). Coinbase operates an online platform for
buying, selling, transferring, and storing cryptocurrencies. To
access its services, a user is required to create a Coinbase
account and agree to its User Agreement.
Plaintiff Aggarwal and El Bermawy were previously both Coinbase
users. On Dec. 18, 2017, El Bermawy created a Coinbase account and
accepted the Coinbase User Agreement that was in effect. On Feb. 8,
2021, Aggarwal created a Coinbase account and accepted the Coinbase
User Agreement that was in effect.
Coinbase periodically updates its User Agreement. It emailed
Aggarwal on Jan. 26, 2022 and Bermawy on Jan. 27, 2022, informing
them of a forthcoming update to the User Agreement, effective Jan.
31, 2022. Coinbase's email bore the subject line, "Update to
Coinbase User Agreement." The body of the email contained a
bulleted outline of the User Agreement updates present in the 2022
User Agreement. The landing page advised users that Coinbase was
updating the User Agreement. The full text of the updated 2022 User
Agreement was provided to Coinbase users in a scroll box.
Underneath the scroll box, users were presented with a blue button
labeled, "Accept terms." If a user clicked the "Accept terms"
button, they agreed to the terms of the 2022 User Agreement.
A disclaimer appears, regarding Appendix 5 ("Arbitration
Agreement"), in bold and all-caps towards the top of the 2022 User
Agreement. The American Arbitration Association's ("AAA") rules,
including the AAA's "Consumer Arbitration Rules," are incorporated
into Section 1.4 ("Rules and Forum") of the Arbitration Agreement.
On Feb. 4, 2022, El Bermawy logged into his Coinbase account via
Coinbase Pro iOS mobile app and agreed to the updated 2022 User
Agreement. Similarly, Aggarwal logged into his Coinbase account via
Coinbase Pro iOS mobile app and agreed to the updated 2022 User
Agreement on Feb. 5, 2022.
Aggarwal alleges that in April 2022, hackers gained access to his
Coinbase account and "drained it of more than $200,000" of
cryptocurrency. He alleges that he attempted to alert Coinbase of
the theft but was instead routed through its automated complaint
process. Similarly, El Bermawy alleges that in July 2022, hackers
robbed his account of cryptocurrency. He alleges that Coinbase
failed to assist him in recovering his stolen cryptocurrency and he
canceled his account.
On Sept. 29, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint.
They brought claims against Coinbase for: (i) violation of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act ("EFTA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1693 et
seq., (ii) violation of the EFTA and Regulation E Customer Service
Provisions, 15 U.S.C. Section 1693f(f)(6) and 12 C.F.R. Section
1005.11(a)(7), (iii) violation of the EFTA and Regulation E
Disclosure Provisions, 15 U.S.C. Section 1693c and 12 C.F.R.
Section 1005.7, (iv) violation of California Uniform Commercial
Code Division 8, Cal. Com. Code Section 8507(b), (v) bailment,
California Common Law and Civil Code Sections 1813, et seq., (vi)
conversion, (vii) breach of contract, (viii) breach of implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (ix) negligence, (x)
violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Sections
1750, et seq., (xi) violation of California False Advertising Law,
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17500, et seq., (xii) violation of
Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et
seq., and (xiii) unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiffs bring the case on behalf of themselves, and all
persons similarly situated. They seek certification of the
following class: All current and former Coinbase users and/or
consumers in the United States who registered for a Coinbase
account from April 1, 2021 through such time as Class notice is
given, who maintained funds and/or cryptocurrency in their Coinbase
accounts, and who were subsequently deprived of access to, or lost
their funds and/or cryptocurrency.
Coinbase now moves the Court to compel the Plaintiffs to arbitrate
their claims.
Judge White finds that Coinbase's unilateral contract modification
provision is silent as to whether contract changes apply to claims,
accrued or known, so applying the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, Coinbase's Arbitration Agreement is not illusory. He also
finds that the parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to submit
arbitrability issues to an arbitrator. A court must enforce an
agreement that, as in the case, clearly and unmistakably delegates
arbitrability questions to the arbitrator, the only remaining
question is whether the particular agreement to delegate
arbitrability -- the Delegation Provision -- is itself
unconscionable.
In addition, Judge White finds that a minimal degree of procedural
unconscionability arising from the adhesive nature of the
Delegation Clause. The Plaintiffs and Coinbase effectively
delegated the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator and because
he finds the Delegation Clause is not substantively unconscionable,
it is enforceable. Judge White therefore compels arbitration.
For the reasons he stated, Judge White grants Coinbase's motion to
compel arbitration and stays all further litigation pending
completion of arbitration. The parties will file a joint status
report every 180 days apprising the Court of the status of
arbitration proceedings, including when the stay may be lifted. The
parties will alert the Court within five court days of the
completion of arbitration.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ea3spmr9 from Leagle.com.
COLUMBUS REGIONAL: Class of Plan Participants Certified in Goodman
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BARBARA GOODMAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. COLUMBUS
REGIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:21-CV-15
(CDL) (M.D. Ga.), Judge Clay D. Land of the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Georgia, Columbus Division:
a. denies Columbus Regional's motion to dismiss Count III; and
b. grants the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1).
The Plaintiffs were participants in a defined contribution plan
sponsored by their employer, Columbus Regional. They brought the
putative class action alleging that Columbus Regional breached its
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
29 U.S.C. Section 1001 et seq. ("ERISA"), by failing to prudently
monitor and control the Plan's investment options, investment
expenses, and administrative expenses. Plaintiffs amended their
complaint to add Count III, a new prohibited transactions claim
under 29 U.S.C. Section 1106(a)(1)(C).
Columbus Regional moved to dismiss Count III, asserting it fails to
state a claim. Also pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion
to certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1).
The Plaintiffs were participants in an ERISA defined contribution
plan sponsored by their employer, Columbus Regional. Transamerica
Retirement Solutions provided recordkeeping and other services.
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. provided investment
advisory services and other services to the Plan and its
participants. The Plaintiffs allege that Transamerica and Merrill
were parties in interest to the Plan, which imposes certain duties
upon Columbus Regional regarding their involvement with the Plan.
In Count III, the Plaintiffs allege that Columbus Regional, as the
Plan sponsor, caused the Plan to enter contracts with Transamerica
and Merrill. According to them, these contracts are prohibited
transactions under ERISA because the compensation was unreasonable
and because Transamerica and Merrill did not make certain
disclosures that are required under the statute and applicable
regulations. The Amended Complaint does not contain specific
factual allegations about when the Plan entered the allegedly
prohibited transactions.
Columbus Regional initially entered a pension services agreement
with Transamerica in 2010. It first entered a defined contribution
investment consulting services client agreement with Merrill in
2014. In 2016, the Plan entered new agreements with Merrill and
Transamerica that restructured the roles, responsibilities, and
compensation of Merrill and Transamerica, resulting in a net
increase in service provider compensation.
In their response brief, the Plaintiffs clarified that Count III is
premised only on the 2016 agreements. With this clarification, the
First Amended Complaint alleges that Columbus Regional caused the
Plan to engage in the 2016 transactions with Transamerica and
Merrill, and as a result, the Plan paid unreasonable compensation
to these two parties in interest using Plan assets, all of which
Columbus Regional knew or should have known about.
Judge Land denies Columbus Regional's motion to dismiss Count III.
He finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that the
Transamerica 2016 Agreement was a prohibited transaction. He also
unconvinced that the present record contains enough information to
decide whether the safe harbor defense applies as a matter of law.
And, given the Plaintiffs' allegations that the compensation to
Merrill under the Merrill 2016 Agreement was unreasonable, he finds
that the Plaintiffs have adequately stated a plausible claim.
The Plaintiffs propose that the following class be certified under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1): All persons who were
participants or beneficiaries in the Columbus Regional Healthcare
System Retirement Savings Plan (the Plan) and had account balances
in the Plan as of Feb. 2, 2015 or after, through the termination of
the Plan.
Judge Land finds that the Plaintiffs have met their burden of
establishing that the following class should be certified under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1): All persons who were
participants or beneficiaries in the Columbus Regional Healthcare
System Retirement Savings Plan (the Plan) and had account balances
in the Plan as of Feb. 2, 2015 or after, through the termination of
the Plan. He grants Plaintiffs' motion to certify class.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2vj7bmtk from Leagle.com.
COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY: Bids for Judgment in US Sugar Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, United States Sugar Corporation, Plaintiff v. Commerce
and Industry Insurance Company, Defendant, Civil Action No.
22-21737-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla.), Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr., of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida grants in
part and denies in part both US Sugar's motion for summary judgment
and C&I's motion for summary judgment.
The matter is before the Court on cross-motions for summary
judgment filed by both Plaintiff United States Sugar Corp. ("US
Sugar") and Defendant Commerce and Industry Insurance Co.'s
("C&I"). US Sugar first filed its motion for summary judgment. C&I
responded in opposition, and US Sugar timely replied. C&I then
filed its motion for summary judgment. US Sugar responded in
opposition and C&I timely replied.
The matter is a coverage dispute between US Sugar and its
then-general commercial liability insurer, C&I. The dispute arose
over US Sugar's defense of a putative class-action lawsuit relating
to US Sugar's practice of pre-harvest sugarcane burning (the
"Underlying Lawsuit"). US Sugar defended the Underlying Lawsuit
successfully, despite C&I's refusal to provide a defense under the
insurance policy that US Sugar held with C&I at the time. Now, US
Sugar seeks to recoup the Defense Expenses it incurred defending
the Underlying Lawsuit through a breach of contract claim based on
the Policy.
The Court previously ruled on US Sugar's motion for judgment on the
pleadings that US Sugar is entitled to reimbursement of its Defense
Expenses, finding that US Sugar's Defense Expenses incurred
defending the Underlying Lawsuit erode the Policy's Self-Insured
Retention. That "Self-Insured Retention" limit, which functions
much like a typical insurance deductible, establishes that US Sugar
is responsible for the first $1,000,000 of its Defense Expenses.
Above that $1 million, C&I is responsible for reimbursing US Sugar
for any Defense Expenses relating to the Underlying Lawsuit,
pursuant to the Court's prior decision. The Court reserved ruling
on what qualified as Defense Expenses in the present Order.
Next, C&I moved for partial summary judgment, seeking to have the
Court exclude certain categories of fees and costs from US Sugar's
Defense Expenses -- namely, expenses from either before the
Underlying Lawsuit or after the filing of the second amended
complaint in the Underlying Lawsuit. The Court found that (1) US
Sugar is not entitled to reimbursement of its pre-suit expenses for
"scientific and legal work" related to its practice of pre-harvest
sugarcane burning; but (2) C&I is responsible for all of US Sugar's
Defense Expenses incurred above the $1,000,000 Self-Insured
Retention, even after the filing of the second amended complaint.
Once again, the Court made no observations regarding the actual
value of US Sugar's incurred Defense Expenses in ruling on C&I's
motion.
Now, both US Sugar and C&I seek a final determination of the amount
of US Sugar's Defense Expenses. Neither party disputes the veracity
of the figures that US Sugar has submitted in support of its
motion. Nor does either party dispute that US Sugar has actually
paid that amount to its attorneys and experts in the Underlying
Lawsuit. Both parties agree that US Sugar's actual payments to its
attorneys and experts in the Underlying Lawsuit total
$9,464,929.51. And both parties agree that, following the Court's
entry of partial judgment on the pleadings in favor of US Sugar on
the Policy's meaning, C&I paid $2,072,453.32 to US Sugar as payment
of its Defense Expenses.
The parties' only remaining dispute is the determination of the
actual value of US Sugar's Defense Expenses that C&I must pay. US
Sugar argues that C&I owes the entirety of its Defense Expenses
under Florida law and the Court's prior orders. C&I, on the other
hand, argues that it may only ever be held liable for US Sugar's
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as Defense Expenses in the
Underlying Lawsuit based on Florida law. According to C&I, it has
already paid US Sugar the "reasonable" value of its Defense
Expenses, so it owes US Sugar nothing more under Florida law.
After careful consideration of the briefing, the record, and the
relevant legal authorities, Judge Scola grants in part and denies
in part both US Sugar's motion for summary judgment and C&I's
motion for summary judgment. He finds the following as a matter of
law: (1) US Sugar is entitled to reimbursement of its reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs as its Defense Expenses in the Underlying
Action in excess of the Self-Insured Retention amount; (2) US Sugar
is therefore entitled to $6,529,005.82 in Defense Expenses from the
Underlying Action; (3) because C&I has already reimbursed
$2,072,453.32 of US Sugar's Defense Expenses and US Sugar's Defense
Expenses are subject to the Policy's $1,000,000 Self-Insured
Retention, US Sugar is entitled to judgment in the amount of
$3,456,552.50; and (4) US Sugar may raise its reserved requests for
pre- and post-judgment interest and its reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs in this action by separate motion.
US Sugar is directed to submit such a motion, should it desire to
do so. The Court will separately enter judgment, as required by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, after resolution of US Sugar's
motion for pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and
costs.
The status conference scheduled for Aug. 9, 2023, at 9:00 A.M., is
canceled. All currently pending motions are denied as moot. The
matter will remain open pending the potential resolution of a
motion by US Sugar for pre- and post-judgment interest and its
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in this action.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mr39f3pk from Leagle.com.
CR CLICKS: Faces Meilan Class Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
GINGER MEILAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CR CLICKS ECOMM INC. dba Charlotte Russe,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-22904-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 4, 2023)
arises out of the Defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
On or about May 26, 2023, June 8, 2023, June 29, 2023, July 10,
2023, July 12, 2023, July 24, 2023, Defendant sent solicitation
text messages even if Plaintiff have already registered her
telephone number on the National Do Not Call Registry of persons
who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is
maintained by the federal government. Through this action,
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful
conduct and statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of
the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies.
CR Clicks Ecomm Inc. owns and operates retails stores that sell
clothing and accessories in the US. [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
D'URSO LANDSCAPING: Calles Seeks Landscape Laborers' Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS CALLES, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. D'URSO LANDSCAPING, INC., CARMINE
D'URSO, Individually, and CIRO D'URSO, Individually, Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-04773 (D.N.J., Aug. 16, 2023) arises from the
Defendants' violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New
Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law
by engaging in a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and
members of the putative collective to regularly work in excess of
40 hours per week, without providing overtime compensation.
Plaintiff Calles was employed by Defendants as a landscape laborer
performing duties in furtherance of Defendants' business, from May
2022 until the end of July 2023.
D'urso Landscaping, Inc. is a family owned and operated full
service landscape company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Glenn, Esq.
Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
GLENN AGRE BERGMAN & FUENTES LLP
300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (201) 687-9977
Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com
jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com
DAEMEN UNIVERSITY: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Daemen University.
The case is styled as Milagros Senior, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Daemen University, Case No.
1:23-cv-07147 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Daemen University -- http://www.daemen.edu/-- is a private
university in Amherst and Brooklyn, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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: danalgottlieb@aol.com
DE LONGHI AMERICA: Ghaznavi Suit Dismissed Over Jurisdiction Issue
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HAMZA GHAZNAVI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DE LONGHI AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 22 Civ. 1871 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Katherine
Polk Failla of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff Ghaznavi would like to tinker, or have someone of his
choosing tinker, with his "slightly malfunctioning" coffeemaker. He
has refrained from doing either, however, for fear of voiding the
manufacturer's warranty, which permits repairs only by authorized
service providers. Instead, the Plaintiff brings the putative class
action lawsuit, challenging the repair restriction as unlawful
under both a federal statute that regulates consumer warranties and
New York laws barring deceptive and fraudulent business practices.
In May 2020, the Plaintiff, a New York resident, purchased a
De'Longhi Eletta Fully Automatic Espresso Cappuccino and Coffee
Maker. Although the Coffee Maker is manufactured by Defendant De
Longhi America, Inc., the Plaintiff purchased his online from
Costco.com for $1,099.99. Costco shipped the Coffee Maker to his
home. At the time of his purchase, the Plaintiff believed that the
Coffee Maker's warranty, which was available on Costco's website,
complied with state and federal law.
The Plaintiff's Coffee Maker is protected by a two-year warranty
that applies to products purchased from the Defendant and its
authorized distributors. The Warranty guarantees that the Defendant
will provide two years of "free parts and labor" to remedy defects
in the Coffee Maker's material and workmanship. To take advantage
of the warranty, the consumer must ship the malfunctioning product
to an authorized De'Longhi Group service center at their own
expense. For added protection and secure handling, the Defendant
recommended that consumers use a trackable insured delivery method.
The Defendant may then either repair the product with new or
remanufactured parts, or replace the product entirely, either with
a new or certified remanufactured product at no additional charge
to the consumer. It bears the cost of return shipping. The warranty
does not apply to any product that has been repaired or altered
outside its factory, any product that has been subjected to misuse,
negligence, or accidents, or any product lost or damaged while in
transit to be repaired.
Shortly after the Plaintiff purchased the Coffee Maker, it began to
slightly malfunction. He wished to repair it himself but did not
because doing so would void the product's warranty. He also did not
send the Coffee Maker to the Defendant to repair, because he did
not want to pay for postage and insurance, did not want to assume
the risk of it being lost or damaged in transit, and did not want
to be temporarily deprived of its use. Instead, the Plaintiff
retained his slightly malfunctioning Coffee Maker and filed this
lawsuit. He believes the Warranty to be unlawful and alleges that
had he known of such unlawfulness at the time of his purchase, he
would not have purchased the Coffee Maker or would have paid
significantly less for it.
The Plaintiff filed this putative class action on March 4, 2022. e
brings several claims: (i) a federal claim under the anti-tying
provision of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (the "MMWA"), 15 U.S.C.
Section 2302(c), and state-law claims for (ii) unjust enrichment,
(iii) fraud, (iv) fraudulent omission, and (v) deceptive business
practices. He seeks damages and a declaration that the Warranty is
unlawful under the MMWA's anti-tying provision.
On April 8, 2022, the Court granted the Defendant's request for an
extension of its deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the
complaint. Subsequently, the parties advised the Court by letter
of the Plaintiff's intent to amend his pleading. The Court adopted
the parties' proposed deadlines for such amendment and for the
Defendant's response. In line with that schedule, the Plaintiff
filed the Amended Complaint on June 13, 2022.
On July 12, 2022, the Defendant filed a letter requesting a
conference to discuss its anticipated motion to dismiss in
accordance with Rule 4.A. of the Court's Individual Rules of
Practice in Civil Cases. Two days later, the Plaintiff filed a
letter detailing his intended opposition to such motion. The Court
held a conference on July 20, 2022, at which it set a briefing
schedule for the Defendant's motion.
The Defendant filed its motion to dismiss and accompanying papers
on Aug. 31, 2022. In its motion, it asserts both that the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action and that the
Plaintiff has failed to plead any of his claims adequately. The
Plaintiff filed his opposition along with a request for the Court
to take judicial notice of certain documents posted to the website
of the Federal Trade Commission on Sept. 30, 2022. The motion
became fully briefed upon the Defendant's Oct. 14, 2022 reply
filing. Subsequently, each party filed notices of supplemental
authorities decided after the motion was briefed.
Judge Failla begins by considering whether she has authority to
consider the merits of the action. She finds she does not. Among
other things, Judge Failla holds that even if the Warranty were in
fact unlawful, the Plaintiff has not alleged that he was concretely
harmed by it. For one, the Coffee Maker still retains its full
value because the Warranty is currently operative -- the Plaintiff
has not voided it by attempting to repair it himself or by taking
it to an unauthorized repair shop. And he has not yet incurred any
expense in complying with the Warranty; he has not, for instance,
shipped the Coffee Maker to the De'Longhi facility for repair and
so has not paid for shipping, insurance, or other incidentals that
would certainly be cognizable economic injuries. The only injury
the Plaintiff has suffered is possessing a possibly unlawful
warranty, an injury that plainly falls within the category of bare
procedural violations that alone are insufficient to confer
standing.
The Plaintiff raises the specter of financial harm if he were to
pay out-of-pocket to ship the Coffee Maker to the Defendant for
repair or if he were to void the Warranty by repairing the Coffee
Maker on his own. But federal courts are not in the business of
remedying speculative harms. Because the Plaintiff has not yet
suffered an actual, concrete injury because of the Warranty and
disclaims any intent to do so in the future, his MMWA claim is
premature.
Judge Failla also finds that she lacks authority to hear the action
for an additional reason: The Plaintiff has not satisfied the
statutory jurisdictional requirements for a federal class action
under the MMWA. He rightly concedes that his pleading does not
satisfy the MMWA's jurisdictional criteria. The plain language of
the relevant statutes, considered in context, makes clear that the
MMWA is the exclusive source of federal jurisdiction over federal
warranty claims. Nothing in Judge Failla's Opinion prevents the
Plaintiff from refiling the suit in state court, unrestrained by
the MMWA's limits on federal jurisdiction.
Having dismissed the sole federal claim, Judge Failla considers how
to proceed with the Plaintiff's remaining common-law claims for
unjust enrichment, fraud, fraudulent omission, and his claim of
deceptive business practices under Section 349 of the New York
General Business Law. Because the Court lacks original jurisdiction
over the Plaintiff's MMWA claim, it also lacks supplemental
jurisdiction over his related state-law claims. Judge Failla thus
dismisses the Plaintiff's state-law claims without prejudice as to
their refiling in the proper forum.
Finally, Judge Failla denies the Plaintiff leave to amend because
such amendment would be futile. It well may be that the Plaintiff
can replead an injury-in-fact to Article III's satisfaction. But
the Court has no reason to believe that the Plaintiff could meet
the MMWA's jurisdictional requirements; the Plaintiff has not
indicated that ninety-nine additional named Plaintiffs are waiting
to join his suit. Because amendment would not cure the pleading
deficiencies that led the Court to dismiss the suit in the first
instance, the Plaintiff's request for leave to amend is denied.
Because the Court lacks both constitutional and statutory authority
to reach the merits of the Plaintiff's federal claim, Judge Failla
grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. The. Plaintiff's claims are dismissed without
prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending
motions, adjourn all remaining dates, and close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc7xtxx9 from Leagle.com.
DIOCESE OF EL PASO: Grant of Second Plea to Jurisdiction Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NORA SALADO, JESUS MARTINEZ, BERTHA PEDREGON, ELSINA
AVALOS, NATY RUBALCAVA, RAMON TIRRES, OFELIA MALTOS, ROSA SERNA,
LUZ ELENA ABASTA, HERIBERTO ABASTA, PORFIRIO ROJAS, JOSEFINA
SALAZAR, PARISHIONERS OF SAN JOSE CATHOLIC CHURCH, Appellants v.
ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF EL PASO, MARK J. SEITZ, BISHOP OF THE
ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF EL PASO, Appellees, Case No.
08-22-00204-CV (Tex. App.), Judge Yvonne T. Rodriguez, writing for
the Court of Appeals of Texas for the Eighth District, El Paso,
affirms the trial court's grant of the Diocese's second plea to the
jurisdiction.
The case involves a dispute between a group of parishioners who
raised funds to build a new church and the diocese that accepted
the funds but ultimately decided not to build the church. The
Appellants/Parishoners sued the Roman Catholic Diocese of El Paso
and Bishop Mark J. Seitz (together, the Diocese) alleging
promissory estoppel, fraud, violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices Consumer Protection Act (DTPA), and conversion. The
Diocese filed two pleas to the jurisdiction: the first was granted
in part, and the second was granted in full. The Parishioners
appeal the grant of the second plea to the jurisdiction.
On Feb. 5, 2020, the Parishioners filed a lawsuit against Bishop
Seitz and the Diocese alleging the misappropriation of church funds
and seeking relief in the form of specific performance under the
theory of promissory estoppel. They alleged their community had
raised $1.4 million dollars for the purpose of building a new
parish church, and the Diocese then misappropriated the money by
refusing to approve the construction of a new church and by
extinguishing the San Jose Parish and merging it -- and its assets
-- into a new parish. They later amended their pleadings to assert
additional claims for fraud, misappropriation of funds, and
violations of the DTPA. The Diocese and Bishop Seitz responded with
a combined answer, motion to dismiss, and plea to the
jurisdiction.
The trial court granted the plea to the jurisdiction in part,
finding that it lacked jurisdiction to review Bishop Seitz's
decision not to build a new church as it involved a matter of
internal church governance. It further found it lacked jurisdiction
to order Bishop Seitz to authorize the building of a new church or
to otherwise grant specific performance.
Bishop Seitz and the Diocese then moved for summary judgment,
alleging the statute of limitations for the Parishioners' claims
had expired and Bishop Seitz was never properly served. The
Parishioners responded, producing an affidavit of Nora Salado, a
parishioner from San Jose Parish, who averred that over the past
decade leading up to the dispute the Parishioners were repeatedly
told the money raised by the Parish was in a "restricted fund"
dedicated for "the sole purpose of building a new parish church."
After a hearing on the motion, the trial court granted summary
judgment in favor of Bishop Seitz and denied the motion as to the
Diocese. While the summary judgment motion was pending, the
Parishioners filed a second amended petition on Sept. 23, 2021 --
renaming Bishop Seitz as a defendant. In it, they alleged the same
claims for promissory estoppel, fraud and misappropriation of
funds, violations of the DTPA, and adding a claim for conversion.
The Church filed its second plea to the jurisdiction alleging the
doctrine of ecclesiastical abstention deprived the trial court of
subject-matter jurisdiction to resolve the Parishioners' claims.
The Diocese included numerous declarations from various church
leaders, a copy of the Decree merging San Jose Parish and Santa
Lucia Parish, and copies of Salado's internal petition and appeal
of the Decree which was denied by the Congregatio Pro Clericis.
The Diocese's second plea to the jurisdiction argued the
Parishioners' complaints required the trial court to adjudicate
matters of canon law and internal governance related to the alleged
misappropriation of money in the restricted building fund through
the promulgation of the Decree. Adjudicating this conflict, the
Diocese argued, would require the courts to evaluate the rights,
duties, and authority of bishops to merge, create, and transfer
assets between parishes and other entities within the hierarchy of
the church, all of which are inherently ecclesiastical in nature.
Because the Decree was a purely an ecclesiastical act, the Diocese
argued that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine barred all of
the Parishioners' claims.
The trial court granted the Diocese's second plea to the
jurisdiction as to all claims against it. The instant appeal
followed.
The Parishioners second amended pleading asserted claims for
promissory estoppel, fraud, violations of the DTPA, and
conversion.
The Court of Appeals opines that the fundamental allegation
underlying each of the Parishioners' claims is the funds raised by
San Jose Parish was misappropriated by the Diocese when Bishop
Seitz issued the Decree that the San Jose Parish would cease to
exist, and all assets transferred to the newly created Saint John
Paul II Parish. Although the Parishioners assert their claims can
be resolved by neutral principles of law, the Court of Appeals
finds that each claim implicates an ecclesiastical matter of church
organization and governance. The Parishioners' causes of action for
promissory estoppel, fraud, violations of the DTPA, and conversion
are actually claims for misappropriation of funds—evidenced by
their pleadings which seek redress under each cause by stating they
seek damages for the misappropriation of the money in the
restricted fund.
To resolve the dispute of whether the funds raised by the
Parishioners on behalf of Sant Jose Parish were misappropriated
when they transferred to the new Saint John Paul II Parish would
require the Court of Appeals to interpret Cannon Law and policies
of the Roman Catholic Church regarding the rights and authority of
bishops regarding the patrimony of a parish. Churches have a
fundamental right to decide for themselves, free from state
interference, matters of church government. Because the
Parishioners' pleadings affirmatively negate jurisdiction and seek
only the resolution of conflict that is purely ecclesiastical, the
trial court did not err in granting the Diocese's second plea to
the jurisdiction. The Panel overrules the Parishioner's issue on
appeal.
For these reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2wvetpk4 from Leagle.com.
DO IT BEST CORP: Miller Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Do It Best Corp. The
case is styled as Kimberly Miller, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Do It Best Corp., Case No.
1:23-cv-00816 (W.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Do It Best Corp. -- http://www.doitbestonline.com/-- formerly
known as Hardware Wholesalers, Inc., is a member-owned hardware,
lumber, and building materials cooperative based in Fort Wayne,
Indiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
- and -
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTFRIED & GOTTFRIED, LLP
122 East 42nd. St., Suite 620
New York, NY 10168
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
DST SYSTEMS: Court Approves Suit Settlement Over 401(k) Profit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fox 19 Now reports that the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York has approved the following
announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would
benefit participants in the DST Systems, Inc. 401(k) Profit Sharing
Plan.
A settlement has been preliminarily approved by a federal court in
a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs Michael L. Ferguson,
Myrl C. Jeffcoat, and Deborah Smith (collectively, "Named
Plaintiffs"), on behalf of the Settlement Class and the DST
Systems, Inc. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (the "Plan"), against
Defendants Ruane, Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc. ("RCG"); DST Systems,
Inc. ("DST"), the Advisory Committee of the DST Systems, Inc.
401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (the "Advisory Committee"), and the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems,
Inc. (the "Compensation Committee," and together with DST and the
Advisory Committee, the "Ferguson DST Defendants"), as well as
Robert D. Goldfarb ("Goldfarb," a defendant in a separate related
action). RCG, the Ferguson DST Defendants, and Goldfarb are
collectively referred to as "Defendants." Plaintiffs allege
breaches of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). This Settlement will provide
$124,625,000.00 to the Plan, subject to certain deductions for
Court-approved fees and expenses, including attorney's fees;
administrative costs; and civil penalties paid to the United States
Department of Labor. The net settlement amount after these
deductions will be allocated to Plan participants who had Plan
accounts during the Class Period. All capitalized terms not
otherwise defined in this Summary Notice of Class Action Settlement
(the "Summary Notice") have the meaning provided in the Settlement
Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") available on the Settlement
website (provided below). If you currently have a Plan account, you
will receive an allocation to your Plan account without taking any
further action. If you previously had a Plan account but no longer
have one, you will be sent a check unless you submit a Former
Participant Rollover Form. The United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York authorized this Summary Notice.
WHO IS INCLUDED IN THE SETTLEMENT?
If you were a Participant in the Plan at any time during the period
from March 14, 2010 until July 31, 2016, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), or you were a Beneficiary or Alternate Payee of any such
Participant, then you are a member of the Settlement Class (a
"Settlement Class Member"), UNLESS you: (i) were a member of the
Advisory Committee of the Plan during the Settlement Class Period;
(ii) were a member of the Compensation Committee of the Board of
Directors of DST Systems, Inc. during the Settlement Class Period;
(iii) otherwise served as a fiduciary of the Plan during the
Settlement Class Period; or (iv) are a beneficiary, immediate
family member, estate or executor of (i)-(iii).
WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT?
Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants violated ERISA by, among other
things, investing an inappropriate amount of the PSP's assets in
the stock of Valeant Pharmaceuticals ("VRX"), failing to timely
reduce and/or eliminate the PSP's investments in VRX, and, in the
case of the Ferguson DST Defendants, failing to adequately monitor
the fiduciaries managing the PSP's investments. Plaintiffs'
allegations are described in more detail in the Complaint(s)
available on the Settlement website. The Court has not made any
finding that the Defendants have done anything wrong or violated
any law or regulation. Both sides agreed to the Settlement to avoid
the cost and risk of further litigation.
WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?
Defendants have agreed to provide $124,625,000.00, which will be
divided among eligible Settlement Class Members after payment of
attorneys' fees to Class Counsel, to counsel who represent certain
Settlement Class Members who pursued arbitrations ("Arbitration
Counsel"), and to counsel who represent certain other Settlement
Class Members who filed separate actions in the Southern District
of New York ("Canfield/Mendon Counsel"); Case Contribution Awards
to Named Plaintiffs; payment of other costs and expenses of the
Settlement, including notice and claims administration, as the
Court may allow; and civil penalties payable to the United States
Department of Labor. The total attorneys' fees and expenses to be
requested from the Settlement Fund will be no more than
$25,125,000.00, with Class Counsel requesting an award of
$9,500,000.00; Arbitration Counsel requesting $15,500,000.00; and
Canfield/Mendon Counsel requesting up to $250,000.00, half of which
amount will be paid by Arbitration Counsel. Arbitration Counsel are
also paying a portion of their fees to Canfield/Mendon counsel on
account of assistance he provided in the arbitration matters. The
Settlement Agreement, other related documentation, and a list of
Frequently Asked Questions, available at the Settlement website
identified below, describe the details of the proposed Settlement.
Your share (if any) of the settlement fund will depend upon the
amount and value of your Plan account(s) during the Settlement
Class Period and certain other factors, including whether you
previously obtained any payment from any of the Defendants related
to the PSP's investment in VRX.
Please note that, if you executed a release in favor of any the
Defendants or had an award or judgment entered in connection with
any related proceedings against any of the Defendants (regardless
of whether you won or lost), you may still be able to obtain a
payment as part of the Settlement. If you already have received an
arbitration award related to claims concerning the PSP's investment
in VRX, as part of this Settlement you will receive at least the
amount of any unpaid damages against DST included in that
arbitration award. If you already received consideration (meaning a
monetary payment, account allocation or financial benefit of any
kind) as an arbitration claimant in return for execution of a
release in favor of any of the Defendants, you will retain that
consideration and, if you are entitled to a share of the Settlement
Fund according to the Settlement Agreement that is greater than the
amount of that consideration, you will receive a "top-off" payment
in the amount of the difference.
This Settlement releases any claims against Defendants relating in
any way to the allegations made in this case or in other lawsuits
or arbitrations involving the Plan, as well as any claims in any
way related to the Plan, its investments, fees, or performance, or
any action or inaction by any Plan fiduciary. This means that if
the Court approves the Settlement, you will not be able to pursue
any other lawsuit or other legal proceeding, including arbitration,
against any of the Defendants that asserts any claims in any way
related to any of the allegations made in this case or in other
lawsuits or arbitrations involving the Plan, or any claims in any
way related to the Plan, its investments, fees, or performance, or
any action or inaction by any Plan fiduciary.
The Settlement also will resolve a separate proceeding brought by
the Department of Labor alleging ERISA violations in connection
with the Plan.
HOW DO I RECEIVE A PAYMENT?
If you are a Settlement Class member, a current Participant in the
Plan, or a Beneficiary or Alternate Payee of a Plan participant who
has an active account in the Plan, and you are entitled to a share
of the Settlement Fund according to the Settlement Agreement, you
are not required to do anything to receive a payment. Your
Settlement Payment will automatically be calculated by the
Settlement Administrator, deposited into your Plan account, and
invested in accordance with your investment elections for new
contributions.
If you are no longer a Participant in the Plan, or you are a
Beneficiary or Alternate Payee of a Plan Participant who does not
have an active account in the Plan, you will receive your
Settlement Payment directly in the form of a check. If your address
has changed since you closed your Plan account(s), please contact
the Settlement Administrator toll-free at (866) 274-4044 or by
email to info@strategicclaims.net to advise of the change of
address.
If you are no longer a Participant in the Plan, or you are a
Beneficiary or Alternate Payee of a Plan participant who does not
have an active account in the Plan and you would prefer to receive
your Settlement Payment through a rollover to a qualified
retirement account instead of a check, you will need to submit a
Former Participant Rollover Form by the deadline contained on the
Settlement website. You may download the Former Participant
Rollover Form on the Settlement website.
CAN I OBJECT TO OR OPT OUT OF THE SETTLEMENT?
This is a mandatory settlement. You do not have the right to
exclude yourself from the Settlement in this case, but you do have
the right to object to it by writing to the Court. Your objection
may include objecting to the amount of attorneys' fees and expenses
requested by Class Counsel or any other counsel, the amount of Case
Contribution Awards requested by the Named Plaintiffs, and the
amount of civil penalties to be remitted to the United States
Department of Labor. You will be bound by any judgments or orders
that are entered in this Action, and if the Settlement is approved,
you will be deemed to have released the Defendants and associated
persons from all claims that were or could have been asserted in
this case, including all Released Claims as defined under the
Settlement Agreement, other than your right to obtain the relief
provided to you, if any, by the Settlement.
The Court will hold a hearing in this case on October 23, 2023 at
4:00 PM via telephone conference, with the Honorable Andrew L.
Carter, Jr., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, to consider whether to approve the Settlement and a request
by the lawyers representing all Settlement Class Members, Class
Counsel, as well as other counsel, for attorneys' fees, for Case
Contribution Awards to the Named Plaintiffs, for other case-related
expenses, and the civil penalties amount payable to the United
States Department of Labor. If approved, these amounts will be paid
from the Settlement Fund. You may ask to speak at the hearing by
filing a Notice of Intention to Appear no later than October 13,
2023, but you are not required to do so.
Although you cannot opt out of the Settlement, you may object to
all or any part of the Settlement and/or the Motion for Attorneys'
Fees filed by Class Counsel, the Motion for Attorneys' Fees filed
by other counsel, and the request for award of Case Contribution
Awards in accordance with the instructions included in the
long-form Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action and
Settlement Fairness Hearing available at the Settlement website
below. Objections must be received by the Court, by filing or by
mail, by no later than October 13, 2023. Please note that the time,
place and date of the hearing may change without a further mailing.
Class Counsel will update the Settlement website below if the
hearing time or location is changed. Please check the website or
contact Class Counsel if you wish to confirm that the hearing time
has not been changed.
HOW DO I GET MORE INFORMATION?
If you are a Settlement Class member and would like to receive
additional information or to receive a copy of the long-form Notice
of Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Settlement Fairness
Hearing, you can obtain such information by (a) sending a letter to
DST Settlement Administrator, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N
Jackson Street, Suite 205, Media, PA 19063; (b) sending an e-mail
to info@strategicclaims.net; (c) visiting the Settlement website at
www.strategicclaims.net/dst; or (d) calling toll-free at (866)
274-4004.
View original content:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/miller-shah-llp-announce-proposed-class-action-settlement-on-behalf-of-participants-in-the-dst-systems-inc-401k-profit-sharing-plan-301896983.html
[GN]
EP GLOBAL: Faces Ferguson Suit Over Breached Personal Info
----------------------------------------------------------
Hopelyn Ferguson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EP Global Production Solutions,
LLC d/b/a Entertainment Partners, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-06732
(C.D. Cal., Aug. 16, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant
for negligence, unjust enrichment/quasi contract, and violations of
the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer
Privacy Act, and the California Customer Records Act arising from
the recent cyberattack and data breach resulting from Entertainment
Partners' failure to implement reasonable and industry standard
data security practices.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff's and Class Members'
sensitive personal information -- which they entrusted to Defendant
on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against
disclosure -- was compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the
data breach.
As a result of the data breach, Plaintiff and approximately 470,000
Class Members, suffered concrete injuries in fact including, but
not limited to: (i) Plaintiff's PII being disseminated on the dark
web; (ii) an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails; (iii)
lost or diminished value of their PII; (iv) lost opportunity costs
associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of
the data breach, including but not limited to lost time; (v)
invasion of privacy; (vi) loss of benefit of the bargain; and (vii)
the continued and certainly increased risk to their PII, which: (a)
remains unencrypted and available for unauthorized third parties to
access and abuse; and (b) remains backed up in Defendant's
possession and is subject to further unauthorized disclosures so
long as Defendant fails to undertake appropriate and adequate
measures to protect the PII, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees of
Entertainment Partners and/or production companies that contracted
with Entertainment Partners for services.
EP Global Production Solutions, LLC, d/b/a Entertainment Partners,
provides payroll solutions, software solutions for management and
enterprise purposes, and data and analytics services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
280 S. Beverly Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (858) 209-6941
E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com
ERICSSON INC: Gutierrez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSUE GUTIERREZ, individually and on behalf all
other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ERICSSON INC., a
Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive Defendants, Case No.
CVRI2303202, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, Riverside County, to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on Aug. 16, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-06717 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges individual, class and representative action
claims against Ericsson pursuant to the California Labor Code,
applicable Wage Orders, and Unfair Competition Law. Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges that Ericsson violated the Labor Code by failing
to provide Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees working in
California with compliant meal periods, rest periods and recovery
periods; failing to pay for off-the-clock work; failing to pay
timely wages; failing to pay all wages due to discharged and
quitting employees; failing to maintain required records; failing
to furnish accurate itemized statements; and failing to indemnify
employees for necessary expenditures incurred in the discharge of
duties.
Ericsson Inc. is a telecommunication services provider with
principal place of business in Plano, Texas.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Victoria R. Carradero, Esq.
Tatyana Shmygol, Esq.
Nathan Norimoto, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
260 Homer Avenue, Suite 202
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1194
Telephone: (650) 847-4150
Facsimile: (650) 847-4151
E-mail: vcarradero@duanemorris.com
tshmygol@duanemorris.com
nnorimoto@duanemorris.com
EXONE COMPANY: Campanella Sues Over Desktop-ExOne Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Desktop Metal, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that on November 22, 2021,
purported stockholder Pietro Campanella filed a class action
lawsuit against its wholly owned subsidiary, The ExOne Co., Desktop
Metal, Inc., and former ExOne directors and officers alleging
breach of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duties in connection with the ExOne merger captioned
"Campanella v. The ExOne Company et al.," Case No. 2021-1013.
Campanella alleges that ExOne's proxy statement and supplemental
disclosures did not adequately disclose information related to a
whistleblower investigation at one of Desktop Metal's subsidiaries,
EnvisionTEC, and the resignation of EnvisionTEC's CEO.
Desktop Metal, Inc. is into 3D printing solutions for engineers,
designers, and manufacturers, designing, producing and marketing 3D
printing systems and services to a variety of end customers.
FLORIDA HEALTH: Andriano Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------
MARY A. ANDRIANO, 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-01745-TPB-TGW (M.D. Fla., Aug. 4, 2023) arises out of the
recent data breach involving the Defendant, who failed properly
secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that
it collected and maintained as part of its regular business
practices.
According to the complaint, the Defendant had obligations created
by Federal Trade Commission Act, Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act, contract, industry standards, and
representations made to Plaintiff and Class Members, to keep their
private information confidential and to protect it from
unauthorized access and disclosure. However, the Defendant breached
its duties and were negligent by failing to use reasonable measures
to protect Class Members' private information.
The Plaintiff and Class Members seek to remedy these harms and
prevent any future data compromise on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and
stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to
Defendant's inadequate data security practices.
Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc. is a private hospital and "one
of the largest hospitals in Florida with more than 8,000 team
members" serving patients in a “dozen counties with a population
in excess of four million. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
Arun G. Ravindran, Esq.
HEDIN HALL, LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 357-2107
Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
- and -
David S. Almeida, Esq.
Elena A. Belov, Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
849 W. Webster Avenue
Chicago, IL 60614
Telephone: (312) 576-3024
E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com
elena@almeidalawgroup.com
GOLDMAN SACHS: 2nd Cir. Reverses Class Cert. in Disclosure Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Klein, Keith Blackman, Rachel B. Goldman, and Russell W.
Gallaro of Bracewell report that A three-judge panel for the US
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a district court's
class certification in the decade-long Arkansas Teacher Retirement
System v. Goldman Sachs Group litigation regarding allegedly false
public disclosures made by Goldman regarding its corporate
governance and ethics policies and procedures.
The question of class certification, and whether Goldman's generic
statements regarding its corporate principles could support the
presumption of investor reliance necessary for a securities fraud
class action to proceed, has been addressed in a series of
decisions over the long history of the case. Most prominently, the
US Supreme Court addressed these questions in a decision issued in
June 2021, which reversed a prior grant of class certification in
the Goldman case.
Following the Supreme Court's 2021 decision, the case was remanded
back to the district court -- where, in December 2021, the court
ruled for a third time that the case could proceed as a class
action, based on a finding that the plaintiff class had presented
sufficient evidence to support the presumption that they had relied
on Goldman's statements, regardless of their generic nature.
The Second Circuit's latest decision once again reverses the
district court on class certification, and provides new guidance on
investor class actions and the impact of generic corporate
statements and disclosures.
Background of the Goldman Sachs Litigation
The class action lawsuit against Goldman Sachs was filed nearly a
decade ago. It was led by three pension funds, including the
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, on behalf of a class of Goldman
shareholders. The class plaintiffs alleged that they had been
misled by Goldman's written public statements and disclosures
related to corporate governance issues and Goldman's handling of
conflicts of interest.
Goldman argued that the public statements at the heart of the
litigation were too generic and aspirational to have been
misleading or to have induced investor reliance. They included
statements contained in the company's annual report to shareholders
such as "Our clients' interests always come first" and "Integrity
and honesty are at the heart of our business," as well as a
disclosure in Goldman's Form 10-K that asserted: "We have extensive
procedures and controls that are designed to identify and address
conflicts of interest, including those designed to prevent the
improper sharing of information among our businesses."
The plaintiff class of Goldman shareholders alleged that these
statements were rendered false by several events in 2010 -- most
notably, an SEC enforcement action against Goldman related to
several collateralized debt obligation (CDO) transactions involving
subprime mortgages. The SEC's allegations led Goldman's stock price
to decline 12.79 percent the day after they became public.
Plaintiffs in the Goldman lawsuit first achieved class
certification at the district court level back in 2015. The court's
decision, however, was reversed on appeal to the Second Circuit,
and remanded back to the district court. After another class
certification battle in the district court, and another subsequent
appeal, the case ultimately ended up before the Supreme Court.
In its June 2021 opinion, the Supreme Court confirmed that
defendant corporations bear the burden of establishing that their
public statements did not impact the firm's stock price, but also
acknowledge that the generic nature of the statements should be
included in a court's assessment of that impact. Specifically, the
Supreme Court noted that the "generic nature of the
misrepresentation often will be important evidence of a lack of
price impact." The Supreme Court thus reversed class certification
once more and remanded the case, directing the lower courts to
"consider all record evidence relevant to price impact and apply
the legal standard as supplemented by the Supreme Court."
After the district court certified the class action for a third
time, the case once again made its way to the Second Circuit.
The Second Circuit Opinion
In its opinion issued on August 10, 2023, the Second Circuit ruled
that, in light of the Supreme Court's 2021 decision and guidance,
the class plaintiffs had not presented sufficient evidence to
warrant class certification. At bottom, the Second Circuit held
that claims like those brought by the plaintiffs in Goldman
"require special attention to the generic nature of the
disclosure," because "the duty to disclose more is triggered only
where that which is disclosed is sufficiently specific."
The Court further noted that: "Were it otherwise, securities
plaintiffs could find a road to success in the rearview mirror:
they would need only find negative news, such as the revelation
that a company may have committed securities fraud, and then point
to any previous disclosure from the company which touches upon a
similar subject, such as that company's commitment to complying
with the law -- no matter how generic that statement is."
Going forward, courts considering class certification in similar
cases will be guided by not only the 2021 Supreme Court opinion,
but also the Second Circuit's new guidance, which counsels that
courts must conduct "a searching price impact analysis" where the
claims are based on a company's generic risk disclosures.
The Future of ESG Litigation and Investor Class Actions
The latest guidance from the Second Circuit in the Goldman Sachs
case holds lessons for both litigants in investor class action
lawsuits, and companies issuing statements and disclosures related
to ESG, or Environmental, Social and Governance, issues.
With respect to securities class actions, the Second Circuit's
opinion widens the opportunity for corporate defendants to rebut
the presumption of investor reliance established by the landmark
case of Basic v. Levinson. In the future, where investor lawsuits
are based on merely aspirational statements made by a company,
defendants will have an easier time marshaling evidence to show
that such statements were too generic to have induced investor
reliance. However, investor lawsuits premised on more specific
corporate disclosures are likely to remain a prominent part of the
securities litigation landscape.
As for companies' public ESG statements, it now appears clear that,
where such statements remain aspirational and sufficiently generic,
courts may grant companies wider latitude, and such disclosures may
be less likely to expose companies to liability. Nevertheless, ESG
disclosures and corporations' aspirational statements related to
issues like workplace diversity, corporate principles, and
environmental goals, are likely to remain a target for class action
and shareholder derivative plaintiffs. Companies in every industry
should remain mindful of the recent guidance on such disclosures
from both the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit, and should
scrutinize any disclosures closely to ensure they are on safe
ground in light of that guidance.
Bracewell has a multi-disciplinary team focused on ESG and
securities litigation issues. We advise and support our clients
drawing on our expertise in environmental strategies, securities
matters, regulatory issues, government enforcement, labor and
employment, commercial litigation, and crisis management, and we
are at the forefront of the transition to sustainable energy.
Please contact your Bracewell team member for more information.
[GN]
GRANITE STATE: Class Settlement in Grenier Suit Wins Prelim. Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Rita Grenier and Edwin Grenier, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Granite State Credit
Union, Does 1 through 5, Civil No. 21-cv-534-LM (D.N.H.), Judge
Landya McCafferty of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Hampshire:
(1) preliminarily approves the parties' proposed Class Action
Settlement Agreement;
(2) preliminarily certifies the proposed class for settlement
purposes;
(3) appoints KCC LLC to administer the settlement and
provisionally appoints the Plaintiffs' counsel of record
as the settlement class counsel and the Plaintiffs as
settlement class representatives;
(4) approves the opt-out and objection procedures outlined by
the parties, subject to one change; and
(5) directs the parties to submit updated proposed notice
forms.
Plaintiffs Rita and Edwin Grenier bring the putative class action
against Granite and "Does 1 through 5," alleging injuries arising
from Granite's overdraft fees and policies. The Plaintiffs argue
that Granite's overdraft policies -- specifically, its failure to
adequately explain to consumers how it assesses overdrafts --
violate the Electronic Funds Transfer Act's, 15 U.S.C. Section 1693
("EFTA"), implementing regulations, 12 C.F.R. Section 1005 et seq.
("Regulation E").
The Plaintiffs allege that Granite violated Regulation E by
charging them overdraft fees without adequately explaining how
Granite determines what constitutes an overdraft. Granite's opt-in
notice (the "Opt-in Disclosure") states that an overdraft "occurs
when you do not have enough money in your account to cover a
transaction, but we pay it anyway." It does not disclose how it
determines whether an account has "enough money."
There are two different methods by which financial institutions can
calculate an account's balance to determine whether it has "enough
money" to cover a transaction at any given time. One such method,
referred to as the "available balance," is calculated by
subtracting from the amount of money in the account any "holds" on
deposits and pending debits that have not yet posted. The other
method, known as the "actual balance," is the actual amount of
money in the account at any particular time, irrespective of any
holds. Calculating overdrafts based on the available balance tends
to result in more frequent overdrafts.
Granite uses the available balance method. Its failure to inform
accountholders of the difference between the two methods of
calculating overdrafts, and of which method Granite employs, forms
the basis of the suit.
After the court denied Granite's motion to dismiss, the parties
engaged in discovery. The Plaintiffs served document requests and
interrogatories on Granite, and Granite provided written responses,
including transactional data. Both parties conducted depositions,
and the plaintiffs' data expert completed an extensive analysis of
the transactional data provided by Granite.
Based on the data, the Plaintiffs' data expert concluded that
between June 22, 2020, and April 30, 2022, Granite assessed 35,053
overdraft fees on 1,229 customers for transactions that constituted
overdrafts under the available balance calculation, but not under
the actual balance calculation. Those fees totaled $1,051,410. The
expert extrapolated those results to estimate the fees assessed
through March 28, 20232. In total, the expert estimated that
Granite assessed $1,587,963 in fees between June 22, 2020, and
March 28, 2023.
The parties now report that they have reached a negotiated
settlement of their dispute. Before the Court is the Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the parties'
settlement. Judge McCafferty has carefully reviewed the parties'
proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement and the supporting
exhibits.
The Plaintiffs seek preliminary certification of the settlement
class for purposes of settlement. The settlement class is defined
as "all current and former members of Defendant with consumer
accounts, who were charged an overdraft fee during the Class
Period." The class excludes "Granite State Credit Union, its
parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, and directors; DOES 1
through 5; all Settlement Class members who make a timely election
to be excluded; and all judges assigned to this litigation and
their immediate family members." All eligible impacted individuals
will be included in the settlement unless they opt out.
First, Judge McCafferty finds that the four requirements of Rule
23(a) -- numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy -- have
been met: The record establishes that the settlement class includes
at least 1,229 members; all class members allege the same injury,
which is that they were charged overdraft fees in violation of
Regulation E; the parties' interests align; and the counsel is
qualified and experienced.
Next, Judge McCafferty finds that predominance is likely satisfied
because there is similarly no dispute that Granite calculated
overdrafts using customers' available balance rather than their
actual balance and the class members are likely to benefit by
aggregating their claims.
Judge McCafferty then finds that the Plaintiffs' counsel of record
may properly serve as the class counsel in the matter under Rule
23(g). The counsel has shown it is fit to represent the class. It
identified the Regulation E claim, took steps to investigate it,
and successfully negotiated a resolution of the parties' dispute.
The counsel also has ample experience litigating class actions in
general, and particular expertise in overdraft fee class actions.
For these reasons, Judge McCafferty preliminarily certifies the
proposed class for settlement purposes. She provisionally appoints
the Plaintiffs Rita and Edwin Grenier as the settlement class
representatives, and their chosen counsel, McCune and Shaheen &
Gordon, P.A., as the settlement class counsel in this matter. In
the event the Court ultimately denies final approval of the
parties' proposed settlement agreement, the Court's preliminary
certification of the class and provisional appointments of class
counsel and class representatives will be vacated.
Judge McCafferty now determines whether she will likely be able to
find that the class action settlement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable. She says because the proposed payments to class members
constitute provision of substantial relief to the settlement class
without requiring class members to incur the risks, burdens, costs,
or delay associated with continued litigation, trial, and possible
appeal, the settlement proposal appears fair, adequate, and
reasonable at this stage. She therefore preliminarily approves the
parties' proposed settlement, pending final approval following a
fairness hearing.
Because Judge McCafferty has concluded that it will likely be able
to certify the proposed class for the purposes of settlement and
approve the proposed settlement, she must direct notice to all
class members who would be bound by the Agreement. She finds that
the form and substance of the notices proposed by the parties will
comply with Rule 23(c)(2)(B) after several corrections are made.
With respect to the Email and Postcard Notice the notice informs
class members that Granite unlawfully assessed certain "Relevant
Fees," but it does not include the definition of that term. The
notice should specify the type of fees at issue in the suit.
Additionally, the notice states that Granite "has agreed to issue a
credit to your Account, payment to you if you are no longer a
member, and/or to return certain Relevant Fees." Stating that
Granite may return "certain Relevant Fees" could confuse class
members because class members will only receive a pro rata portion
of the net settlement fund.
The Long Form Notice is also deficient in several respects. First,
it refers to a single class representative when there are two class
representatives. Second, section one of the notice states that the
"Class Representative has asserted a claim for breach of the
Account agreement and violation of consumer protection laws." The
class representatives did not assert a claim for breach of the
account agreement, only a claim for violating Regulation E. Third,
section four refers to "one or both of the Settlement Classes."
There is only one settlement class in this case. Finally, the
notice states that objections need only be sent to the Settlement
Administrator.
The parties will submit the proposed notices reflecting the
changes. The Court will review the amended notices on an expedited
basis. Once the court approves them, it will schedule the fairness
hearing and other related deadlines.
Finally, the Agreement affords settlement class members the
opportunity to opt-out by sending written notice to the Settlement
Administrator. Judge McCafferty approves and adopts the procedure
and manner governing all requests to be excluded from the Class as
outlined in the Agreement. The Agreement also affords class members
the opportunity to object by sending written notice to the
Settlement Administrator, class counsel, defense counsel, and the
clerk of the court. As already noted, the Court will only require
written notice of objections to be sent to the clerk of the court.
The Court otherwise approves and adopts the manner for objecting to
the proposed settlement outlined in the Agreement.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge McCafferty grants the Plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action
settlement and finds she likely will be able to certify the
proposed class for the purposes of settlement. She appoints KCC LLC
to administer the settlement and provisionally appoints the
Plaintiffs' counsel of record as the settlement class counsel and
the Plaintiffs as the settlement class representatives. Once the
Court approves the updated notices, Judge McCafferty will schedule
the fairness hearing and other related deadlines. She approves the
opt-out and objection procedures outlined by the parties, subject
to the change she noted, and directs the parties to submit updated
proposed notice forms to bring them into conformity with Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B).
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5n6btuc7 from Leagle.com.
HOVG LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Collection of Debt
----------------------------------------------------------
Mikegibb of Accounts Recovery reports that whether or not to use
the Model Validation Notice is a debate that has existed since
Regulation F went into effect. Some collection operations have
chosen not to use the MVN, and just tried to make sure they had all
the information in their letters that is required. A collection
operation is facing a class-action lawsuit for violating the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act and Regulation F for not including
all the information that is purportedly required in an initial
communication.
The plaintiff received a letter from the defendant, seeking to
collect on an unpaid medical debt. On the back of the letter was a
disclosure, under the heading "Consumer Rights." The disclosure
said: Unless you notify this office by April 3, 2023 that you
dispute the validity of this debt or any portion thereof, this
office will assume the debt is valid. If you notify this office in
writing by April 3, 2023 that you dispute the validity of this debt
or any portion thereof, this office will obtain verification of the
debt or obtain a copy of the judgment and mail you a copy of such
judgment or verification. If you request this office in writing by
April 3, 2023, this office will provide you with the name and
address of the original creditor if different from the current
creditor. Go to www.cfpb.gov/debt-collection to learn more about
consumer protections in debt collection.
The complaint accuses the defendant of not informing the plaintiff
that if the consumer disputes the debt or any portion thereof that
the defendant would cease collection of the debt or the disputed
portion of the debt until the defendant sends the consumer either
verification of the debt or a copy of the judgment. That portion of
the disclosure is included in the Model Validation Notice.
Along with being distressed, embarrassed, and humiliated, the
actions of the defendant caused the plaintiff to suffer various
emotional harms including, but not limited to, increased heartrate,
difficulty with sleep, anxiety, and stress associated with the
number of calls she was being disturbed with for a debt that should
have never been associated with her, according to the complaint.
The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692e,
1692e(2)(A), 1692e(10), 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA. It seeks to
include anyone in Texas who received similar letters from the
defendant where all of the required disclosure notice under Section
1006.34(c)(3)(i) of Regulation F was not included. [GN]
HP INC: Court Rejects Bids to Dismiss Class Suit Over Printer Ink
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zak Killian of Hot Hardware reports that anyone who has ever owned
an inkjet printer, or worked in IT for any amount of time, is
almost certainly aware of this reality: when the ink runs out in
your multi-function printer-scanner-copier thingamajig, you can't
use it -- even if you just want to scan a document, which has
nothing to do with the remaining ink.
There's no denying it, either; it's been well-known for at least a
decade. Despite this, HP is trying to dodge a class-action lawsuit
brought against them by angry customers who would really like to be
able to scan and fax documents even when they are out of ink.
Actually, the judge, Honorable Beth Labson Freeman of the Northern
District of California, originally dismissed the complaint on legal
grounds, but did not address the lawsuit's claims and allowed the
plaintiffs to amend the claim and resubmit it. They did so, and on
August 10th, the judge then rejected HP's request to dismiss the
now-revised complaint. That means the case will proceed.
In the past, HP has issued firmware updates to block customers from
using third-party or refilled ink cartridges as well. However, HP
is hardly the only company that does this, though it is the only
printer company that also has an ink subscription service that
sends you ink cartridges which can't be used if your subscription
expires.
Which isn't to say that other printer manufacturers are innocent of
similar behavior. Epson also got called out for blocking
third-party ink with firmware updates, and caused outrage last year
when it came out that its printers could brick themselves over a
minor maintenance issue. In a more humorous issue, Canon had to
teach customers how to break their own DRM protection on its
cartridges, and it also got dinged by a lawsuit in 2021 for the
very same thing HP is being accused of doing now.
Hopefully, the outcome of these legal proceedings will result in
consumers being treated more fairly with respect to the products
that they buy, own and maintain. [GN]
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Judge Delays $200M Settlement in Theft Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
WISN reports that a federal judge on August 16, 2023 delayed
approval of 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]
INDIANA COUNTY, IN: Faces Class Suit Over Foster Children Care
--------------------------------------------------------------
Whitney Downard of Indiana Capital Chronicle reports that ten
children in the state's foster care system sued the Indiana
Department of Child services (DCS) in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Indiana on August 16, 2023, alleging that
the agency failed to provide for the children's care and left them
in placements known to be "dangerous."
"DCS's system failures are well-known to state officials, who have
failed to act to address those failures. The lawsuit seeks a range
of remedies, including lower caseloads, the development of
additional, appropriate placements and services, and far better
accountability," a press release from the national nonprofit A
Better Childhood said.
The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Michael G. Gotsch, Sr.
and the court issued summons to the defendants on August 17, 2023.
The state has 21 days to reply.
Attorneys with A Better Childhood, SouthBank Legal and Kirkland &
Ellis LLP are representing the children and pursuing class action
status on behalf of all children in the state's foster system.
Defendants include Gov. Eric Holcomb and DCS Director Eric Miller.
The filed complaint includes a detailed account of each child's
experiences, noting places where attorneys believed DCS failed to
protect the children such as unsuitable placements with caregivers
who ignored treatment plans as well as not securing immediate
therapeutic services for severely traumatized children.
All of the children named in the suit use pseudonyms. The children
are between the ages of 8 and 16 and many have spent more than half
of their lifetimes in the foster system.
A few examples include Joshua, a 16-year-old boy who has been in
DCS custody for nine years. During that time, DCS bounced Joshua
between 22 placements. Another young boy was reunified with his
mother and then his step-father killed his brother.
The group filed a similar lawsuit in 2019 that ultimately was
dismissed.
Caseworkers are in short supply and experience high turnover,
according to the complaint, aggravating a child's trauma following
abuse or neglect. The complaint accuses DCS of prematurely closing
cases as recently as 2021 to reduce caseload numbers in order to
comply with an internal policy directing caseworkers to refer 50%
of their cases for expedited closure.
The suit also claims that average time in foster care has increased
by more than 100 days -- 490 days to 596 days -- since 2017 when
former DCS Director Mary Beth Bonaventura retired in a blistering
resignation letter to Holcomb calling then-Chief of Staff Eric
Miller, "the greatest threat to this agency and child welfare."
Miller was appointed to lead DCS in May 2023.
Additional accusations include filing petitions to terminate
parental rights to meet a federal requirement but quickly
dismissing them in a way that delays reunification or permanent
placements as well as the over-reliance upon psychotropic
medication and institutionalization of foster children due to a
statewide shortage of foster homes.
"Children in Indiana are literally dying," said Marcia Robinson
Lowry, the executive director of A Better Childhood in a release.
"Tragically, the child welfare system in Indiana continues to
ignore the needs of its most vulnerable children. It is critical
that this agency and the state are held accountable for what they
are doing to the children they are required to protect. These
children have nowhere else to turn and that's why we are seeking
the assistance of the federal court." [GN]
INFINITY PHARMACEUTICALS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Oct 16
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm of Businesswire reports that the filing of a class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of securities of Infinity
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: INFI) between January 5, 2022 and
July 24, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 16, 2023.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Infinity securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Infinity class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=18465 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 16, 2023.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: The Complaint alleges that Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements. On February 23, 2023,
before the stock market opened, Infinity announced via a
webcast(the "Webcast") that it had entered into a merger agreement
with MEI Pharma, Inc. ("MEI") The proposed transaction was all
stock, pursuant to which Infinity shareholders will receive shares
of MEI common stock. During the Webcast, Defendant Perkins stated
Infinity would "prioritize head and neck cancer." No mention at all
was made of breast cancer treatments. It was as if MARIO-4 and
MARIO-P never existed, and TNBC was never a priority for eganelisib
treatment. This pivot did not go unnoticed by the stock market, and
the value of Infinity stock plummeted. Infinity stock had closed at
$0.55 on February 22, 2023. On July 24, 2023, Infinity announced
that it was terminating the merger, because MEI did not obtain
stockholder approval for the merger. On July 24, 2023, Infinity
announced that it was terminating the merger, because MEI did not
obtain stockholder approval for the merger. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
To join the Infinity class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=18465 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Contact information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE: Faces DeCarvalho Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL DECARVALHO, individually and for others similarly situated
v. INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE STAFFING, LLC, an Oregon limited liability
company, Case No. 3:23-cv-01138-MO (D. Or., Aug. 4, 2023) arises
out of the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff DeCarvalho was employed by Integrated Healthcare
Staffing, LLC as a corporate recruiter from approximately July 2020
until October 2020. He regularly worked more than 40 hours a week
but IHS never paid these recruiters overtime compensation. Instead
of paying overtime, IHS misclassified DeCarvalho and the Putative
Class Members as exempt employees and paid them a salary with no
overtime wages, says the Plaintiff.
IHS provides nationwide medical staffing solutions that employ
recruiters to find and place technicians, caregivers, medical
assistants, nurses, nurse practitioners, and physicians throughout
the country. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Whitney Stark, Esq.
ALBIES, STARK & GUERRIERO
1 SW Columbia Street, Suite 1850
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 308-4770
Facsimile: (503) 427-9292
E-mail: whitney@albiesstark.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, 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
rschreiber@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
KING'S COLLEGE: Dantone Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
-----------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL DANTONE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KING'S COLLEGE, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-01365-MEM (M.D. Pa., Aug. 16, 2023) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff for damages and restitution resulting from
King's retention of the tuition and fees paid by Plaintiff and the
other putative Class members for in-person education and services
that were contracted for but were not provided.
In March 2020, in response to the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 virus,
the virus that causes the COVID-19 disease, King's College, like
many other colleges and universities, transitioned to remote
online-only education, canceled on-campus recreational events,
canceled student activity events, and ordered students to refrain
from going on campus.
Specifically, this lawsuit seeks disgorgement of the pro-rated,
unused amounts of the fees that Plaintiff and other putative Class
members paid, but for which they (or the students on behalf of whom
they paid) were not provided the benefit, as well as a partial
prorated tuition reimbursement representing the difference in fair
market value between the on-campus product for which they had paid,
and the online product that they received.
Plaintiff Dantone is an adult, who at all relevant times, is and
was a resident and citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. He
paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 semester. Halfway through
the Spring 2020 semester, Plaintiff was forced to take his classes
remotely, retrain from visiting campus, and prevented from
utilizing various on-campus services for which he paid.
King's College is a private liberal arts college founded in
1946.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
jamisen@lcllp.com
nickc@lcllp.com
LADLES SOUPS: S.C. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Chappell Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Teri Chappell, as Personal Representative of the
Estate of Craig Chappell, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Appellant v. Ladles Soups - James Island, LLC, et al.,
Respondents, Opinion No. 2023-UP-277 (S.C. App.), the Court of
Appeals of South Carolina affirms the circuit court orders granting
summary judgment to the Respondents.
The other Respondents are Ladlessoups, LLC; Ladles Soups at Cane
Bay, LLC; Ladles Soups at Citadel Mall, LLP; Ladles Soups Calhoun,
LLC; Ladles Soups Cane Bay, LLC; Ladles Soups Coosaw, LLC; Ladles
Soups Downtown Charleston, LLC; Ladlessoups Fresh Fields, LLC;
Ladles Soups @ Freshfields Village, LLC; Ladlessoups Mainstreet,
LLC; Ladles Soups Moncks Corner, LLC; Ladlessoups Mount Pleasant,
LLC; Ladles Franchise Development, LLC; Ladles Franchising, Inc.;
Ladles Fort Mill, LLC; Ladles Knightsville, LLC; Ladles West
Ashley; Teri Owens; Sue Allen; Tracy Allen; Steve Traeger; Erik
Dyke; Julie Dyke; Stan Sutton; Carol Sutton; Jason Dalter; Kellie
Henderson; Jane Doe 1-25 (Unknown Operating Company and Management
Company Owners); John Doe 25-40 (Management Personnel), Defendants,
Of Which Ladlessoups Mount Pleasant, LLC, Erik Dyke, and Julie
Dyke, are Respondents. and Teri Chappell, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Craig Chappell, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, Appellant, v. Ladles Soups
— James Island, LLC; Ladlessoups, LLC; Ladles Soups at Cane Bay,
LLC; Ladles Soups at Citadel Mall, LLP; Ladles Soups Calhoun, LLC;
Ladles Soups Cane Bay, LLC; Ladles Soups Coosaw, LLC; Ladles Soups
Downtown Charleston, LLC; Ladlessoups Fresh Fields, LLC; Ladles
Soups @ Freshfields Village, LLC; Ladlessoups Mainstreet, LLC;
Ladles Soups Moncks Corner, LLC; Ladles Franchise Development, LLC;
Ladles Franchising, Inc.; Ladles Fort Mill, LLC; Ladles
Knightsville, LLC; Ladles West Ashley; Teri Owens; Sue Allen; Tracy
Allen; Steve Traeger; Erik Dyke; Julie Dyke; Stan Sutton; Carol
Sutton; Jack Dalter; Kellie Henderson; Jane Doe 1-25 (Unknown
Operating Company and Management Company Owners); John Doe 25-40
(Management Personnel), Defendants, Of Which Ladles Franchising,
Inc., Ladlessoups, LLC, Sue Allen, and Tracy Allen, are
Respondents. and Teri Chappell, as Personal Representative of the
Estate of Craig Chappell, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Appellant, v. Ladles Soups — James Island, LLC;
Ladlessoups, LLC; Ladles Soups at Cane Bay, LLC; Ladles Soups at
Citadel Mall, LLP; Ladles Soups Calhoun, LLC; Ladles Soups Cane
Bay, LLC; Ladles Soups Coosaw, LLC; Ladles Soups Downtown
Charleston, LLC; Ladlessoups Fresh Fields, LLC; Ladles Soups @
Freshfields Village, LLC; Ladlessoups Mainstreet, LLC; Ladles Soups
Moncks Corner, LLC; Ladles Franchise Development, LLC; Ladles
Franchising, Inc.; Ladles Fort Mill, LLC; Ladles Knightsville, LLC;
Ladles West Ashley; Teri Owens; Sue Allen; Tracy Allen; Steve
Traeger; Erik Dyke; Julie Dyke; Stan Sutton; Carol Sutton; Jack
Dalter; Kellie Henderson; Jane Doe 1-25 (Unknown Operating Company
and Management Company Owners); John Doe 25-40 (Management
Personnel), Defendants, Of Which Ladles Soups Coosaw, LLC, Ladles
Soups Downtown Charleston, LLC, Ladlessoups Fresh Fields, LLC,
Ladles Soups @ Freshfields Village, LLC, Ladles Soups Moncks
Corner, LLC, Ladles Franchise Development, LLC, Ladles Fort Mill,
LLC, Ladles Knightsville, LLC, Ladles West Ashley, Steve Traeger,
Stan Sutton, Carol Sutton, and Kellie Henderson.
Appellant Teri Chappell, as the Personal Representative of the
Estate of Craig Chappell, appeals the circuit court orders granting
summary judgment to the Respondents in this class-action lawsuit
against multiple locations and entities of Ladles Soups. As to all
Respondents, the Appellant argues the circuit court erred in (1)
granting summary judgment because he did not have a full and fair
opportunity to complete discovery and (2) finding the Appellant
lacked standing. As to the Mount Pleasant Respondents and the
Charleston Respondents, the Appellant argues the circuit court
additionally erred in granting summary judgment because the court
had not heard his motion for class certification.
As to the Mount Pleasant Respondents and the Franchising
Respondents, the Appellant argues the circuit court erred in not
finding an issue of triable fact for the jury existed. As to the
Franchising Respondents, he argues the circuit court erred in
granting summary judgment because the Franchising Respondents were
employers liable under the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act
(SCPWA). Finally, as to the Charleston Respondents, the Appellant
argues the circuit court erred in failing to deem admitted certain
requests for admission.
Chappell was an employee at the Ladles Soups restaurant on James
Island and was paid an hourly wage, plus tips. Although he worked
for and earned credit card and cash tips, he was allowed to retain
only some cash tips while the restaurant retained the credit card
tips. Chappell asserted he was immediately terminated when he
complained about the policy of withholding credit card tips.
On Feb. 14, 2018, Chappell brought a lawsuit against the
Respondents on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
alleging class-action causes of action for failure to pay wages
under the SCPWA, breach of contract, and conversion. He alleged
Ladles Soups, as part of a company-wide policy, wrongfully and
intentionally withheld credit card tips that were rightfully
intended for himself and others similarly situated in violation of
the SCPWA. It is undisputed that Chappell was an employee of Ladles
Soups James Island only, and he was never employed by any other
Ladles Soups store. Each Ladles Soups is independently owned and
operated, and Chappell had no contractual relationship with any of
the defendants except Ladles Soups James Island, which is not a
respondent in these appeals.
Numerous of the Respondents testified in depositions. Julie Dyke,
co-owner with Erik Dyke of Ladlessoups Mount Pleasant, LLC,
testified that she and Erik were the sole members of Ladlessoups
Mount Pleasant, a separate franchise. Dyke stated Chappell never
worked at Ladlessoups Mount Pleasant. She testified that each
month, all credit card tips for Ladlessoups Mount Pleasant are
"distributed among all the employees based on how many hours they
work." She also testified she attended meetings once or twice a
year with the Ladles Soups franchisor and other Ladles Soups
franchisees where a tipping policy and wages were discussed.
At an Oct. 29, 2019 hearing, the Mount Pleasant Respondents'
counsel stated that they "urn over the tips, the credit card tips,
through a bonus program to the employees. Sue Allen, a Franchising
Respondent and Chief Executive Officer of Ladles Franchising,
testified that while she owned Ladles Soups locations, she paid her
employees hourly wages and retained the credit card tips to
subsidize the employees' hourly wage. The employees split the cash
tips. However, Allen stated there was no company-wide policy
concerning the handling of credit card or cash tips.
Non-respondents also testified in depositions. Corey Paul, a
franchise owner, testified that his employees did not get credit
card tips, but they received cash tips as a bonus to their hourly
wage. Paul explained that employees were hired as non-tipped
employees. Teri Owens, owner of Ladles Soups James Island, stated
the credit card tips went into the business to pay employees a
higher pay rate and the cash tips were kept by the employees.
Chappell filed a motion for an extension of time to serve the
summons and complaint on June 13, 2018, when he was unable to
effect service on all parties. The Mount Pleasant Respondents filed
their answer to the complaint on June 20, 2018. The Franchising
Respondents filed an answer on Aug. 1, 2018. The Charleston
Respondents filed six separate answers on July 18 and 26, 2018.
On July 24, 2018, the Charleston Respondents filed a motion to
disallow class certification and a motion to dismiss improper
parties pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the South Carolina Rules of
Civil Procedure. The circuit court held a hearing on the Charleston
Respondents' motions to disallow class certification and to
dismiss, and the court denied the motions on Jan. 29, 2019, by form
orders. In denying the motions, the court stated, "the Plaintiff,
despite filing the present action as a 'class action,' never moved
to certify the class." The Respondents also filed motions for
summary judgment. On Sept. 11, 2019, Chappell filed a motion for
class certification.
By orders issued Jan. 7, 2020, the court denied Chappell's motion
for class certification by form order and granted the Mount
Pleasant Respondents' motion for summary judgment. It granted
summary judgment to the Franchising Respondents and the Charleston
Respondents by orders filed Jan. 30, 2020, and Feb. 11, 2020.
Chappell moved to reconsider the orders granting summary judgment.
The court denied the motion as to the Charleston Respondents,
finding no hearing was necessary. The records on appeal indicate no
hearing was held or orders issued as to the Mount Pleasant
Respondents and the Franchising Respondents. These appeals follow.
First, the Appellant argues the circuit court erred in granting
summary judgment because he did not have a full and fair
opportunity to complete discovery.
The Court of Appeals disagrees. Viewing the evidence and its
reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Appellant, the
Court of Appeals finds Chappell did not provide a sufficient reason
why further discovery might create a genuine issue for trial.
Therefore, it finds the circuit court did not err in granting
summary judgment.
Next, Appellant argues the circuit court erred in finding Chappell
lacked standing.
Again, the Court of Appeals disagrees. Chappell admitted he was
employed only by Ladles James Island, LLC; thus, the Court of
Appeals finds under the SCWPA, which requires an employer/employee
relationship to maintain a claim, he did not have statutory
standing as to the Respondents. Thus, it finds the circuit court
did not err in finding Chappell did not have standing.
The Appellant also argues the circuit court erred in granting
summary judgment prior to hearing Chappell's motion for class
certification and prior to allowing discovery on the class action
issues.
The Court of Appeals disagrees. It says a plaintiff cannot maintain
a class action where the record indicates he was not directly
harmed by the defendant's actions. Because it determined Chappell
was not directly harmed by any Respondents in its discussion of
standing, it finds the circuit court did not err in granting the
Respondents' motions for summary judgment while the class action
status was pending.
The Appellant then argues the circuit court erred in granting
summary judgment because the Franchising Respondents were employers
liable under the SCPWA.
The Court of Appeals disagrees. It finds that the Franchise
Agreement is devoid of any reference to the franchisees'
compensation policies. Even if all franchises had a policy of
withholding tips, no evidence an agency relationship existed that
changed the relationship of Chappell to employee-employer with any
of the Respondents. Therefore, the circuit court did not err in
granting summary judgment to the Respondents on Chappell's SCPWA
claim because none of Respondents were Chappell's employers.
The Appellant further argues the circuit court erred in not finding
an issue of triable fact for the jury regarding the tipping
policies of the Mount Pleasant Respondents and the Franchising
Respondents.
As expected, the Court of Appeals disagrees. Viewing the evidence
and its reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the
Appellant, it finds the evidence as a whole is susceptible of only
one reasonable inference -- that the Franchising Respondents never
came into possession of Chappell's credit card tips. Thus, no jury
issue existed and the circuit court did not err in granting summary
judgment to the Franchising Respondents.
Finally, the Appellant argues the circuit court erred in failing to
deem admitted certain requests for admission by the Charleston
Respondents.
The Court of Appeals disagrees holding that the Appellant's failure
to appeal the Jan. 7, 2020 order prohibits review by this court,
and the issue concerning the denial of his requests for admissions
is the law of the case.
Accordingly, the orders on appeal are affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/vk5msyfp from Leagle.com.
Benjamin Scott Whaley Le Clercq -- ben@leclercqlaw.com -- and David
D. Ashley -- david@leclercqlaw.com -- both of the Le Clercq Law
Firm, P.C., of Mount Pleasant, for the Appellant.
Peter Brandt Shelbourne, of Shelbourne Law Firm, of Summerville,
for Respondents Ladlessoups Mount Pleasant, LLC, Erik Dyke, and
Julie Dyke.
Kerry W. Koon, of Kerry W. Koon, Attorney at Law, and Michael Evan
Lacke, of Lacke Law Firm, LLC, both of Charleston, for Respondents
Ladles Franchising Inc., Ladlessoups, LLC, Sue Allen, and Tracy
Allen.
Paul B. Ferrara, II -- paul@ferraralawfirm.net -- and Janel
Kleinhardt Ferrara -- janel@ferraralawfirm.net -- both of Ferrara
Law Firm, PLLC, of North Charleston, for Respondents Ladles Soups
Coosaw, LLC, Ladles Soups Downtown Charleston, LLC, Ladlessoups
Fresh Fields, LLC, Ladles Soups @ Freshfields Village, LLC, Ladles
Soups Moncks Corner, LLC, Ladles Franchise Development, LLC, Ladles
Fort Mill, LLC, Ladles Knightsville, LLC, Ladles West Ashley, Steve
Traeger, Stan Sutton, Carol Sutton, and Kellie Henderson.
LIVE NATION: Faces Donley Securities Suit Over Anticompetitive Acts
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN DONLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., MICHAEL
RAPINO, and JOE BERCHTOLD, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-06343 (C.D.
Cal., Aug. 4, 2023) arises out of the alleged Defendants'
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
This is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Live Nation securities between
February 23, 2022 and July 28, 2023, inclusive. Throughout the said
period, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
Live Nation engaged in anticompetitive conduct, including charging
high fees and extended contracts with talent, and retaliated
against venues; (2) that, as a result, Live Nation was reasonably
likely to incur regulatory scrutiny and face fines, penalties, and
reputational harm; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis, says the suit.
Live Nation is live entertainment company and concert and ticketing
platform operating in 48 countries. The company owns, operates, and
has exclusive booking rights for a number of global venues and
claims to be one of the world's leading artist managements
companies. Through Ticketmaster, Live Nation provides ticket sales
and resale services for concerts, sporting events, performing arts
experiences, festivals, museums, and theaters. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
rprongay@glancylaw.com
clinehan@glancylaw.com
prajesh@glancylaw.com
- and-
Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 914-5007
M-F ATHLETIC COMPANY: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against M-F Athletic Company,
Inc. The case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. M-F Athletic Company, Inc., Case
No. 1:23-cv-06211-SHS (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
M-F Athletic Company, Inc. doing business as Everything Track &
Field -- https://www.everythingtrackandfield.com/ -- provides
sporting and recreation goods. The Company offers training in
various track and field events.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ara Vahe Naljian, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 584-5575
Email: analjian@steinsakslegal.com
- and -
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
MAMCO INC: Court Dismisses Morales Class Suit Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sunshine S. Sykes of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California dismisses without prejudice the case,
ALEJANDRO A. MORALES, Plaintiff v. MAMCO, INC., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 5:23-cv-00823-SSS-SHKx (C.D. Cal.), pursuant to the Order
Granting Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismissing Class Action
Claims.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2023 Judgment is available
at https://tinyurl.com/bdej47ah from Leagle.com.
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Kostov Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT KOSTOV,
Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. MARICOPA COUNTY
SPECIAL HEALTH CARE DISTRICT d/b/a VALLEYWISE HEALTH, an Arizona
special healthcare district, Case No. 2:23-cv-00613-SPL (D. Ariz.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court for conditional certification of and
authorization to send notice to the following class:
"All hourly, non-exempt Valleywise Health employees who received
an
automatic meal period deduction at any time during the past 3
years
("Meal Break Class Members" or "Meal Break Class")."
To facilitate notice, Kostov also requests the Court order
Valleywise to provide Kostov's counsel with a list of all Class
Members including each Class Member's name, job title(s), dates of
work, last known address and telephone number, and last known email
address within ten days of the Court's order.
Kostov further requests the Court approve his proposed notice and
consent forms and methods set forth in his proposed order.
Kostov seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages owed to him and other
employees of Maricopa County Special Health Care District. He says
Valleywise violated the FLSA by automatically deducting 30 minutes
from their recorded time for meal breaks even if they worked
through all or part of their "meal break."
Valleywise operates hospitals and other healthcare facilities
across Maricopa County, Arizona.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 2, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s9eq7U at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Olivia R. Beale, 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
obeale@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
- and -
Samuel R. Randall, Esq.
RANDALL LAW PLLC
4742 N 24th Street, Suite 300
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 328-0262
Facsimile: (602) 926-1479
E-mail: srandall@randallslaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Tracy A. Miller, Esq.
J. Alexander Dattilo, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.,
Esplanade Center III, Suite 800
2415 East Camelback Road
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 778-3700
Facsimile: (602) 778-3750
E-mail: tracy.miller@ogletree.com
alexander.dattilo@ogletree.com
MAURICES INCORPORATED: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maurices
Incorporated. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Maurices
Incorporated, Case No. 1:23-cv-07139 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Maurices Inc. -- http://www.maurices.com/-- stylized as maurices,
is an American women's clothing retail chain based in Duluth,
Minnesota.[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
MCGEE AIR SERVICES: Robinson Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Omari Robinson, individually, and on behalf
of other members of the general public similarly situated v. MCGEE
AIR SERVICES INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 23-CIV-00922 was removed from the Superior
Court of California, County of San Mateo, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on Aug. 17,
2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-04190.
The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts claims arising out of their
employment with Defendant for: unpaid overtime; unpaid minimum
wages; failure to provide meal periods; non-compliant wage
statements and failure to maintain payroll records; wages not
timely paid upon termination; failure to timely pay wages during
employment; unreimbursed business expenses; unlawful business
practices; and unfair business practices all in violation of
California Business & Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Paul S. Cowie, Esq.
Patricia M. Jeng, Esq.
John Ellis, Esq.
Melissa Hughes, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
A Limited Liability Partnership
Including Professional Corporations
Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
Phone: 415.434.9100
Facsimile: 415.434.3947
Email pcowie@sheppardmullin.com
pjeng@sheppardmullin.com
jellis@sheppardmullin.com
mhughes@sheppardmullin.com
MEMBERS LIFE INSURANCE: Bivens Files Suit in W.D. Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MEMBERS Life
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Allen Bivens, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. MEMBERS Life Insurance
Company doing business as: Trustage Financial Group, Inc., Case No.
3:23-cv-00549-slc (W.D. Wis., Aug. 10, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
MEMBERS Life Insurance Company -- https://membersproducts.com/ --
operates as an insurance company. The Company offers life,
accident, and health insurance throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
MEMORIAL HEART: Jackson Files Suit in E.D. Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Memorial Heart
Institute, LLC. The case is styled as Sidney Jackson, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Memorial Heart
Institute, LLC, d/b/a The Chattanooga Heart Institute, Case No.
1:23-cv-00174 (E.D. Tenn., Aug. 10, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Contract Dispute.
Memorial Heart Institute, LLC, doing business as The Chattanooga
Heart Institute (CHI Memorial) -- https://www.memorial.org/ -- is a
leading provider of compassionate, high-quality health care
throughout Tennessee and Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald Luke Widener, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
800 S. Gay St. Ste. 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Phone: (865) 247-0080
Fax: (865) 522-0049
Email: lwidener@milberg.com
META PLATFORMS: Court Allows Swath of Medical Privacy Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Gennaro of Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge will allow large portions of a class action filed by
plaintiffs who claim their medical privacy was violated by Meta's
Pixel tracking tool to proceed.
In their complaint, the plaintiffs say Meta knew or should have
known that its Pixel tracking tool was being used on hospital
websites to collect the private medical information of users. The
data then went to Meta, which used the data to create personalized
ads the plaintiffs say. At least 664 hospital systems or medical
provider web properties sent patient data to Meta through the Pixel
tool.
The collection of this data -- in the absence of a HIPAA
authorization -- violates Meta's own privacy promise to its users,
the plaintiffs say. Meta had promised users that the Pixel and
other tracking tools required partners to have the lawful right to
collect and share the data before providing the data to Meta.
Meta's lawyers sought to dismiss the case and argued at a hearing
on August 16, 2023 that there was nothing inherently unlawful about
the use of the Pixel tool to collect data. Web developers, not
Meta, are responsible for making sure they have the proper
permission and legal right to share any data they collect, Meta
argued, and developers are also responsible for what information is
shared.
"Meta explains to web developers exactly how to meet their
obligation to avoid sending sensitive data to Meta," Meta's
attorney Lauren Goldman told Senior U.S. District Judge William
Orrick III.
In a tentative order ahead of the hearing, Orrick denied Meta's
motion to dismiss extraterritoriality and Wiretap Act claims,
finding the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that the data
collection occurred in California and that Meta had not met its
burden of proof to show that health care providers were given
sufficient consent by the social media giant to collect sensitive
medical information.
Goldman said the wiretap claims should be dismissed because there
was no intent for Meta to receive the health data. She also argued
that extraterritoriality claims should be thrown out since they are
based on California law and none of the class plaintiffs is a
California resident.
"There's no statutory or common law doctrine that would allow the
plaintiffs to impose liability upon Meta for the decision of third
parties to send Meta data that it doesn't want, that it has
contractually barred them from sending in," Goldman said.
Goldman said that plaintiffs had failed to show that Meta
intercepted any communications "consciously and deliberately," and
because of that failure, wiretap claims should be dismissed.
"Plaintiffs' main argument is that Meta knew it was receiving some
sensitive health data and didn't do enough to prevent those
transmissions," Goldman said, adding it does not prove intent to
deliberately intercept the data.
Class attorney Jay Barnes said consent is "never presumed" in
wiretap cases and that there was no specific evidence of any health
care provider consenting to send Meta the data in question. That is
Meta's burden to prove, Barnes said.
"One way to prove it would be to show specific warnings to health
care providers saying 'we don’t want this data, stop sending it
to us,'" Barnes said.
Barnes said Meta designed the Pixel and encouraged health care
providers to adopt it. He said that he had sent Meta a list of web
properties that it was still receiving medical information from, in
violation of HIPAA.
"They've been on notice for a long time that they're collecting
this information without authorization," Barnes said.
Orrick also advanced larceny, California Invasion of Privacy Act
and unjust enrichment claims. He allowed larceny claims under the
precedent Calhoun v. Google LLC, where a federal judge found the
collection of user data without consent constitutes theft.
The judge advanced the invasion of privacy claims California
criminal law prohibits individuals from using electronic tracking
devices to determine the location or movement of a person. Unjust
enrichment claims can proceed in the alternative, Orrick wrote.
Notable dismissed claims include Unfair Competition Law claims,
Consumer Legal Remedies Act claims, and California Comprehensive
Computer Data Access and Fraud Act claims.
Orrick said the unfair competition claims fail because the
plaintiffs did not claim "lost money or property."
"Even if the value of health care information qualifies as 'lost
property' there are no allegations that plaintiffs actually
intended to participate in that market," Orrick wrote. [GN]
METROHEALTH SYSTEM: Savel Appeals Case Dismissal to 6th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff FRANK SAVEL filed an appeal from the District Court's
Opinion and Order dated July 12, 2023 and Judgment dated July 17,
2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled FRANK SAVEL, et al. v. THE
METROHEALTH SYSTEM, Case No. 1:22-cv-02154-JG, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
On November 30, 2022, Frank Savel and 45 named Co-Plaintiffs sued
The MetroHealth System in a putative class action for religious
discrimination. The Plaintiffs work or formerly worked as
MetroHealth employees. They argue that during Fall 2021 and Spring
2022, MetroHealth adopted mandatory workplace COVID-19 vaccination
policies that discriminated against Plaintiffs' religious beliefs
and created hostile working environments.
After earlier announcing a mandatory vaccination deadline,
MetroHealth reevaluated its vaccine policy and granted exemptions
to all of the Plaintiffs who were still working at MetroHealth.
The rest had resigned before MetroHealth ever took any adverse
employment action against them.
On July 12, 2023, the Court found that some Plaintiffs have not
alleged an injury sufficient to give standing to bring their Title
VII and Ohio Revised Code Section 4112 claims. The remainder fail
to state claims for religious discrimination under Title VII and
R.C. Section 4112 because they do not allege that they have been
disciplined, discharged, or subjected to materially adverse
employment actions. Separately, to the extent that Plaintiffs seek
prospective relief for federal and state constitutional claims,
those claims are either moot or not ripe. For this reason, the
Court GRANTED Defendant MetroHealth's March 23, 2023 motion to
dismiss as to all counts.
On July 17, 2023, the Court having entered an Opinion and Order on
July 12, dismissed the case pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
The appellate case is captioned as Frank Savel v. MetroHealth
System, Case No. 23-3672, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit, filed on August 15, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant brief is due on September 25, 2023; and
-- Appellee brief is due on October 25, 2023.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant FRANK SAVEL, and Named Plaintiffs 2-46, on
their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
are represented by:
Jon A. Troyer, Esq.
ARNOLD & ASSOCIATES
4580 Stephen Circle, N.W., Suite 100
Canton, OH 44718
Telephone: (330) 563-4949
Defendant-Appellee METROHEALTH SYSTEM is represented by:
Ami J. Patel, Esq.
ZASHIN & RICH
950 Main Avenue, Fourth Floor
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 696-4441
MICHAEL PRIES: McCollum Appeal on May 25, 2023 Order Withdrawn
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNNIE MCCOLLUM, v.
MICHAEL H.W. PRIES, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01710-SHR-SM (M.D.
Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Sylvia H. Rambo entered an order that:
1. The Plaintiff McCollum's motion to appeal the Court's
May 25, 2023, Order denying him class certification is deemed
withdrawn; and
2. Plaintiff's motion requesting the Court to issue an Order
directing "SCI Pine Grove Admin to Grant Him Indigent Status"
is
denied without prejudice.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 1, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OWrZ3i at no extra charge.[CC]
MIKU INC: Clardy Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ben Clardy, Stephanie Emberton, Meredith Ridge,
Elizabeth Bowen, Shanita Taylor, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Miku, Inc., Case No. 23STCV15456 was
removed from the Superior Court of California County of Los
Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on Aug. 10, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-06542-MCS-MAR to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Miku -- https://mikucare.com/ -- is a pediatric wellness platform,
creating products that make it easy to monitor and understand your
child's health and wellness.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
David William Hall, Esq.
Hedin Hall LLP
4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 766-3534
Fax: (415) 402-0058
Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com
dhall@hedinhall.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Garrett Scott Llewellyn, Esq.
BARNES AND THORNBURG LLP
2029 Century Park East Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 284-3880
Fax: (310) 284-3894
Email: garrett.llewellyn@btlaw.com
MILLIMAN INC: Soto Files Suit in W.D. Washington
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Milliman Inc. The
case is styled as Jose Soto, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Milliman Inc. doing business as:
Milliman Intelliscript Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-01236-RAJ (W.D.
Wash., Aug. 10, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Breach
of Contract.
Milliman -- https://www.milliman.com/ -- formerly Milliman &
Robertson, is an international actuarial and consulting firm based
in Seattle, Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 N 34th St., Ste. 300
Seattle, WA 98103-8869
Phone: (206) 816-6603
Fax: (206) 319-5450
Email: jmurray@terrellmarshall.com
bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
MISSFRESH LIMITED: Faces Chen Securities Suit in NY Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Missfresh Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that in July 12, 2022, a putative
securities class action lawsuit was filed against the company,
certain of its directors and officers, its authorized U.S.
representative and IPO underwriters in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York captioned "Chen v. Missfresh
Limited, et al.," Case No. 1:22-cv-04065.
On November 3, 2022, the case was transferred to the Southern
District of New York. On December 28, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their
amended complaint, which alleges, in sum and substance, that the
company's prospectus and registration statement filed in connection
with its June 2021 initial public offering contained false or
misleading statements in violation of the U.S. federal securities
laws.
In January 2023, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, and briefing on the motion to dismiss was
completed in February 2023. The case otherwise remains in its
preliminary stage.
Missfresh Limited is a Cayman Islands holding company with
operations primarily conducted by its subsidiaries based in China.
MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Rezendes Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jesse Rezendes, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-10211 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, to the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee on Aug. 10, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00839 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. --
http://www.mitsubishicars.com/-- is the U.S. operation of
Mitsubishi Motors Corporation, overseeing sales and research and
development functions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Markovits, Esq.
LEMBERG LAW, LLC
43 Danbury Road
Wilton, CT 06897
Phone: (203) 653-2250
Email: jmarkovits@lemberglaw.com
- and -
Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
LEMBERG & ASSOCIATES, LLC
1100 Summer Street, 3rd Floor
Stamford, CT 06905
Phone: (203) 653-2250
Fax: (888) 953-6237
Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Amir Nassihi, Esq.
Jason M. Richardson, Esq.
Joan R. Camagong, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
555 Mission Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 544-1900
Fax: (415) 391-0281
Email: anassihi@shb.com
jmrichardson@shb.com
jcamagong@shb.com
- and -
Stephen I. Hansen, Esq.
SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP
1 Federal Street, Suite 2540
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (860) 559-3007
Email: sihansen@shb.com
MULTICOIN CAPITAL: O'Keefe Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Connor O'Keefe, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Multicoin Capital Management, LLC,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00838 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on Aug. 11, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-23048 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Multicoin Capital -- https://multicoin.capital/ -- is a
thesis-driven investment firm that invests in cryptocurrencies,
tokens, and blockchain companies reshaping trillion-dollar
markets.[BN]
MULTIPLAN CORP: Court OKs Settlement in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Multiplan Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that on February 28, 2023, the
Delaware Court of Chancery held a settlement hearing relating to
the Delaware stockholder litigation and approved the settlement,
with the court ruling becoming final 30 days thereafter.
On March 25, 2021 the company was named as a defendant in two
putative class action lawsuits relating to the merger with
Churchill Capital Corp III that were then consolidated under the
caption "In Re MultiPlan Corp. Stockholders Litigation,"
Consolidated C.A. No. 2021-0300-LWW (Del. Ch.).
The Delaware Stockholder Litigation asserted breach of fiduciary
duty claims and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claims
against the former directors of the Churchill board, the Churchill
Sponsor III LLC, The Klein Group and M. Klein, and the Company. The
Delaware Stockholder Litigation complaint alleged that the
Transactions were a product of an unfair process by Churchill,
which was allegedly impacted by conflicts of interest, resulting in
mispricing of the merger.
The complaint sought, among other things, damages, certain
equitable relief including the reopening of redemptions, and
attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants filed motions to dismiss
the complaint. On January 3, 2022, the Chancery Court issued a
ruling granting in part the company's motion to dismiss and denying
the motion to dismiss filed by the Churchill defendants.
While the Company was dismissed from the Delaware Stockholder
Litigation, the consolidated lawsuit proceeded against the
Churchill Defendants. The company had previously agreed to
indemnify certain of the Churchill defendants with respect to the
Delaware Stockholder Litigation.
On November 17, 2022, the company and the parties to the Delaware
Stockholder Litigation entered into a settlement agreement to fully
and finally resolve the Delaware stockholder litigation. In
connection with the settlement, the company and its insurers paid
$33.75 million in exchange for a broad release of all claims
related to the business combination and ownership of Churchill
stock and warrants from February 19, 2020 through October 8, 2020.
The settlement was paid pursuant to the company's indemnification
obligations and from available director and officer insurance
policies.
Multiplan Corporation is a provider of data analytics and
technology-enabled solutions for healthcare industry.
NABORS COMPLETION: Figueroa Awarded $713K in Damages & Attys.' Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EDUARDO FIGUEROA, Petitioner v. NABORS COMPLETION &
PRODUCTION SERVICES CO., a Delaware corporation, now known as C&J
Well Services, Inc., Respondent, Case No. 2:23-cv-08163-DDP-JPRx
(C.D. Cal.), Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California grants Figueroa's Petition to
Confirm Final Arbitration Award, for Further Attorneys' Fees and
Costs, and to Enter Judgment Against NABORS.
On April 2, 2015, two former employees of Respondent NABORS,
Brandyn Ridgeway, and Tim Smith, filed a putative class action
alleging, among other things, claims under Labor Code Section
1194(a) and 1771 for failure to pay the minimum prevailing wage and
overtime, under Labor Code Section 226(e) for failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements under Labor Code Section 226(a),
and for related interest and penalties, as well as attorneys' fees
and costs, (CACD Case No. 2:15-cv-03436-DDP-VBKx; "Ridgeway class
action").
On June 29, 2015, NABORS brought a motion to compel arbitration of
Ridgeway and Smith's individual claims pursuant to 9 U.SC. Section
2, the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") and a written arbitration
agreement that included a class action waiver. On Oct. 13, 2015,
the Court denied NABORS' motion to compel arbitration, finding the
arbitration agreement unenforceable. NABORS timely appealed the
denial of its motion to compel arbitration.
On Feb. 13, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal issued a
Memorandum which reversed the Court's order denying the motion and
remanded with instructions.
On March 30, 2018, Petitioner Figueroa, a putative class member in
the Ridgeway class action, commenced an individual arbitration at
JAMS. Figueroa's individual claims were adjudicated by JAMS
Arbitrator Hon. Jeffrey King (Ret.) resulting in an Interim Award
issued April 25, 2022 and a Final Arbitration Award issued by
Arbitrator Hon. Richard D. Aldrich, (Ret.) on Oct. 27, 2022, in
favor of Figueroa.
On Nov. 8, 2022, Figueroa filed the instant Petition to Confirm
Final Arbitration Award, For Further Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and
to Enter Judgment Against Nabors; Nabors appeared, filed an answer
and filed a crossclaim to vacate the Final Award.
On July 31, 2023, the Court issued its Order Re: Petitioner's
Motion To Confirm Final Arbitration Award And For Further
Attorneys' Fees And Costs, granted Figueroa's motion, confirmed the
Final JAMS Arbitration Award issued by Arbitrator Hon. Richard D.
Aldrich in the Arbitration JAMS Case No. 1220058991, and denied
NABORS' request to vacate the award.
Therefore, Judge Pregerson orders that Figueroa will recover
against NABORS in the amount of $409,857.96 in damages and $303,710
in attorneys' fees, as awarded by the Arbitrator. Additional
post-arbitration attorneys' fees in the amount of $8,444 and for
costs in the amount of $402.
A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 2, 2023 Judgment is available
at https://tinyurl.com/6xa8puk5 from Leagle.com.
Richard E. Donahoo -- rdonahoo@donahoo.com -- Sarah L. Kokonas --
skokonas@donahoo.co -- DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES, in Tustin, CA.
NEW YORK TIMES: Class Suit Settlement Over Auto-Renewals Vacated
----------------------------------------------------------------
Holly Barker of Bloomberg Law reports that a class action
settlement to resolve claims over The New York Times' subscription
auto-renewal practices has been vacated, after the Second Circuit
said the district court applied the wrong legal standard in
reviewing the deal.
The district court also failed to adequately evaluate the
substantive fairness of the settlement in light of the attorneys'
fee award and incentive award, it said.
Although such errors could conceivably be harmless, Judge Gerard E.
Lynch said that wasn’t the case here.
Before Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was
codified, courts applied a presumption of fairness to agreements
resulting from arms-length negotiations. But the presumption is no
longer appropriate, according to the US Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit's on August 17, 2023 decision.
Courts must instead look to the four factors laid out in the rule
to "holistically" evaluate the substantive and procedural fairness
of a proposed settlement or other resolution, Lynch said.
Coupon Settlements, Fees
Lynch also said the $1.25 million attorneys' fee
award—representing about 76% of the $1.65 million settlement
fund—violates the Class Action Fairness Act's requirement for
coupon settlements.
The settlement agreement allowed class members to choose between an
access code that would provide one-month NYT subscriptions or pro
rata cash payments.
Under CAFA, when a settlement involves coupons, courts are supposed
to calculate contingent attorneys' fees based on the value of
coupons actually redeemed, rather than their total face value.
Because the district court incorrectly concluded the case wasn't
subject to CAFA's coupon settlement provisions, it judged the
propriety of the attorneys' fees award based on the value of the
entire settlement, including the access codes, which had a face
value of $3.9 million.
Although class members don't have to hand over more money before
they can take advantage of the access codes, they do require the
class members to continue doing business with the defendant. They
are also only available for "select products or services," and
while good for 50 years, they are still "somewhat inflexible" and
can't be used like cash, Lynch said.
Lynch rejected the argument that the availability of a cash option
should alter the coupon-or-not analysis. CAFA's directive applies
to any "proposed settlement under which class members would be
awarded coupons," Lynch said.
Objector Eric Alan Isaacson also challenged the class
representative's incentive award as per se unlawful.
But "providing incentive payments to class representatives for
their role in advancing litigation is, on its own, insufficient to
create conflict of interest," Lynch said.
Lynch said the court wasn't suggesting that the district court must
"overturn the settlement" but was simply directing it to
recalculate attorneys fees and to reevaluate the settlement in
compliance with Rule 23.
Judges Barrington D. Parker and Raymond J. Lohier joined the
decision.
Isaacson represented himself. The class is represented by Bursor &
Fisher PA. The New York Times is represented by Dentons US LLP.
The case is Moses v. N.Y. Times Co., 2d Cir., No. 21-2556,
8/17/23.
To contact the reporter on this story: Holly Barker in Washington
at hbarker@bloombergindustry.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Rob Tricchinelli
at rtricchinelli@bloombergindustry.com [GN]
NEW YORK, NY: Court Stays Deadline in Teagle Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Teagle, et al., v. The
City of New York, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-07211 (E.D.N.Y., Filed
Dec. 23, 2019), the Court entered an order granting the parties'
joint request for a stay of the deadline to engage in dispositive
motion practice until the Court renders a decision on the class
certification motion.
The nature of suit states civil rights -- Employment
Discrimination.
New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson river
meets the Atlantic Ocean.[CC]
NEWMAN MEMORIAL: Ketner Files Appeal with Kansas Supreme Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
ELIORA KETNER has filed an appeal with the Kansas Supreme Court and
Court of Appeals on August 8, 2023. The appellate case is captioned
Eliora Ketner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Appellant vs. Newman Memorial Hospital Foundation, d/b/a
Newman Regional Health, Appellee, Case No. 23-126706.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Eliora Ketner
filed a lawsuit that was removed from the Sedgwick County District
Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The
removed case was captioned Eliora Ketner, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Newman
Memorial Hospital Foundation, Defendant, Case No. 6:22-cv-01136,
asserting breach of the Defendant's fiduciary duty.
On June 15, 2022, the civil case was terminated following the
Plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal.[BN]
O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES: Cull Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Gary Cull, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, and the general public v. O'REILLY AUTO
ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2303008 was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on Aug. 11, 2023, and assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-01623.
In his Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts five class action claims
against the Defendant for: failure to provide meal; failure to
provide rest breaks; failure to pay all wages earned for all hours
worked at the correct rates of pay; failure to indemnify; and
unfair competition.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
James M. Peterson, Esq.
Derek W. Paradis, Esq.
HIGGS FLETCHER & MACK LLP
401 West A Street, Suite 2600
San Diego, CA 92101-7910
Phone: (619) 236-1551
Facsimile: (619) 696-1410
Email: peterson@higgslaw.com
paradisd@higgslaw.com
OPENDOOR TECH: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
Opendoor Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that in November 22, 2022, a
purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Arizona captioned
"Oakland County Voluntary Employee's Beneficiary Association, et
al. v. Opendoor Technologies Inc., et al."
This was consolidated into a single action, captioned "In re
Opendoor Technologies Inc. Securities Litigation," Case No.
2:22-CV-01717-MTL.
The consolidated amended complaint names as defendants the company,
Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. II (SCH), certain of the
company's current and former officers and directors and the
underwriters of a securities offering the company made in February
2021. The complaint alleges that the company and certain officers
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, and
that the company, SCH, certain officers and directors and the
underwriters violated Section 11 of the Securities Act, in each
case by making materially false or misleading statements related to
the effectiveness of the company's pricing algorithm.
The plaintiffs also allege that certain defendants violated Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Section 15 of the Securities Act,
respectively, which provide for control person liability. The
complaint asserts claims on behalf of all persons and entities that
purchased, or otherwise acquired, company common stock between
December 21, 2020 and November 3, 2022 or pursuant to offering
documents issued in connection with our business combination with
SCH and the secondary public offering conducted by the Company in
February 2021. The plaintiffs seek class certification, an award of
unspecified compensatory damages, an award of interest and
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert
fees, and other and further relief as the court may deem just and
proper. The defendants filed motions to dismiss on June 30, 2023,
which are pending before the court.
Opendoor Technologies Inc. is a managed marketplace for residential
real estate that enables sellers and buyers of residential real
estate to experience a simple and certain transactions.
OPENDOOR TECH: Consolidated Suit Over Stock Offer Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Opendoor Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that a purported securities
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona, captioned Alich v. Opendoor
Technologies Inc., et al. (Case No. 2:22-cv-01717-JFM). This was
consolidated into a single action, captioned "In re Opendoor
Technologies Inc. Securities Litigation," Case No.
2:22-CV-01717-MTL.
The consolidated amended complaint names as defendants the company,
Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. II (SCH), certain of the
company's current and former officers and directors and the
underwriters of a securities offering the company made in February
2021. The complaint alleges that the company and certain officers
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, and
that the company, SCH, certain officers and directors and the
underwriters violated Section 11 of the Securities Act, in each
case by making materially false or misleading statements related to
the effectiveness of the company's pricing algorithm.
The plaintiffs also allege that certain defendants violated Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Section 15 of the Securities Act,
respectively, which provide for control person liability. The
complaint asserts claims on behalf of all persons and entities that
purchased, or otherwise acquired, company common stock between
December 21, 2020 and November 3, 2022 or pursuant to offering
documents issued in connection with our business combination with
SCH and the secondary public offering conducted by the Company in
February 2021. The plaintiffs seek class certification, an award of
unspecified compensatory damages, an award of interest and
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert
fees, and other and further relief as the court may deem just and
proper. The defendants filed motions to dismiss on June 30, 2023,
which are pending before the court.
Opendoor Technologies Inc. is a managed marketplace for residential
real estate that enables sellers and buyers of residential real
estate to experience a simple and certain transactions.
OSATA ENTERPRISES: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Osata Enterprises,
Inc. The case is styled as Luis Mercedes, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Osata Enterprises, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-06221-JHR-SDA (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Osata Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Globe, retails apparel
and footwear. The Company offers shoes, clothing, skateboards, and
other accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ara Vahe Naljian, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 584-5575
Email: analjian@steinsakslegal.com
- and -
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
David Stein, Esq.
STEIN & NIEPORENT LLP
1441 Broadway, Suite 6090
New York, NY 10018
Phone: (212) 308-3444
Fax: (212) 836-9595
Email: dstein@steinllp.com
PARK AVENUE: De La Cruz Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------
Ramon De La Cruz, on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Park Avenue South Management LLC,
and Jorge Doe, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06894 (S.D.N.Y., Aug.
6, 2023) alleges claims against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New
York Wage Theft Prevention Act.
The Defendants employed Plaintiff De La Cruz as a handyman, porter,
and "super," in which position Plaintiff De La Cruz performed
manual work including maintenance and repairs, such as throwing out
the trash, mapping the building, as well as sweeping or shoveling
the snow outside the building. Mr. De La Cruz has been employed in
such a position by Defendants from March 20, 2017 until April 30,
2022. However, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff De La Cruz
any overtime "bonus" for hours worked beyond 40 hours in a
workweek, in violation of the FLSA, the New York Labor Law, and the
supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations, says the
suit.
Park Avenue South Management LLC is a New York limited liability
company that offers property management services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Samuel, Esq.
THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
1441 Broadway Suite 6085
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 563-9884
E-mail: michael@samuelandstein.com
PEACHTREE ORTHOPAEDIC: Snider Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peachtree Orthopaedic
Clinic, P.A. The case is styled as Allyson Snider, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Peachtree
Orthopaedic Clinic, P.A., Case No. 2:23-cv-00156-RWS (N.D. Ga.,
Aug. 9, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Breach
of Contract.
Peachtree Orthopaedic Clinic P.A. --
https://peachtreeorthopedics.com/ -- operates as a health care
provider. The Company offers orthopaedic services and specializes
in sports medicine.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Caplan, Esq.
Timothy Brandon Waddell, Esq.
CAPLAN COBB LLC
75 14th Street NE, Suite 2700
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 596-5610
Email: mcaplan@caplancobb.com
bwaddell@caplancobb.com
- and -
Nickolas Hagman, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 440-0020
Email: nick@attorneyzim.com
- and -
Paige L. Smith, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP-IL
135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 782-4880
PENSION BENEFIT: Feregrino Files Suit in D. Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pension Benefit
Information, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Elisa Feregrino,
Melissa Seymour, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Pension Benefit Information, LLC, Progress Software
Corporation also known as: Progress, Case No. 0:23-cv-02176-KMM-DTS
(D. Minn., July 20, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Property Damage.
Pension Benefit Information, LLC (PBI) -- https://www.pbinfo.com/
-- is the leading provider of Research Services to the Pension,
Insurance and Financial industry segments.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
Ryan Thomas Gott, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
328 Barry Avenue S., Suite 200
Wayzata, MN 55391
Phone: (612) 389-0600
Fax: (612) 389-0610
Email: mweiner@pwfirm.com
rgott@pwfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Claudia D. McCarron, Esq.
Paulyne Gardner, Esq.
MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC
426 W. Lancaster Avenue, Suite 200
Devon, PA 19333
Phone: (267) 930-4770
Fax: (267) 930-4771
Email: cmccarron@mullen.law
pgardner@mullen.law
- and -
Emily Liebman, Esq.
MASLON LLP
3300 Wells Fargo Center
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 750-0548
Email: emily.liebman@maslon.com
- and -
Keiko L. Sugisaka, Esq.
MASLON LLP
90 S 7th St Ste 3300
Mpls, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 672-8309
Fax: (612) 642-8309
Email: keiko.sugisaka@maslon.com
- and -
Holley C. M. Horrell, Esq.
GREENE ESPEL PLLP
222 S 9th St., Ste. 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 373-8394
Email: hhorrell@greeneespel.com
PREMIER WASH: Greer Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Bryant Greer, Individually, and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. PREMIER WASH, LLC, d/b/a FLEET CLEAN USA,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00173-DCLC-SKL (E.D. Tenn., Aug. 10, 2023), is
brought for unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees, costs and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").
The Plaintiff and those similarly situated performed similar tasks
for Defendant in excess of 40 hours per week within weekly pay
periods during all times material to this action. The Defendant had
an ineffective time-keeping system that did not accurately record
all of the compensable time of Plaintiff and those similarly
situated, including their overtime hours. As a result, Plaintiff
and those similarly situated were not paid for all their overtime
hours at the applicable FLSA overtime rates of pay within weekly
pay periods during all times material to this lawsuit. In addition,
Defendant has had a common practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and
those similarly situated for all their earned overtime compensation
within weekly pay periods, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an adult citizen of the United States and was
employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid employee.
The Defendant is a franchisee of Fleet Clean Systems, Inc. and has
owned and operated a "fleet" cleaning service in Chattanooga,
Tennessee and in Huntsville, Alabama.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
J. Joseph Leatherwood, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Phone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
jholt@jsyc.com
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Procter & Gamble
Company. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. The
Procter & Gamble Company doing business as: sk-ii, Case No.
1:23-cv-07126-JGLC (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Procter & Gamble Company -- http://www.pginvestor.com/-- is an
American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in
Cincinnati, Ohio.[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
QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quotewizard.com, LLC.
The case is styled as Peter Wilson, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Quotewizard.com, LLC, Perform[CB],
LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01566 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 11, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
QuoteWizard.com, LLC -- https://quotewizard.com/ -- provides online
insurance services. The Company offers an insurance comparison
platform for auto, home, life, health, and renters insurances.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Max S. Morgan, Esq.
WEITZ FIRM LLC
1515 Market St., Ste. 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: (267) 587-6240
Fax: (215) 689-0875
Email: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com
RESIDENTIAL ELEVATORS: Stout FCRA Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as James Stout, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Residential Elevators, Inc., Does 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 37-02023-00028560-CU-OE-CTL was removed
from Superior Court, San Diego County, California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on Aug. 11,
2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01479-JO-DEB to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Residential Elevators -- https://www.residentialelevators.com/ --
has been producing the highest quality home elevators in the USA
for over 25 years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Harmik Yeremian, Esq.
DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
535 N Brand Blvd Ste 705
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (818) 230-8380
Fax: (818) 230-0308
Email: david@yeremianlaw.com
- and -
Emil Davtyan, Esq.
DAVTYAN PLC
21900 Burbank Boulevard 3rd Floor
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (818) 992-2925
Fax: (818) 975-5525
Email: emil@davtyanlaw.com
- and -
Roman Shkodnik, Esq.
DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
2540 Foothill Blvd., Suite 201
La Crescenta, CA 91214
Phone: (818) 230-8380
Fax: (818) 230-0308
The Defendants are represented by:
Gary M McLaughlin, Esq.
Kevin Elliot Gaut, Esq.
MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
2049 Century Park East, 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 312-2005
Fax: (310) 231-8311
Email: gmclaughlin@akingump.com
keg@msk.com
- and -
Sandra Hanian, Esq.
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON
333 S Hope Street, 43rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 620-1780
Fax: (213) 620-1398
Email: SHanian@sheppardmullin.com
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing in CA Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Robinhood Markets, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that beginning in December
2020, multiple putative securities fraud class action lawsuits were
filed against the company and its subsidiaries and affiliates.
Five cases were consolidated in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California. An amended consolidated
complaint was filed in May 2021, alleging violations of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and various state law causes of action
based on claims that the company violated the duty of best
execution and misled putative class members by publishing
misleading statements and omissions in customer communications
relating to the execution of trades and revenue sources.
Plaintiffs seek damages, restitution, disgorgement, and other
relief. In February 2022, the court granted Robinhood's motion to
dismiss the amended consolidated complaint without prejudice. In
March 2022, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended
complaint, alleging only violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act, which Robinhood moved to dismiss. In October 2022,
the court granted Robinhood's motion in part and denied it in part.
In November 2022, Robinhood filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, which the court denied in January 2023.
Robinhood Markets, Inc. and, together with its subsidiaries, are
registered introducing broker-dealer, which provides users the
ability to buy, sell, and transfer cryptocurrencies and is
responsible for the custody of user cryptocurrencies held on our
platform and a spending account that help customers invest, save,
and earn rewards. It facilitates the purchase and sale of options,
cryptocurrencies, and equities through its platform by routing
transactions through market makers, who are responsible for trade
execution.
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Consolidated Securities Suit Over Outage Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Robinhood Markets, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that a consolidated putative
class action lawsuit relating to the service outages on its stock
trading platform on March 2 to 3, 2020 and March 9, 2020 is pending
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
The lawsuit generally alleges that putative class members were
unable to execute trades during the March 2020 Outages because the
platform was inadequately designed to handle customer demand and
the company failed to implement appropriate backup.
Robinhood Markets, Inc. and, together with its subsidiaries, are
registered introducing broker-dealer, which provides users the
ability to buy, sell, and transfer cryptocurrencies and is
responsible for the custody of user cryptocurrencies held on our
platform and a spending account that help customers invest, save,
and earn rewards. It facilitates the purchase and sale of options,
cryptocurrencies, and equities through its platform by routing
transactions through market makers, who are responsible for trade
execution.
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Court OK's Settlement in Mehta Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robinhood Markets, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that in January 2021, a
certain Siddharth Mehta filed a putative class action in California
state court against its subsidiaries, purportedly on behalf of
approximately 2,000 Robinhood customers whose accounts were
allegedly accessed by unauthorized users. The company removed this
action to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.
Plaintiff generally alleges that the company breached commitments
made and duties owed to customers to safeguard customer data and
assets and seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.
In April 2022, the parties reached a settlement in principle to
resolve this matter. The settlement agreement has been approved by
the court.
Robinhood Markets, Inc. and, together with its subsidiaries, are
registered introducing broker-dealer, which provides users the
ability to buy, sell, and transfer cryptocurrencies and is
responsible for the custody of user cryptocurrencies held on our
platform and a spending account that help customers invest, save,
and earn rewards. It facilitates the purchase and sale of options,
cryptocurrencies, and equities through its platform by routing
transactions through market makers, who are responsible for trade
execution.
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Dismissal of Federal Antitrust Suit Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Robinhood Markets, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that in May 2022, the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
dismissed the federal antitrust complaint with prejudice.
Plaintiffs have appealed the court's order to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
A number of individual and putative class actions related to the
2021 Trading Restrictions were filed against the company and its
subsidiaries, among others, in various federal and state courts.
In April 2021, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
entered an order centralizing the federal cases identified in a
motion to transfer and coordinate or consolidate the actions filed
in connection with the Early 2021 Trading Restrictions in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The court subsequently divided plaintiffs' claims against Robinhood
into three tranches: federal antitrust claims, federal securities
law claims, and state law claims.
In July 2021, plaintiffs filed consolidated complaints seeking
monetary damages in connection with the federal antitrust and state
law tranches. The federal antitrust complaint asserted one
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; the state law complaint
asserted negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims. In August
2021, Robinhood moved to dismiss both of these complaints.
In September 2021, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting
state law claims of negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious
interference with contract and business relationship, civil
conspiracy, and breaches of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing and implied duty of care. In January 2022, the court
dismissed the state law complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs have
appealed the court's order to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit.
In November 2021, the court dismissed the federal antitrust
complaint without prejudice. In January 2022, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint in connection with the federal antitrust tranche
and Robinhood moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
Robinhood Markets, Inc. and, together with its subsidiaries, are
registered introducing broker-dealer, which provides users the
ability to buy, sell, and transfer cryptocurrencies and is
responsible for the custody of user cryptocurrencies held on our
platform and a spending account that help customers invest, save,
and earn rewards. It facilitates the purchase and sale of options,
cryptocurrencies, and equities through its platform by routing
transactions through market makers, who are responsible for trade
execution.
ROCK-IT CARGO USA: Birdsong Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rock-It Cargo USA
LLC. The case is styled as Michael Birdsong, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rock-It Cargo USA LLC,
Case No. 2:23-cv-03073-JFM (E.D. Pa., Aug. 10, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
Rock-it Global -- https://rockit.global/ -- is a freight forwarding
and logistics company that serves vibrant industries of visionaries
and event goers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick Howard, Esq.
SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY
1650 Market St., 52nd FL
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 575-3895
Email: phoward@smbb.com
RUA & SON MECHANICAL: Villacana Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rua & Son Mechanical,
Incorporated. The case is styled as Ferman Villacana, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Daemen University,
Case No. S-CV-0051033 (Cal. Super. Ct., Placer Cty., Aug. 11,
2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment."
Rua & Son Mechanical -- https://www.ruainc.com/ -- is a
full-service commercial roofing and wall panel system company
serving all Northern and Central California.[BN]
SAFETY SHOE: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Safety Shoe
Distributors of OKI, Inc. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Safety Shoe
Distributors of OKI, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07074 (S.D.N.Y., Aug.
10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Safety Shoe Distributors of O.K.I. --
https://safetyshoedistributors.com/ -- was established in October
of 1987. SSD has been in the safety shoe business for over 35 years
servicing industrial accounts in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Southern
Illinois, West Virginia and Pennsylvania.[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
SAFEWAY INC: Settles Stewart Meat Sale Dispute for $107M
--------------------------------------------------------
Albertsons Companies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 17, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 25, 2023, that in February 17, 2023,
plaintiffs and its subsidiary, Safeway Inc., executed an agreement
that settled all claims in the lawsuit for $107.0 million. The
settlement includes a claim administration process whereby affected
customers, who do not elect to opt out of the settlement, file a
claim to participate in the settlement.
The court granted final approval of the class settlement through an
order dated July 20, 2023.
Said lawsuit is captioned "Schearon Stewart and Jason Stewart v.
Safeway Inc." filed in Circuit Court, County of Multnomah, State of
Oregon.
Plaintiffs have alleged that Safeway engaged in unfair trade
practices, in violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act
(ORS 646.608), regarding the sale of certain meat products in 2015
and 2016 in the state of Oregon with its "Buy One, Get One Free"
and similar promotions.
Albertsons Companies, Inc. is a food retailer based in Idaho.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Appellate Court Denies DRAM Suit Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nikiforos Iatrou, Casey Halladay and Akiva Stern of Lexology report
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 $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]
SAN ANGEL 2: Flores Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Graciela Fernandez Flores, and the similarly situated employees v.
SAN ANGEL 2 OF ARKANSAS, INC. and FRANCISO JAVIER ROMO, Case No.
2:23-cv-00175-DPM (E.D. Ark., Aug. 10, 2023), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act
("AMWA") to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation
and under the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act
("TVPA").
The Defendants, seizing upon Plaintiff's fears and vulnerability in
the context of Mexico's increasing rates of violence against women,
with just over 70% of 50.5 million women and girls over the age of
15 experiencing some form of violence, subjected Plaintiff to labor
trafficking in the United States by placing her in significant
economic debt, withholding her passport and visa, and making subtle
threats of possible harm to her family. The Defendants violated
Plaintiff's basic rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act to earn
a minimum wage and overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in a
Workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked as a runner or "chipera" for the Defendants.
San Angel 2 of Arkansas, Inc. doing business as Mi Pueblo conducts
business as a Mexican restaurant and bar.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William B. Ryan, Esq.
Bryce W. Ashby, Esq.
DONATI LAW, PLLC
1545 Union Avenue
Memphis, TN 38104
Phone: 901-278-1004
Fax: 901-278-3111
Email: bryce@donatilaw.com
SARA COMPANION: Rivera Sues Over Unlawful & Unfair Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lucia Rivera, on behalf of herself as well as all other similarly
situated v. SARA COMPANION SERVICES, INC. d/b/a SARA COMPANION
HOMECARE SERVICES and Irwin J. White in his professional and
individual capacities, Case No. 2:23-cv-06044-AMD-SIL (E.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 10, 2023), is brought as an unlawful wage practices action
seeking monetary damages for Defendants' failure to compensate
Plaintiff fairly for the six years she spent providing
round-the-clock in-home care to an elderly patient suffering from
dementia.
From September 2016 through October 2022, Plaintiff Lucia Rivera
provided in home care to an elderly patient of Sara Companion
Homecare Services ("SARA"), staying in her home from Monday through
Friday each week, without receiving regular meal or sleep breaks.
During those years, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the
required minimum wage, failed to pay her for all regular and
overtime hours she worked; failed to pay her for the spread of
hours, despite the fact her shifts regularly exceeded 10 hours a
day; and failed to provide all necessary notices and explanations
of pay in Spanish. The Plaintiff brings her wage claims as a
collective action pursuant to FLSA on behalf of herself and all
similarly situated persons who were/are employed by Defendants as
home attendants, home health aides, and all similar positions who,
like her, were not compensated fully for their work, and were not
provided required notices and explanations of pay during their
employment with SARA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has been employed as a home health aide (HHA) in New
York since 2014.
SARA is a New York corporation with a principal place of business
located in Rosedale, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mara Fleder, Esq.
Joel A. Wertheimer, Esq.
WERTHEIMER LLC
14 Wall Street, Suite 1603
New York, NY 10005
Phone: (646) 720-1098
Email: joel@joelwertheimer.com
mara@joelwertheimer.com
SEBA ABODE: Court Certifies Classes in Wofford Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KWEILIN WOFFORD, TARA
SEARS, and NICKI ODELL, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, v. SEBA ABODE, INC., D/B/A BRIGHTSTAR CARE and
RANJANA ROY, as Administratrix of the Estate of Uday Sankar Roy,
Deceased, Case No. 2:20-cv-00084-RJC (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Robert J. Colville entered an order certifying the following
classes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and
(b)(3):
-- The PMWA Class (as to Count II)
"All present and former non-exempt employees of Seba Abode,
Inc.
who were paid a reduced hourly rate as a result of working
over
40 hours per workweek at any time from January 17, 2017
through
the present;" and
-- The Unjust Enrichment Class (as to Count III)
"All present and former non-exempt employees of Seba Abode,
Inc.
who were paid a reduced hourly rate as a result of working
over
40 hours per workweek at any time from January 17, 2016
through
the present;"
The Plaintiffs Kweilin Wofford and Tara Sears are appointed as
class representatives of both classes.
Edward J. Feinstein and Ruairi McDonnell of Feinstein Doyle Payne &
Kravec LLC and Joseph J. Pass, Joseph S. Pass, and Steven E.
Winslow of Jubilerer Pass & Intrieri P.C. are appointed as class
counsel.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 1, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47qERpL at no extra charge.[CC]
SECURIX LLC: Divine Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Securix, LLC. The
case is styled as Amy Divine, Karl Merchant, Columbus Jones, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Securix,
LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00196-HSO-BWR (S.D. Miss., Aug. 10, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights
Act.
SECURIX -- https://www.securixsystems.com/ -- has established and
operates Public Safety Companies in most states around the
nation.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian Kelly Herrington, Esq.
CHHABRA GIBBS & HERRINGTON, PLLC
120 North Congress Street, Suite 200
Jackson, MS 39201
Phone: (601) 948-8005
Fax: (601) 948-8010
Email: bherrington@nationalclasslawyers.com
SEVERN PEANUT COMPANY: Miller Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Severn Peanut
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Kimberly Miller, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Severn Peanut
Company, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00817 (W.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Severn Peanut Company, Inc. manufactures and distributes food
products. The Company cleans farmer stock by shelling and roasting
peanuts for manufacturing various snacks.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
- and -
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTFRIED & GOTTFRIED, LLP
122 East 42nd. St., Suite 620
New York, NY 10168
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
SHAMROCK TOWING: Faces Anderson Suit Over Labor Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL G. ANDERSON, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. SHAMROCK TOWING, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-02517-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 4, 2023)
alleges claims against the Defendant for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Wage Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act,
and the Ohio common law for unjust enrichment.
Plaintiff Anderson was employed by Defendant as tow-truck driver
from November 2021 to July 2023. During his employment, Plaintiff
regularly worked beyond 40 hours in a workweek. However, the
Defendant refused to pay Plaintiff at one and one-half times his
appropriate regular rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek
regardless of whether an interstate trip actually took place for
every four-month period of employment. On July 5, 2023, Plaintiff
was wrongfully terminated from his employment with Defendant
because he inquired about how he and Defendant's current and former
similarly situated employees were paid, says the suit.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages penalties, interest, and other damages, as well
as attorneys' fees and costs that the Defendant owes to him and has
failed to pay in violation of the FLSA, the Ohio Wage Act, the
OPPA, and the Ohio common law.
Shamrock Towing, Inc. is a for profit corporation licensed to do
business in Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP
4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 221-4221
Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
SOTERA HEALTH: Sued Over SEC Misfiling in IPO Issue
---------------------------------------------------
Sotera Health Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that it is facing a putative
stockholder class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio on January 24, 2023, including its
directors, certain senior executives, the company's private equity
stockholders and the underwriters of its initial public offering
(IPO) in November 2020 and its secondary public offering (SPO) in
March 2021 (Michigan Funds Litigation).
On April 17, 2023 the court appointed the Oakland County Employees'
Retirement System, Oakland County Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary
Association, and Wayne County Employees' Retirement System
(Michigan Funds) to serve as lead plaintiff to prosecute claims on
behalf of a proposed class of stockholders who acquired shares of
the company in connection with its IPO or SPO between November 20,
2020 and September 19, 2022.
The Michigan Funds allege that statements made regarding the safety
of the company's use of ethylene oxide (EO), the litigation and
other risks of its EO operations violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (when made in the registration
statements for the IPO and SPO) and violated Sections 10(b),
Section 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(when made in subsequent securities filings and other contexts).
On June 1, 2023 the Michigan Funds filed an Amended Complaint
seeking damages and other relief on behalf of the Proposed Class.
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint was filed on
August 2, 2023. In addition, on May 15, 2023 and July 25, 2023 the
Company received demands pursuant to 8 Del. C. Section 220 for
inspection of its books and records from individual shareholders
purporting to be investigating the company's internal operations,
disclosure practices and other matters alleged and at issue in the
Michigan Funds Litigation.
Sotera Health Company is a global provider of mission-critical
end-to-end sterilization solutions, lab testing and advisory
services for the healthcare industry with operations primarily in
the Americas, Europe and Asia.
STANDARD INSURANCE: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in ELM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELM One Call Locators,
Inc. v Standard Insurance et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01281-MMM-JEH
(C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing
order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QFaR3f at no extra charge.[CC]
STERLING INVESTMENT: Arbitration Bid Denial in Coleman Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Neil M. Brozen, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 12, 2023
entered in the lawsuit entitled Jason Coleman and Jessica Casey, on
behalf of the RVNB Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan,
and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Neil M. Brozen, Robert Peterson, Jr., Vasilia
Peterson, Paul Generale, Mike Paxton, Nick Bouras and Sterling
Investment Partners III, L.P., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-CV-1358,
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas)
on May 27, 2020.
The Plaintiffs seek to restore their employee benefit plan and
recover any profits made by breaching fiduciaries through the use
of Plan assets; and to obtain other appropriate equitable and legal
remedies in order to redress violations and enforce the provisions
of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, including the
return of the wrongfully redeemed RVNB stock to the Plan.
On June 22, 2020, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration which the Court denied on July 12, 2023 through a
Memorandum Opinion and Order signed by Judge Ada Brown. The Court
concluded that the Arbitration Procedure's Class Action Waiver is
unenforceable because it prospectively waives Plaintiffs' statutory
right to seek Plan-wide relief under ERISA Sections 502(a)(2) and
409(a). Because the Class Action Waiver is not severable from the
Arbitration Procedure, the Court must conclude the entire
Arbitration Procedure is unenforceable. Accordingly, the Court
denied Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration.
The appellate case is captioned as Coleman v. Brozen, Case No.
23-10832, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed
on Aug. 15, 2023.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants Neil M. Brozen, et al., are represented by:
Nicole Figueroa, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, L.L.P.
2501 N. Harwood Street
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 295-8062
- and -
Micah Randall Prude, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT, L.L.P.
1722 Routh Street
1 Arts Plaza
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 969-1700
Plaintiffs-Appellees Jason Coleman and Jessica Casey, on behalf of
the RVNB Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on
behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, are
represented by:
Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER, L.L.P.
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 463-2101
STREAMLINE PERFORMANCE: Neadle Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Streamline
Performance, Inc. The case is styled as Iyonna Neadle, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Streamline
Performance, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07108-JMF (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 11,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Streamline Performance -- https://www.streamlineperformance.net/ --
is premium auto repair and tire shop located in Honolulu.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Nicole Dapeer, Esq.
DAPEER LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Ste. 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Phone: (305) 610-5223
Email: rachel@dapeer.com
STRONGHOLD DIGITAL MINING: Faces Shareholder Suit Over IPO
----------------------------------------------------------
Stronghold Digital Mining, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that on April 14, 2022, the
company, and certain of its current and former directors, officers
and underwriters were named in a putative class action complaint
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York.
In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the company made
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material facts in
violation of Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act, about
the its business, operations and prospects in its registration
statement on Form S-1 related to its initial public offering, and
when subsequent disclosures were made regarding these operational
issues when the company announced its fourth quarter and full year
2021 financial results, the company's stock price fell, causing
significant losses and damages. As relief, the plaintiffs are
seeking, among other things, compensatory damages.
On August 4, 2022, co-lead plaintiffs were appointed. On October
18, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On December
19, 2022, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss. On February 17,
2023, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the defendant's motion
to dismiss. On March 20, 2023, the company filed a reply brief in
further support of its motion to dismiss. On June 13, 2023, the
company made oral arguments in support of its motion to dismiss.
Stronghold Digital Mining, Inc. is a computer processing and data
preparation service company based in New York, New York.
SUNRISE GROWERS: Correa Sues Over Deceptive & Misleading Marketing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabiola Correa, individually on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Sunrise Growers, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-06087
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2023), is brought to remedy the deceptive and
misleading business practices of the Defendant with respect to the
manufacturing, marketing, and sale of Defendant's Frozen Fruit
products (hereinafter the "Products") throughout the state of New
York and throughout the country.
The Defendant has improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly labeled
and marketed its Products to reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff,
by omitting and not disclosing to consumers on its packaging that
consumption of the Products may increase the risk of contracting
invasive infections.
The Products contain Listeria monocytogenes, which could lead to
serious and life-threatening adverse health consequences. The risk
of serious infection is particularly concerning for pregnant
mothers, infants, the elderly, and immunocompromised individuals,
who are highly susceptible to severe infection and even death from
Listeria monocytogenes. The Defendant specifically lists both the
active and inactive ingredients of the Products on the labeling;
however, Defendant fails to disclose that the Products contain, or
are at the risk of containing, Listeria monocytogenes.
Listeria monocytogenes is responsible for causing the infection
Listeria. Foodborne listeriosis is recognized to be one of the most
dangerous and life-threatening foodborne diseases. Consumers like
the Plaintiff trust manufacturers such as Defendant to sell
products that are safe and free from harmful known substances,
including Listeria monocytogenes. Plaintiff and those similarly
situated (hereinafter "Class Members") certainly expect that the
frozen fruit products they purchase will not contain, or risk
containing, any knowingly harmful substances that cause severe
disease and even be life threatening.
Unfortunately for consumers, like Plaintiff, the frozen fruit
Products they purchased contain Listeria monocytogenes. In fact,
Defendant recently carried out a recall of its manufactured frozen
fruit products, which revealed the presence of Listeria
monocytogenes in the Products. This resulted in a recall of the
Products ("Recall") on June 21, 2023.7
The Plaintiff and Class Members relied on Defendant's
misrepresentations and omissions of the safety of the Products and
what is in the Products when they purchased them. Defendant is
using a marketing and advertising campaign that omits from the
ingredients lists that the Products contain Listeria monocytogenes.
This omission leads a reasonable consumer to believe they are not
purchasing a product with a known bacterium when in fact they are
purchasing a product contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.
Consequently, Plaintiff and Class Members lost the entire benefit
of their bargain when what they received was a frozen fruit product
contaminated with a known bacterium that is harmful to consumers'
health, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased and consumed the Defendant's Products that
contained Listeria monocytogenes.
The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, and sells frozen
fruit products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Phone: (845) 483-7100
Fax: (888) 749-7747
Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Phone: 313-303-3472
Email: nsuciu@milberg.com
- and -
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
1 Old Country Rd., Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Phone: (516) 873-9550
Email: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
SUNSWEET GROWERS: Hinojosa Suit Removed to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Annamarie Renteria Hinojosa, on behalf of the
State of California, as a private attorney general v. SUNSWEET
GROWERS INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. CV2023-1351 was removed from the State of
California in and for the County of Yolo, to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California on Aug. 10,
2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-at-00778.
The Plaintiff asserted nine causes of action against Defendant
arising out of her employment with Defendant. Specifically,
Plaintiff brought claims for: unfair competition in violation of
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code; failure to pay minimum wages in violation
of Cal. Lab. Code; failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
Cal. Lab. Code; failure to provide required meal periods in
violation of Cal. Lab. Code and the applicable IWC Wage Order,
failure to provide required rest periods in violation of Cal. Lab.
Code and the applicable IWC Wage Order, failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements in violation of Cal. Lab. Code; failure to
reimburse employees for required expenses in violation of Cal. Lab.
Code; failure to pay sick wages in violation of Cal. Lab. Code; and
retaliation in violation of Labor Code.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Timothy J. Long, Esq.
Michael A. Wertheim, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916.442.1111
Facsimile: 916.448.1709
Email: longt@gtlaw.com
Michael.Wertheim@gtlaw.com
SUNWEST MIILING: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Abigail Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SUNWEST MIILING, INC.; SUNWEST FOODS, INC.; and DOES 1
to 10, Case No. 23CV02012 (Cal. Super. Ct., Butte Cty., July 21,
2023), is brought against the Defendants' violation of California
Labor Code due to unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums,
unpaid rest period premiums, failure to pay minimum wage, failure
to furnish timely and accurate wage statements, and wages not
timely paid upon termination.
During the course of Plaintiff's employment, Defendants failed to
compensate Plaintiff and Class members for all overtime hours
worked in excess of eight hours per day and/or 40 hours per week as
required by Labor Code §§ 510 and 1194, and applicable Industrial
Welfare Commission's ("IWC") Wage Orders. Plaintiff and Class
members were not authorized or permitted lawful meal periods and
were not provided with one hour's wages in lieu thereof in
violation of, among others, Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage
Orders. Further Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and Class
members their second meal periods for shifts longer than ten
hours.
The Plaintiff and Class members were not authorized or permitted
lawful rest breaks and were not provided with one hour's wages in
lieu thereof in violation of, among others, Labor Code and
applicable IWC Wage Orders. As a result, Defendants failed to
timely pay Plaintiff and Class members for all wages owed to them
and Plaintiff and Class members' paychecks did not include all
wages owed to Plaintiff and Class members, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt employee from June 2022 to
July 2022.
The Defendants were and are California corporations.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sang (James) Park, Esq.
PARK APC
8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 800
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Phone: (310) 627-2964
Email: sang@park-lawyers.com
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Brittany Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Aarica Brittany, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. FOLLETT HIGHER EDUCATION GROUP,
LLC; FOLLETT HIGHER ED GROUP, LTD; and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Case No. 23STCV13911 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
on Aug. 11, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-06598.
The Complaint asserts causes of action against all Defendants for:
failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages;
failure to provide meal breaks; failure to provide rest breaks;
failure to reimburse business expenses; failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements; failure to pay wages timely during
employment; failure to pay all wages due upon separation of
employment; and unfair business practices (violation of Business
and Professions Code).[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Sheryl L. Skibbe, Esq.
Ashley D. Stein, Esq.
Lauren E. Wertheimer, Esq.
VEDDER PRICE (CA), LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: +1 424 204 7700
Fax: +1 424 204 7702
Email: sskibbe@vedderprice.com
astein@vedderprice.com
lwertheimer@vedderprice.com
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Carlson Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as David Carlson, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION
CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
23-2-06326-6 was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for
Peirce County, to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington on Aug. 10, 2023, and assigned Case No.
3:23-cv-05722.
The Plaintiffs' putative class claims arise from allegations that
Defendant "failed to fully compensate its employee truck drivers
according to Washington Law," specifically Defendant "failed to
compensate them for overtime." The Complaint seeks relief in the
form of unpaid overtime wages, exemplary double damages,
prejudgment interest, and attorneys fee's pursuant to Revised
Washington Code of Washington.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Paul S. Cowie, Esq.
John Ellis, Esq.
Nina Montazeri, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
Phone: (415) 434-9100
Facsimile: (415) 434-3947
Email: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com
jellis@sheppardmullin.com
nmontazeri@sheppardmullin.com
- and -
Anthony Todaro, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6900
Seattle, Washington 98104-7029
Phone: (206) 839-4800
Facsimile: (206) 839-4801
Email: anthony.todaro@dlapiper.com
THOMSON REUTERS: Appeals Certification Ruling in Brooks Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Thomson Reuters Corporation filed an appeal from the District
Court's Order dated July 31, 2023 granting class certification in
the lawsuit entitled CAT BROOKS and RASHEED SHABAZZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THOMSON REUTERS
CORPORATION, Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Francisco.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
filed this case on February 26, 2021 to stop Thomson Reuters from
violating the rights of Californians to control the use of their
own personal information.
On Dec. 14, 2022, the Plaintiffs asked the Court to enter an
order:
1. certifying a hybrid (b)(2) and (b)(3) class or, in the
alternative, certify both claims for class treatment
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3):
"All persons who, during the limitations period, both
resided in the state of California and whose information
Thomson Reuters made available for sale through CLEAR
without their consent;"
Excluded from the class are officers and directors of
Thomson Reuters, class counsel, the judicial officers
presiding over this action, and the members of their
immediate family and judicial staff;
2. appointing the Plaintiffs Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz
as class representatives; and
3. appointing Gibbs Law Group and Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll as class counsel.
On July 31, 2023, Judge Edward M. Chen signed an Order granting
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The appellate case is captioned as Cat Brooks, et al. v. Thomson
Reuters Corporation, Case No. 23-80070, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Aug. 15, 2023.[BN]
Defendant-Petitioner THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION is represented
by:
Erin Earl, Esq.
Susan D. Fahringer, Esq.
Nicola Menaldo, Esq.
Tyler Roberts, Esq.
Anna Mouw Thompson, Esq.
Eric B. Wolff, Esq.
PERKINS COIE, LLP
1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 359-8510
Plaintiffs-Respondents CAT BROOKS and RASHEED SHABAZZ,
individually, and on behalf of all others simularly situated, are
represented by:
Geoffrey Graber, Esq.
Karina Grace Puttieva, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
1100 New York Avenue, NW, 5th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
- and -
Andre M. Mura, Esq.
Amy M. Zeman, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP, LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 350-9717
- and -
Neil Sawhney, Esq.
GUPTA WESSLER, LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 573-0336
TIGER GLOBAL: O'Keefe Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Connor O'Keefe, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Tiger Global Management, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-06336 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on Aug. 11, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-23047 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Tiger Global ¬¬-- https://www.tigerglobal.com/ -- is an
investment firm focused on public and private companies in the
global Internet, software, consumer, and financial technology
industries.[BN]
TODD ROKITA: Simpson Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TODD ROKITA. The case
is styled as Jennifer Sue Simpson, individually and as Next Friend
of her minor child P.C.S and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiffs v. TODD ROKITA Indiana Attorney General, KATIE
JENNER Secretary of the Indiana Department of Education, PARK D.
GRINDER Superintendent, M.S.D. Southwest Allen County Schools,
JEANINE KLEBER District Liasion for Homeless Children, M.S.D.
Southwest Allen County Schools, JERILYNNE BONEFF, Registar, M.S.D.
Southwest Allen County Schools, KNOWLIN Ms., Fort Wayne Community
Schools, Family Engagement Center District Liaison for Homeless
Children, POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01406-JRS-MKK
(S.D. Ind., Aug. 10, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated Other Civil Rights for Denial of Due
Process.
Theodore Edward Rokita -- http://www.toddrokita.com/-- is an
American lawyer and politician serving as the 44th and current
Attorney General of Indiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
TORONTO, ON: Faces Class Suit Over Carding Practice by Police
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Griffin of CBC reports that a proposed class-action lawsuit
has been launched over Toronto police's historic use of "carding,"
alleging the practice of randomly stopping people and collecting
their information continues to harm marginalized communities.
The statement of claim filed on August 14, 2023 is on behalf of all
Black and Indigenous people who have been stopped by Toronto police
or had their information collected without reason since 2011.
It names the Toronto Police Services Board, current police chief
Myron Demkiw and former chiefs James Ramer, Mark Saunders and Bill
Blair as defendants.
"Carding has caused widespread harm, including damage to the
plaintiff's and class members' mental and physical integrity, their
privacy and their livelihoods," it reads.
"While the police have a statutory and common law duty to
investigate crime, they are not empowered to undertake any and all
action in the exercise of that duty."
The lawsuit alleges that the carding practice, officially abandoned
years ago, continues to take place and disproportionately impacts
Black and Indigenous people despite public opposition, academic
research on its harmful effects and public reports that have found
it to be discriminatory and ineffective. The allegations in the
statement of claim have not been proven in court.
Toronto police and the Toronto Police Services Board said they are
reviewing the statement of claim, but will not be commenting on the
case as the matter is before the courts.
"Any material filed, in due course and in response to this
litigation before the court, will be a matter of public record,"
the board noted.
Plaintiff says police punished her for being in public
The lawsuit is led by plaintiff Ayaan Farah, a 38-year-old
Somali-Canadian with no criminal record. It says Farah was "sitting
in public" in 2011 when she was detained by Toronto police officers
who allegedly recorded her personal information without providing a
reason.
The statement of claim alleges that interaction led Farah to lose
her security clearance in 2014 at Toronto Pearson Airport, where
she had worked since 2006. The RCMP had told Transport Canada that
when Farah was stopped by Toronto police officers, she had been
seen with an unidentified member of the Somali-Canadian community
with alleged gang ties and a criminal history.
At the time, Farah told Transport Canada that she did not know who
the unnamed individual was and that she was falsely accused of
having ties to gangsters.
Due to her security clearance being revoked and accusations made
against her, Farah's employer suspended her without pay or
benefits.
"I became very worried about going out in public. I feared that the
police would watch me and accuse me of something. I stopped
volunteering in my community, because I was so worried that the
police might report me again," Farah said in a statement through
her lawyer, Solomon McKenzie.
"I felt targeted. The police punished me for being in public, and I
missed promotions, raises, and was suspended for my job for no
reason."
After seeking a review of Transport Canada's decision to revoke her
security clearance, a federal court found the process was unfair
and set the decision aside, leading to her reinstatement 21 months
later, according to materials contained in the statement of claim.
However, the lawsuit alleges the incident and its consequences led
her to become isolated and develop depression, paranoia and
hyper-vigilance in public. It notes she ultimately emigrated to the
U.S. to avoid further contact with Toronto police officers.
Lawsuit aims to end police use of carding tactics
Farah said she wants to push the case forward to end police use of
carding tactics and seek justice for members of her community
affected by it.
"I never received an apology for the police behaviour, even though
they had a significant impact on my life and career. I want to make
sure that nobody ever has to suffer this experience again," she
said.
The lawsuit seeks to find that the carding practice violates
Charter rights protecting against unreasonable search and seizure,
arbitrary detention as well as discrimination and rights of liberty
and security.
Judge slams government for nixing woman's airport security
clearance
It also seeks a number of reforms around carding, including wiping
collected data from police databases, enhanced training resources
on why the practice is unlawful and a public apology to victims of
carding.
In a 2019 review of carding practices, Ontario Justice Michael
Tulloch, now the province's chief justice, found that random street
checks were not effective as a method of crime prevention or
reduction, and should be abolished given their detrimental impacts
on racialized communities.
The lawsuit is calling for all 129 recommendations in Tulloch's
report to be put into effect, alleging only some have been
implemented to date. [GN]
TRACTOR SUPPLY: Day Sues Over Failure to Pay on Weekly Basis
------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Day, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY, Case No. 612833/2023 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Aug. 11, 2023), is brought against the Defendant's violation
of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") by paying its manual workers
every other week rather than on a weekly basis.
New York Law requires companies to pay their manual workers on a
weekly basis unless they receive an express authorization to pay on
a semi-monthly basis from the New York State Department of Labor
Commissioner. The Defendant has received no such authorization from
the New York State Department of Labor Commissioner. The Plaintiff
therefore demands liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees
on behalf of themselves and a putative class comprised of all
manual workers employed by Defendant in New York State over the
last six years, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant at a Tractor Supply Company
store located in Alden, New York.
The Defendant owns and operates a chain of Tractor Supply Company
stores and employs hundreds, if not thousands of manual workers in
the State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: ykopel@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
TRES COLORI: Fields Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
DOROTHEA FIELDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRES COLORI, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-07245 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2023) seeks to secure redress for
Defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant engaged in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. The
Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's text messages constitute
telemarketing because they encouraged the future purchase or
investment in property, goods, or services, i.e., selling Plaintiff
jewelry.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life
of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of herself and members of the class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies.
Tres Colori, Inc. is an online jewelry retailer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
TRUPHAE INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Truphae, Inc. The
case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Truphae, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07054
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Truphae -- https://www.truphaeinc.com/ -- offers specialty fountain
pens, inks, and accessories.[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
TSG INTERACTIVE: Alcantar Files Suit in D. Delaware
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TSG Interactive US
Services Limited. The case is styled as Jose Alcantar, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. TSG Interactive US
Services Limited doing business as: PokerStars, Case No.
1:23-cv-00890-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 11, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Property Damage.
TSG Interactive Services Ltd is a company that operates in the
Internet industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
DELEEUW LAW LLC
1301 Walnut Green Road
Wilmington, DE 19807
Phone: (302) 274-2180
Email: brad@deleeuwlaw.com
ULTIMATE FIGHTING: Court Certifies Anti-Trust Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Marrocco and Jed Meshew of MMA Fighting report that it
finally happened.
More than eight years - 3,158 days to be exact - after a handful of
former UFC fighters filed a class-action lawsuit against the UFC in
California, a federal judge in Nevada has formally certified them
as a class, clearing the way for a trial to decide whether the UFC
conceived and carried out an illegal scheme to create a monopsony
among fight promoters and lower the pay of its athletes.
This past August 12, 2023, Judge Richard Boulware filed an 80-page
ruling explaining his decision to certify the "bout" class of the
lawsuit, which potentially includes over 1,200 fighters who fought
in the UFC between December 16, 2010 and June 30, 2017.
What did the judge have to say about the UFC's business practices?
What does the decision tell the MMA world about the fighter's
chances in court? What happens next from here? MMA Fighting's
Steven Marrocco and Jed Meshew weigh in.
What did this past August 16, 2023's ruling mean?
Meshew: Given that once upon a time I was a lawyer, I suppose I'll
kick things off, Steven.
This is big.
Like, really big. Arguably the biggest thing to happen in the sport
since Royce Gracie invented grappling. This has a very real chance
to change everything about the business.
For those who aren't sadists and don't want to read through the 80
pages of dense legal jargon, here's the gist: the anti-trust
lawsuit just cleared its biggest hurdle by certifying bout class,
essentially green-lighting a lawsuit that would single-handedly
ruin all of my WME-IMG stock if it goes to trial and the UFC loses.
And Judge Boulware's scathing condemnation of the UFC's business
practices (and at times its legal defenses to those practices)
strongly suggests the UFC deserves to lose!
What does that mean exactly? For the moment, nothing. But soon, it
means everything. We'll get into some of the particulars in a
moment, but big picture, we're talking a billion dollars from the
UFC to fighters, and the end of the UFC's current contract model.
So like I said, this is big.
Marrocco: Eighty pages of legal jargon is nothing, Jed - try
pulling up the case filings on the federal court docket. We're
talking about dozens upon dozens of filings over the course of nine
years. Zuffa's defense attorneys fought tooth and nail to get this
thrown out of court, spending millions upon millions in legal fees,
before it even sniffed class certification, so the fact that
(finally) it has been certified should give you a sense of how
strong the plaintiff's arguments are, and how momentous this is for
this business.
Truth is, this is an old issue applied to a new industry (or
sub-industry). Multi-fight options, otherwise known as multi-fight
deals that tie a fighter to a promotion for a certain period, were
ruled anti-competitive by a federal judge in the 1950s, when the
International Boxing Club wrapped up a bunch of champions and
locked down Madison Square Garden to impede rivals (Boulware even
tips his hat to the scandal in a footnote). Don King was a king of
multi-fight options, wrapping up such a large number of champions
that anti-trust concerns were the talk of boxing in the 80s and
90s. The argument was the same: is that fair to the fighters, and
is that fair to other promoters? Is it ultimately fair to the
fans?
For a long time, the UFC made it to where a fighter could, in
effect, be kept under contract in perpetuity if certain conditions
were in place. If they turned down fights, if they were injured, if
they balked on a new contract, a four-fight deal could turn into a
lifetime contract. That's terrible for anyone in the work place,
but it's absolutely devastating to fighters with a limited window
to maximize their value. It's devastating for rival fight promoters
who want to compete with Zuffa.
This was bound to go to court eventually.
So yes, there's no other way to look at this other than it is very
big. A lot of people doubted the strength of the fighters' case.
That's no surprise given the UFC's 10,000-pound gorilla status.
There should be no further doubt, however, after this written
ruling. The lawsuit already has changed the industry (see: Francis
Ngannou and free agency). The question is how much more change is
in store.
What did Judge Boulware's opinion say about the UFC's business
practices?
Meshew: Slightly dated reference at this point, but do you remember
all the interactions between King Joffrey and Tywin Lannister in
Game of Thrones? That's basically what happened here, only with
Judge Boulware being substantially more direct about things than
Tywin was. He doesn't come out and tell the UFC directly that it's
stupid and cruel and screwed, but boy does he heavily imply it.
I don't know how deep we want to dive here, given that the bulk of
the decision is Boulware dissecting the UFC's business practices
and the arguments for and against their legality, but there are two
lines that stuck out to me as the most salient.
1. "Defendants fail to establish that there is in fact a separate
credible factor of 'promoter acumen.'’"
There's more to this part of it, but in essence, Judge Boulware
says that from all the evidence presented, the UFC's considerable
market dominance isn't due to superior promotional skills, but that
due to its use of anti-competitive tactics to consolidate and
maintain power. In short, Boulware is calling the UFC a monopsony
outright, which is the core point of the lawsuit.
2. "Indeed, Zuffa matchmakers admitted that they used such brutal
coercive tactics."
There's a scene in the Big Short where Steve Carrell's character is
moralizing about fraud, and he says that we shouldn't do fraud, not
because it's bad or mean, but simply because it doesn't work.
Eventually, the chickens come home to roost. And while Dana White
and Joe Silva and the rest have all had a great big laugh about the
way they ran (and still run) the UFC, things like Joe Silva
explicitly stating in emails how he's going to screw over fighters
who don't play ball, or Dana White making a tombstone with the
various MMA promotions that the UFC has killed? Those things
ultimately come back to haunt you.
There's a reason adults in business don't behave the way Dana White
and company do, and it’s not because they're all wonderful
people. It's because at some point, the bill comes due, and right
now, it is damn near impossible for the UFC to get out of this
particular framing. I don’t care if you got John Keker and the
spirit of Johnnie Cochrane running the show, you're not going to
convince any rational human being that the UFC wasn't directly
using their market dominance in a way to adversely effect rival
promotions and its own fighters when the President and the head
matchmaker freely admitted it!
Marrocco: While we're on the topic of free admission and
problematic optics, Jed, I thought it was particularly interesting
that Boulware pointed out Zuffa's contradiction in what they argued
in court versus what they told potential investors prior to selling
to WME/Endeavor in 2016. After a long-ass fight over discovery (the
evidence to be used in the case), a lot of the fighting was about
how the experts hired by the plaintiffs (fighters) and defendants
(Zuffa) quantified, or measured, the promotion's effects on fighter
pay. Zuffa tried awfully hard to sell the idea that pay hadn't been
suppressed because wage levels had gone up. And it's true, pay for
first-time fighters has increased over the years. But that obscures
a larger fact: that the share of revenue to the fighters went down.
In other words, the more money Zuffa made, the smaller the piece of
the pie fighters got.
How do we know this? Because Zuffa helpfully pointed it out in an
investor presentation to potential buyers! The corporate parent put
it in writing that it planned to keep the fighters' share of its
revenue at 20 percent moving forward. If you're a media giant
looking to acquire a money-making sports property, isn't that an
awfully attractive pitch? Stable margins are the backbone of
profit, and Zuffa pointed to wage share as the key metric -- not
wage levels. Thus, an easy layup for the judge to say the
defendants can't have it both ways.
Now, I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert in multivariate
regression -- I prefer my variable equations simple, like Y = mX +
b. But I do know that, despite an awful lot of argument over the
meaning and significance of particular fighter traits that impact
their value in the marketplace, Judge Boulware gave his stamp of
approval to the plaintiff's experts methodology. That means that at
the very least, it's good enough to be seen by a jury, and Zuffa's
attempt to discredit it failed.
It also appears that the anti-trust cases that held up this past
week's certification helped the fighters rather than hurt them.
What does that all mean? Well, promoters -- and in general,
business owners -- will always argue that they are the dominant
player in a market because they are simply better than their rivals
and are thus reaping the rewards. They have the "special sauce"
that turns fighters into stars. What's being tested here for the
first time is whether that's actually true. Is Zuffa just really
good at what they do, or is their position the result of
restrictive contracts that shut out competitors and ultimately
depress fighter pay?
Meshew: Well, based on the defenses they brought to this case thus
far, and the almost transparent contempt Judge Boulware had for
some of the UFC's more obviously ridiculous stances, I'm leaning
toward the latter. Boulware certainly seems to be, at least.
What comes next in the case?
Marrocco: Of course, an appeal. If Zuffa has expended this much
effort just to get to this point, you can bet they will seek to
invalidate Boulware's ruling in a higher court. Of course, they'll
need to convince the higher court -- in this case, the 9th circuit
-- to take the appeal, and then they'll need to get a judge to say
there was an error -- or errors -- in the way the ruling was
decided so that the fighters should not be certified.
Also, there's the question of injunctive relief, or what the
plaintiffs want the defendants to stop doing to remedy the issue.
That wasn't decided in this ruling, and the parties are going to
get back in court to haggle over that -- if they don’t settle
first. So far, the fighters' attorneys have proven they should band
together in court. As for how they want Zuffa/Endeavor to change
their business practices so they prevent this from happening again,
they've left that somewhat of an open question -- perhaps by
design.
Meshew: An appeal is definitely coming, if for no other reason than
kicking the can down the road. Heck, half of the UFC's defenses
proffered here felt perfunctory: unlikely to succeed, but good
enough to keep dragging things out. Time is always on the side of
multi-billion dollar corporations in situations like this. That's
what a war chest is for, after all.
Injunctive relief is where things get really spicy, though. The
decision specifically notes the possible damages that the UFC may
pay from that, between $811 million and $1.4 billion depending on
one of two methodologies presented, so that alone is a kick in the
teeth. I tend to think that's less likely to happen, though, as
injunctive relief requires there to be an irreparable injury that
can only be prevented by doing so. Cash payouts don't generally fit
that bill.
The contract, though? Those are totally fair game. One of the key
concerns from the plaintiffs in this case are the restrictive
contracts the UFC employs. The court could, and based on this
decision probably would, rule that the UFC's contracts merit an
injunction, meaning no more long term deals and no more restrictive
champion's clauses, essentially overnight. It's kind of hard to
overstate how much that would change the UFC, basically overnight.
How does this all end?
Marrocco: For the longest time, I thought the biggest hurdle to
overcome was certification. That is, once the fighters got the
judge to put them all together, thus increasing the money Zuffa
could lose if they lost in court, Zuffa would settle. The $5
billion in damages that's been bandied about as a potential cost
since certification is on the extreme end of things, and it seems
like a pretty good incentive to negotiate with the winners. But
then again, from the reporting I've seen from the chronically
under-appreciated John Nash, it appears some of the contractual
change that allowed for more free movement of talent in the
marketplace -- i.e. the clauses that keep fighters from leaving
UFC, and their ability to take them to court -- has already gone
away. If that's the case, maybe there’s a longer fight ahead over
changes to the UFC's business practices.
There's a long history of big companies settling lawsuits and then
moving on as though nothing had happened. Are the defendants brazen
and deep-pocketed enough to do that? Will the fighters' attorneys
push for substantive change to the way business is done, or will
they take the first reasonable settlement offer? That’s where I'm
a little skeptical. It's definitely a huge thing to take on and
beat the 10,000-pound gorilla in court. But to change wholesale the
way it does business, that's another.
Meshew: I think the most logical answer here is a settlement, but
I'm not so sure that's in the cards, Steven.
Don't get me wrong, the UFC is going to try and settle, probably
several times. $5 billion in damages is a pretty severe guillotine
to have hanging over your head, particularly when you are in the
process of merging with the WWE in a deal that is going to drag in
a whole lot of other debt. But I'm not sure how much the plaintiffs
are going to be willing to back down, particularly not after this
decision. I mean, why would they? Boulware all but agreed with all
of their arguments. And while a $5 billion guillotine is a pretty
big stick for the UFC, it's one heck of a carrot for the
plaintiffs. If I'm one of the plaintiffs at this moment, I'm not
sure exactly what offer the UFC could come back with that I would
accept. There is a number, but the conversation starts at $2.4
billion (the low end of damages, if this things goes all the way
and the UFC loses).
More than just the money, though, is the human element of
everything. The plaintiffs in this case were wronged by the UFC and
are seeking redress, not just for themselves, but for all parties
similarly wronged. When this whole thing started, Jon Fitch and
company knew that it was a long road with absolutely no guarantee
of any payout at the end, and yet they went on ahead, because at a
very basic level, they're in this for justice.
Justice isn't taking a chunk of the money and running. It's seeing
things through to the end of the line. Is there a world where the
UFC continues to drag this out for years more on end, and they
ultimately lose and get nothing? Sure. But that world was much more
likely a month ago. Now, the plaintiffs can see the finish line. It
may be a ways off, but it’s there, and waiting for them is
everything they ever wanted. I think it would need to be a pretty
big concession from the UFC for them to turn their backs on that.
Plus, we're talking about Jon Fitch here, Steven. If there's one
thing that man loves to do, it's go to a decision. [GN]
UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Claims in Mansor Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FAYEZ MANSOR, et al., v.
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., Case
No. 2:23-cv-00347-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge James L. Robart
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss:
-- The court grants the Defendants' motion with respect to their
argument that the Plaintiff Eclesiaste Coissy lacks standing,
-- Dismisses Mr. Coissy's claims and denies their motion in all
other respects.
The court concludes that Plaintiffs' DJA claim is not duplicative
of their APA claims, because a judgment in their favor could, for
example, set aside Defendants' "policy and practice" as ultra vires
without necessarily clarifying Plaintiffs' affirmative rights under
the statute, if any.
Before the court is Defendants United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS), Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, and USCIS Director Ur
Jaddou's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
and for failure to state a claim.
The Plaintiffs Fayez Mansor, Eclesiaste Coissy, Cabdi Ibrahim
Xareed, and Shukria Zafari oppose the motion.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ODyCpZ at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITEDLEX CORPORATION: Glusky Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Allison Glusky, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. UNITEDLEX CORPORATION, Case No.
CACE23015796 was removed from the Circuit Court of Seventeenth
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Aug.
10, 2023, and assigned Case No. 0:23-cv-61542-XXXX.
The Plaintiff's Complaint in the State Court Action purports to
assert claims of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty on behalf
of Plaintiff and all putative Class members, whom Plaintiff defines
as "all persons whose PII was accessed and/or exfiltrated during
the Data Breach Incident."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRADLO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Rachel Dapeer, Esq.
DAPEER LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417
Aventura, Florida 33180
Email: rachel@dapeer.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jason A. Pill, Esq.
PHELPS DUNBAR LLP
100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 2000
Tampa, FL 33602-5311
Phone: 813-472-7550
Facsimile: 813-472-7570
Email: jason.pill@phelps.com
VITALITY GROUP: Elias Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Vitality Group,
LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Elias, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. The Vitality Group doing
business as: Vitality Group International, Inc., LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-04656 (N.D. Ill., July 19, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Vitality -- https://www.vitalitygroup.com/ -- wellness solutions
engage members at the intersection of wellbeing and care.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
Lisa A. White, Esq.
Salena Jasmin Chowdhury, Esq.
MASON LLP
5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 640
Washington, DC 20015
Phone: (202) 429-2290
Fax: (202) 429-2294
Email: gmason@masonllp.com
lwhite@masonllp.com
schowdhury@masonllp.com
- and -
Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP (DC)
641 S. St. NW
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (202) 640-1168
Fax: (202) 429-2294
Email: dperry@wbmllp.com
- and -
Theodore Beloyeannis Bell, Esq.
MASON LLP
8045 Kenneth Ave.
Skokie, IL 60076-3215
Phone: (202) 640-1169
Email: tbell@masonllp.com
VO HOLDINGS LLC: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vo Holdings, LLC. The
case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Vo Holdings, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07077
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
VO HOLDINGS, L.L.C. is a Louisiana Limited-Liability Company.[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
WALMART INC: Thomas Sues Over False and Misleading Representation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arnesia Thomas, Pascha Perkins, and Vernita Faison, individually
and as a representative of all others similarly situated v. WALMART
INC. and WAL-MART STORES, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-05315 (N.D. Ill.,
Aug. 10, 2023), is brought against the Defendant's false and
misleading representation regarding their bed sheets under its
exclusively owned brand name "Hotel Style."
Walmart manufactures, labels, distributes, advertises, and sells
bed sheet sets under its exclusively owned brand name "Hotel Style"
at Walmart locations throughout the country and for which Walmart
represents directly on their packaging and/or labeling that their
thread count is 800 (hereinafter, "Hotel Style Sheets" or
"Products"). Consumers regularly and commonly rely on the
representations made on a product's labeling and packaging when
determining whether or not to purchase that product. When
purchasing sheet sets, consumers use the product's thread count as
a primary indicator of their quality, durability, and softness and
pay higher prices for those with higher thread counts.
In an effort to make the Hotel Style Sheets more attractive in the
marketplace, to boost its sales, and to increase its profits,
Walmart represented, and continues to represent, an inflated thread
count of 800 directly on its Hotel Style Sheets' label and
packaging. In doing so, Walmart departed from longstanding and
well-established industry standards that govern the method for
counting threads in a fabric. In reality, the thread count of
Walmart's Hotel Style Sheets is far less than 800.
This false and misleading representation deceives consumers into
believing they are purchasing a product of a higher quality,
durability, and softness than products of the same or substantially
similar blends with lower thread counts. Because of the improperly
inflated thread counts that Walmart represented on the packaging
and labeling of the Hotel Style Sheets, in purchasing these sheets,
Plaintiffs and the putative classes received far less than what
Walmart promised them. Moreover, as a direct result of Walmart's
deceptive and unconscionable misrepresentation of its Hotel Style
Sheets' thread count, Plaintiffs and putative class members were
induced to purchase the Hotel Style Sheets and would not have
purchased them, or would have paid a lower price for them, had they
known the actual thread count at the time of purchase, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Hotel Style Sheets from a local Walmart.
Walmart is the world's largest retailer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
Leora N. Friedman, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010
Washington, D.C. 20006
Phone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
Email: agold@tzlegal.com
lfriedman@tzlegal.com
- and -
Frank Bartela, Esq.
Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN
60 South Park Place
Painesville, OH 44077
Phone: (440) 352-3391
Email: fbartela@dworkenlaw.com
nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com
WALMART INC: Wins Summary Judgment vs Oettle
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRISTA OETTLE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WALMART, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00455-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the Hon.
Judge David W. Dugan entered an order:
-- Granting Walmart's motion for summary judgment;
-- Dismissing with prejudice Oettle's Breach of Implied Warranty
of
Merchantability claim (Count I) and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act
claim (Count II); and
-- Denying as moot Oettle's Motion for Class Certification.
In the instant case, Walmart was denied the opportunity to examine
and/or test the products in issue -- Oettle disposed of the
allegedly defective balloons and two of the four tanks; the
remaining tanks have been stored on her porch. Walmart was also
deprived of the opportunity to timely interview witnesses who
attended the birthday parties where the products allegedly
underperformed, and the opportunity to minimize damages or correct
the alleged defect prior to litigation.
In 2018, Plaintiff Oettle purchased a total of four Balloon Time
helium tank kits from Walmart on three separate occasions (March
31, 2018, May 26, 2018, and July 24, 2018).
She purchased the kits to inflate balloons for her children's
birthday parties and claims they failed to keep balloons afloat for
a "sufficiently long period of time." The Court granted in part and
denied in part Walmart's motion to dismiss. Specifically, this
Court denied Walmart’s motion to dismiss Counts I and II because
a factual issue existed regarding the reasonableness of any delay
in giving pre-suit notice.
On March 31, 2018, the first time Oettle purchased a Kit, she
inflated about half of the thirty included balloons at her
daughter's outdoor birthday party.
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores in the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47uyd1E at no extra charge.[CC]
WASHINGTON COUNTY, OR: Aiona Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CALEB AIONA, JOSHUA SHANE
BARTLETT, WALTER BETSCHART, TYRIK DAWKINS, JOSHUA JAMES-RICHARDS,
TANIELA KINI KIN LATU, RICHARD OWENS, LEON MICHAEL POLASKI, ALEX
SARAT XOTOY, AND TIMOTHY WILSON, on their behalf, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. PATRICK GARRETT, WASHINGTON
COUNTY SHERIFF, in his official capacity, Case No. 3:23-cv-01097-CL
(D. Or.), the petitioners request that the Court:
1. Order the clerk's office serve to the instant motion on the
respondent, along with the habeas petition and the motion for
order to show cause;
2. Enter an order provisionally certifying the proposed class;
3. Appoint Alex Sarat Xotoy, Richard Owens, Jr., and Leon
Michael
Polaski as Rule 23 class representatives, and
4. Appoint undersigned counsel as class counsel.
The petitioners request that this proceeding be provisionally
certified a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the following class:
"All indigent persons facing criminal charges in Washington
County,
Oregon, who are housed in the Washington County Detention Center
or
are otherwise in custody because they have restrictions on their
liberty in the community, and who have not had an attorney
appointed to their case or have had an attorney appointed to
their
case who subsequently withdrew from the case and no substitute
counsel has been appointed."
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 2, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sgUVtS at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Fidel Cassino-DuCloux, Esq.
Stephen R. Sady, Esq.
Julie Vandiver, Esq.
Jessica Snyder, Esq.
Robert Hamilton, Esq.
Michael Benson, Esq.
Peyton E. Lee, Esq.
Megha Desai, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
101 SW Main Street, Suite 1700
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 326-2123
Facsimile: (503) 326-5524
E-mail: Fidel_Cassino-DuCloux@fd.org
Steve_Sady@fd.org
Julie_Vandiver@fd.org
Jessica_Synder@fd.org
Robert_Hamilton@fd.org
Peyton_Lee@fd.org
Megha_Desai@fd.org
Michael_Benson@fd.org
- and -
David F. Sugerman, Esq.
Nadia Dahab, Esq.
SUGERMAN DAHAB
707 SW Washington St., Ste. 600
Portland, OR 97205
Telephone: (503) 228-6474
Facsimile: (503) 228-2556
E-mail: David@sugermandahab.com
nadia@sugermandahab.com
WASHINGTON NEWSPAPER: Pileggi Seeks More Time to File Class Cert.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE PILEGGI,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WASHINGTON NEWSPAPER PUBLISHING COMPANY, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-00345-BAH (D.D.C.), Plaintiff Nicole files an unopposed,
second motion to extend the deadline for Motion for Class
Certification from September 5, 2023, to January 19, 2024, or
alternatively, 120 days after the Court holds a Rule 16 Scheduling
Conference.
The first extension was from May 8, 2023 (which would have been 90
days after the filing of the Complaint) to September 5, 2023.
Washington Newspaper was founded in 2006. The Company's line of
business includes publishing newspapers.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 2, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QMdznA at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
Amy E. Tabor, Esq.
CADDELL & CHAPMAN
628 East 9th Street
Houston, TX 77007-1722
Telephone: (713) 751-0400
Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com
cbc@caddellchapman.com
aet@caddellchapman.com
- and -
Michael L. Murphy, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 463-2101
Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
E-mail: mmurphy@baileyglasser.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Scott H. Angstreich, Esq.
Mark C. Hansen, Esq.
Grace W. Knofczynski, Esq.
KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL &
FREDERICK, P.L.L.C.
Sumner Square
1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 326-7959
Facsimile: (202) 326-7999
WESTERN DIGITAL: Faces Class Suit Over Storage Devices' Failures
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Tyson of Tom's Hardware reports that Western Digital is facing
a class action lawsuit regarding SanDisk Extreme Pro SSD failures
and subsequent losses of user data. The class action group is
looking for in excess of $5,000,000 plus interest, fees, and costs,
the Register reports. California resident Nathan Krum, is named as
the plaintiff.
In May stories popped up about SanDisk Extreme Portable SSDs
suffering from sudden failures. A multitude of customers were
highlighting data loss problems stemming from their use of this
particular family of external SSDs on social media and SanDisk
forums. The most common sign that something had gone wrong, and
that your SSD had been affected by the data loss issue, was when
plugging in you received a message stating "The disk you attached
was not readable by this computer." By May, WD / SanDisk admitted
it was aware of issues with its external SSDs and promised a
firmware update was on the way "soon."
WD seemed to limit its scope of admission regarding the failed
drives. In previous reports, we noted that the storage giant
intended to provide firmware updates for the 4TB SanDisk
Extreme and / or Extreme Pro portable SSDs (SDSSDE61-4T00
and SDSSDE81-4T00 respectively). However, we saw plenty of
comments from people with one of these drives in another capacity
(they are available in 500GB, 1TB and 2TB, too), struggling with
the same sudden data loss issues. There was no mention of refunds
being made available.
The lack of refunds, or mention of fixes other capacity drives,
might be what pushed the plaintiff to instigate legal action. Krum
says he bought a SanDisk Extreme Pro 2TB model for $179.99 on or
about May 19, 2023 from Amazon.com. After the drive failed and the
lost data Krum had saved upon it, he says he spent money on data
recovery services, and to purchase a replacement external hard
drive. Of course, dealing with such issues also requires a
substantial amount of personal time and energy. Making matters
worse, Krum says he "cannot return it [the SSD] for a full refund,"
and he "can no longer trust using the drive and thus it is
worthless to him."
It's not a good look, as the SanDisk Extreme Pro 2TB is advertised
as being "reliable enough to take on any adventure," and "a rugged,
dependable storage solution," targeting photographers,
videographers, and other creative professionals and hobbyists.
Moreover, despite WD's statements about data safety, the plaintiff
asserts that there was a known "latent defect in manufacturing
and/or design." As well as the misleading advertising complaint,
the plaintiff is alleging breach of contract and violation of
consumer protection law.
The class action document published by the United States District
Court For The Northern District Of California, San Jose Division,
also contains some information about the experiences of SanDisk
Extreme (Pro) customers since our May report. It states that the
firmware updates designed to fix / prevent data loss issues were
"unreliable," and that replacement drives sent to customers were
"reported to suffer from the same defect."
According to the filing, class members are "All persons in the
United States who purchased a SanDisk Extreme Pro SSD portable
solid-state hard drive, including the SanDisk Extreme Pro, Extreme
Portable, Extreme Pro Portable, and WD MyPassport SSD models, at
retail since at least January 2023." There are a few exclusions,
such as WD / SanDisk employees and resellers. It is estimated that
there will be "tens if not hundreds of thousands of individuals,"
included.
WD's help pages continue to maintain that the firmware updates
released fix a problem where drives "unexpectedly disconnect from a
computer." It states that the firmware issue has now been addressed
by manufacturing and currently shipping products aren't affected
(see FAQ section of linked page). [GN]
WESTSIDE VETERINARY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Westside Veterinary
Center, P.C. The case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Westside Veterinary
Center, P.C., Case No. 1:23-cv-06055 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Westside Veterinary Center -- https://westsidevetcenter.com/ -- is
a skilled Veterinarian in New York City.[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
WHITMAN COLLEGE: Summary Judgment Hearing Set for Nov. 3
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID HYUN-SU KIM, v.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF WHITMAN COLLEGE DBA WHITMAN COLLEGE, Case No.
4:22-cv-05033-MKD (E.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Mary K. Dimke
entered an order granting the Defendant's stipulated motion for
continuance of trial date and related deadlines:
Summary Judgment Hearing Nov. 3, 2023
Witness and exhibit lists:
Lists filed and served: Feb. 29, 2024
Objections filed and served: March 11, 2024
Deposition designations:
Designated transcripts served: Feb. 26, 2024
Cross-designations served: March 11, 2024
Objections filed and served: March 25, 2024
All motions in limine filed March 4, 2024
Joint Proposed Pretrial Order filed and March 25, 2024
emailed to the Court
Trial briefs, jury instructions, verdict March 25, 2024
forms, requested voir dire
Pretrial Conference April 4, 2024
Final Pretrial Conference April 29, 2024
Jury Trial April 29, 2024
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KDPThm at no extra charge.[CC]
WOODMAN'S FOOD: Final Collective Certification Bid Due Sept. 19
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wyngaard v. Woodman's Food
Market Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-00493 (E.D. Wisc., Filed April 5,
2019), the Hon. Judge Pamela Pepper entered an order that the time
for the consolidated Plaintiffs to file their motions for final
collective certification, for class certification, and for summary
judgment and for the defendant to file its motion for
decertification is extended until Sept. 19, 2023.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Woodman's owns and operates supermarkets. The Company offers
liquors, clothing, automotive, housewares, and food products.[CC]
WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Cantarero Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Raimundo Mendoza Cantarero, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. WORLDWIDE FLIGHT
SERVICES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 23STCV15967 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
Aug. 11, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-06604.
The Complaint purports to state causes of action for: "Violation of
Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance;" "Failure to Provide Accurate
Itemized Wage Statements;" and "Violation of California's Unlawful
Competition Law."[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
James C. Fessenden, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92121
Phone: (858) 597-9600
Facsimile: (858) 597-9601
Email: jfessenden@fisherphillips.com
- and -
Melissa A. Huether, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 330-4500
Facsimile: (213) 330-4501
Email: mhuether@fisherphillips.com
YAMAHA CORPORATION: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yamaha Corporation of
America. The case is styled as Luis Mercedes, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Yamaha Corporation of America,
Case No. 1:23-cv-06231-ER (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Yamaha Corporation -- https://usa.yamaha.com/index.html -- is a
Japanese musical instrument and audio equipment manufacturer.[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
*********
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 ***