/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230928.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, September 28, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 195
Headlines
17400 S. KEDZIE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carpenter Alleges
3M COMPANY: Hankins Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Roberts Suit Transferred to S.D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: Williams Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
ADVANTEX ASSET: Leichtle Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
AMAZON.COM INC: Parties Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid
ANDREW MEISNER: Hall Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
APPLE INC: Bid to Dismiss Antitrust Suit Partially Granted, Denied
BACK TO NATURE: Venticinque Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
BARILLA CANADA: Faces Cote-St-Luc Class Suit Over Misleading Ads
BERKELEY, CA: Alan Sues Over Improper Rental Stabilization Measures
BP ENERGY: Faces Suit Over High Costs of Natural Gas in Kansas
CANADA: Faces Foreign Workers Class Suit Over Closed Work Permits
CEMEX CONSTRUCTION: Rose Suit Removed to S.D. California
CHEESESTEAK HOUSE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Faz Suit Alleges
CHICAGO WHITE SOX: Faces Yaniz Class Suit Over Discrimination
CHICAGO, IL: Court Certifies Class Suit Over Parking Ticket Fines
CLEVELAND-CLIFFS STEEL: Loses Bid to File Notice of Non-Party Fault
CONAGRA BRANDS: Faces Class Suit Over Frozen Chicken Contamination
CONSOLIDATED EDISON: S.D. New York Dismisses S.A.M. Customer Suit
CORECIVIC INC: Lopez Suit Removed to D. Colorado
DAVA MARKETING: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Cook Alleges
DEL CARIBE MEAT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Blanco Alleges
DOMINIUM MANAGEMENT: Court Certifies Class Suit Over Consumer Fraud
EP GLOBAL: Failed to Prevent Data Breach, Cohen Suit Alleges
ESCOBAR CONSTRUCTION: Perez Appeals FLSA Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
F21 OPCO LLC: Scott Files Suit in C.D. California
FARHA ROOFING: Ford Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Missouri
FCS BARBER: Mai Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
FLORIDA HEALTH: Fails to Secure Patient's Info, Doe Alleges
FORD MOTOR: Faces Dorfman Class Suit Over Defective Vehicles
FTX TRADING: YouTube Influencers Agree to Settle Endorsement Suit
GAP INC: Wiretaps Email Communications, Ramos Suit Alleges
GENERAL MOTORS: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Guzzled Oil Granted
GEO GROUP: Detainees' $1/Day Labor Constitutes Human Trafficking
GREATER CINCINNATI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Collins Alleges
HEARTLAND EXPRESS: Court Approves Deal to Dismiss Freitas Suit
HS CUSTOM DESIGNS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Durmus Alleges
INMAR INC: Mr. Dee's Appeals Class Certification Order to 4th Cir.
INTEGRATED BIOMETRIC: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Faces Suit Over May 2023 Cyberattack
IVY LEAGUE: Refuses to Award Athletic Scholarships, Suits Allege
JACK HULLAND: High Court Certifies Excessive Discipline Class Suit
JELD-WEN HOLDING: To Settle Antitrust Suit Over Molded Door Prices
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Oral Decongestants Ineffective, Suit Claims
KELLOGG CO: Faces Class Suit Over Miscalculated Retirement Benefits
LOUISIANA: Men Prisoners Forced to Work in Farm, Suit Claims
MADE EVENT: Faces Class Suit Over Cancelled Dance Music Festival
MAPFRE USA: Access Data Without Consent, Brown Suit Alleges
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Villanueva Suit
MERRILL LYNCH: Sued Over Harm From Funding Mining Activities
META PLATFORMS: BIPA Class Suit Removed From State Ct. to Dist. Ct.
NATERA INC: Must Face Class Suit Over Efficacy of Genetic Tests
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces Class Suit Over Racial Discrimination
NATIONAL VISION: S.D. California Dismisses Herrera Class Suit
ONTARIO: Awaiting the Approval of Prisoners' Class Suit Settlement
PENSKE TRUCK: Cabral Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Violates First Amendment Rights, Teachers Claim
POLISHED.COM INC: Maschhoff Securities Suit Over IPO Ongoing
PRIDE SECURITY: Hoffman Seeks to FLSA Conditional Certification
PROCTER & GAMBLE: FDA Panel Says Decongestant Drug Ineffective
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Nasal Congestant Drugs Ineffective, Fichera Says
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Nasal Congestant Drugs Ineffective, Juneau Says
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Martin Suit Removed to N.D. Florida
PURFOODS LLC: D'Angelo Files Suit in S.D. New York
PURFOODS LLC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Aldridge Alleges
QUTOUTIAO INC: Pappas Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
RAVEN3 HOME: Bid to Dismiss TCPA Class Action Denied
REALPAGE INC: Haynes Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
RECKITT BENCKISER: Barton Sues Over Ineffective Nasal Decongestant
REGENCY MANAGEMENT: Gallegos Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
RESIDENT HOME: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ROB BONTA: Court Denies as Moot Welchen Class Certification Bid
ROSEBUD ECONOMIC: Huntley Appeals Arbitration Order to 9th Cir.
SAN FRANCISCO AIDS: Ellenburg-Wiley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SAN FRANCISCO OPERA: Benitez Suit Removed to S.D. California
SAN FRANCISCO OPERA: Hooks Suit Removed to N.D. California
SEA WORLD: Morgan Suit Removed to S.D. California
SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Made Unsolicited Calls, Beaudreault Says
SELENE FINANCE: Fails to Provide Requested Info, Estrella Alleges
SHOREWOOD FOREST: $47.7K in Atty. Fees Awarded in Stratford Suit
SOCIAL CATFISH: Faces Class Suit Over Publicity Law Violations
SOUTHEAST CONNECTIONS: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
SOVOS COMPLIANCE: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Stadnik Alleges
SPEARS MANUFACTURING: Estrada Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
STATE FARM: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Clippinger Suit
TEXAS HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arthur Alleges
TILRAY INC: Bid for Reconsideration in Securities Suit Gets OK
TRAINCROFT INC: Concepcion Seeks Initial Class Settlement Approval
UNITED STATES: Certifies Class Suit Over Pregnant Workers
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Foster Says
USA LOGISTICS: Peterfai Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
VIKING RIVER CRUISES: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VISA INC: Pending Payout for Interchange Suit Settlement Discussed
WALDEVAIA INC: Almendares Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
WALMART INC: Discriminates Disabled Employees, Suit Claims
WINE GROUP: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WSFS BANK: Assesses Multiple OD Fees on Same Transaction, To Says
X CORP: Faces Dutch Class Suit Over MoPub Data Trading
XE HOLDING: Court Grants in Part CNA's Motion to Dismiss Brink Suit
ZESTFUL MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Ferrando Alleges
ZING ZANG: Faces Class Suit Margarita Mixes' False Ads
ZOCCOLA LLC: Aquino Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
*********
17400 S. KEDZIE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carpenter Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
MYSHIYA CARPENTER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 17400 S. KEDZIE AVE LLC d/b/a
WATERFORD ESTATES, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-11414 (N.D. Ill.,
Sept. 13, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages
and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Carpenter was employed by the Defendant as a dietary aid
server.
KEDZIE AVE LLC d/b/a WATERFORD ESTATES provides retirement care
services and operates an assisted living retirement community in
Hazel Crest, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 South Highland Avenue Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Tel: (630) 575-8180
Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
3M COMPANY: Hankins Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Harry Hankins, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-04618-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 13, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Roberts Suit Transferred to S.D. South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jeremi Roberts, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY; AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS, INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC., ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CORTEVA,
INC; CHEMGUARD, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION;
E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; FIRE-DEX,
LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA, INC.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; LION GROUP,
INC.; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCE COMPANY LLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; STEDFAST USA,
INC.; TEN CATE PROTECTIVE FABRICS USA D/B/A SOUTHERN MILLS INC.;
THE CHEMOURS COMPANY LLC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, L.P.; W.L. GORE &
ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-22895 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Sept. 14,
2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04631-RMG to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate operating in
the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer
goods.[BN]
The Petitioner is represented by:
Elsa De Lima, Esq.
DOWNS LAW GROUP
3250 Mary Street, Suite 307
Miami, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 444-8226
Email: edelima@downslawgroup.com
The Respondents are represented by:
Jonathan S. Klein, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
1999 K St. NW
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 263-3327
Email: jklein@mayerbrown.com
3M COMPANY: Williams Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
------------------------------------------------------------------
James Williams, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-04619-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 13, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
ADVANTEX ASSET: Leichtle Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advantex Asset
Management. The case is styled as Julie Leichtle, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Advantex Asset
Management, Case No. 3:23-cv-02062-E (N.D. Tex., Sept. 14, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Advantex is a veteran owned, attorney backed real estate investment
firm that helps homeowners in foreclosure and provides quality,
affordable housing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan Andre Giribaldo, Esq.
PARDELL, KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO, PLLC
501 Congress Avenue, Suite 150
Austin, TX 78701
Phone: (561) 726-8444
Email: bgiribaldo@pkglegal.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Parties Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH DE COSTER et
al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:21-cv-00693-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order, that:
1. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file their class certification
motion is extended to March 7, 2024.
2. The deadline for Amazon to respond to Plaintiffs' motion is
June
7, 2024.
3. The deadline for Plaintiffs' reply brief is August 7, 2024.
Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company focusing
on e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital
streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 5, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Plkjqu at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq.
Anne F. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
barbaram@hbsslaw.com
annej@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Zina G. Bash, Esq.
Warren D. Postman, Esq.
Albert Y. Pak, Esq.
Jessica Beringer, Esq.
KELLER POSTMAN LLC
111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500
Austin, TX, 78701
Telephone: (512) 690-0990
E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com
wdp@kellerpostman.com
albert.pak@kellerpostman.com
jessica.beringer@kellerpostman.com
- and -
Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101-3052
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
E-mail: Dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Alicia Cobb, Esq.
Steig D. Olson, Esq.
David D. LeRay, Esq.
Nic V. Siebert, Esq.
Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq.
Adam B. Wolfson, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
1109 First Avenue, Suite 210
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 905-7000
E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com
steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
davidleray@quinnemanuel.com
nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com
maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com
adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
MaryAnn Almeida, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Telephone: (206) 622-3150
Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com
JohnGoldmark@dwt.com
MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com
- and -
Karen L. Dunn, Esq.
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
Amy J. Mauser, Esq.
Martha L. Goodman, Esq.
Kyle Smith, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20006-1047
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com
wisaacson@paulweiss.com
amauser@paulweiss.com
mgoodman@paulweiss.com
ksmith@paulweiss.com
ANDREW MEISNER: Hall Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAWANDA HALL ET AL., v.
ANDREW MEISNER ET. AL., Case No. 2:20-cv-12230-PDB-EAS (E.D.
Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. Certify a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and
23(b)(3)
defined as follows:
"All persons and entities that owned real property in Oakland
County whose real property, during the relevant time period,
was
seized through a real property tax foreclosure and
subsequently
purchased via a local municipality's right of first refusal
program (MCL 211.78m), which was worth more than the total
tax
delinquency taxes owed and were not refunded the surplus
equity
in excess of the delinquent tax amount;"
2. Appointing Mark L. McAlpine of McAlpine P.C. and Scott F.
Smith
of the Smith Law Group, PPLC as Co-Lead Counsel; and
3. Appointing Plaintiff Tawanda Hall as class representative.
Ms. Hall owned a home with her now-deceased husband at 24650 Martha
Washington Dr., Southfield, MI 48075 in 2010.
On February 14, 2018, the County foreclosed and took title to the
property to collect $22,642.00 in property taxes, interest,
penalties, and fees. Id. On June 29, 2018, the County Treasurer
deeded the property to the City of Southfield.
On October 23, 2018, the City gave the property to a third party
for $1. Id. The third party later sold the Halls' home for its fair
market value of $308,000.00—$285,000.00 more than Ms. Hall's
total tax debt—and kept all the proceeds.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 5, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48cUBgt at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark L. McAlpine, Esq.
Douglas W. Eyre, Esq.
Mark W. Oszust, Esq.
MCALPINE PC
3201 University Drive, Suite 200
Auburn Hills, MI 48326
Telephone: (248) 373-3700
- and -
Scott F. Smith, Esq.
SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC
30833 Northwestern Hwy, Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
Telephone: (248) 626-1962
APPLE INC: Bid to Dismiss Antitrust Suit Partially Granted, Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Foss Patents reports that Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California just denied in part--and in economic terms, almost
completely--a U.S. antitrust class action brought on behalf of
leading French publishers such as Le Figaro and L'Equipe (about
that one, see my personal note toward the end).
Here's the decision, which I'll explain briefly:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23977262-23-09-13-order-on-motion-to-dismiss-le-figaro-et-al-v-apple:
Societe du Figaro et al. v. Apple (case no. 4:22-cv-4437-YGR, N.D.
Cal.): Order granting part and denying in part APple's motion to
dismiss with partial leave to amend
The court gives the French publishers three weeks (until October 4)
to amend their complaint, but they can only amend limited parts
that won't change anything about the fact that there's no more
serious money left for them to be made even if they won. But in
order to turn this into something that has significant economic
potential, they need a successful appeal.
In this first reaction, I'm not going to take a position on whether
I agree with Judge Gonzalez Rogers. I disagreed with key parts of
her Epic Games v. Apple ruling (which is now going to be appealed
to the Supreme Court), but her dismissal of Pistacchio v. Apple, a
class action over Apple Arcade, was well-reasoned (at least the
market definition part).
The introductory part of the decision indicates between the lines a
bit of an annoyance with the fact that certain class-action lawyers
brought this case shortly after setting a U.S. developer class
action against Apple over largely the same issues. This here looked
like a double-dipping (as far as the lawyers -- not the parties --
are concerned). But that does not, in and of itself, render the
entire case meritless.
The economically biggest part is that Judge YGR does not allow the
French publishers to sue in U.S. court for damages relating to
foreign sales. Those publishers obviously have some U.S. revenues,
as there are French expats and other people who read one or more of
those publications. But obviously most of the money they make is
generated in France, followed by other French-speaking parts of the
world (such as Québec).
If they go ahead now and take this to trial, the maximum damages
award they could ever realistically hope for would still not offset
litigation costs. A victory would be somewhat symbolic. The only
value they could get value out of a win related to their U.S.
revenues would be that this might persuade a French court to rule
against Apple in a similar way. But is that going to be worth it? I
doubt it.
Earlier this year I highlighted the problem that Apple doesn't want
to be liable in any jurisdiction. Epic Games experienced the same.
If app makers sue outside the U.S., Apple says only U.S. courts
have jurisdiction, and in the U.S., Apple points to the Foreign
Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA), which is a law that was
enacted to prevent extraterritorial overreach by U.S. courts.
Based on this U.S. decision, the French publishers and others will
find it easier to convince foreign courts that they have
jurisdiction over App Store abuse claims relating to those non-U.S.
markets, despite a choice-of-jurisdiction clause in the contract
Apple imposes on app developers. So there may be something positive
here.
Another potential strategy for the French publishers would be to
bring in additional plaintiffs on the occasion of the amendment,
which could be publishers with very substantial U.S. revenues.
When I first commented on the French publishers' U.S. class action,
I found one part of the complaint particularly intriguing: they
raised the issue of App Tracking Transparency (ATT), a money and
power grab by Apple under the pretext of privacy. Judge Gonzalez
Rogers allows the plaintiffs to amend their ATT claim if they bring
an amended complaint. That may now be another reason to widen the
class definition and include publishers with substantial U.S. sales
(an amendment that Apple would presumably oppose, but the
plaintiffs could try to get it approved by the court). For
publishers, ATT is a huge problem. So maybe the focus will change a
little bit. However, the alternative would be to drop this one and
bring a new one with U.S. publishers (or UK and other publishers
with substantial U.S. revenues) on board from the start, and with a
focus on ATT.
I guess something will happen. I don't expect this complaint to
just be dropped at this stage without an appeal, amendment, or a
new complaint with an ATT focus (or even a combination of two or
more measures of that kind).
Personal note: As I mentioned L'Equipe: while I currently have no
paying subscription to any media outlet, simply because there are
too many around the globe that are relevant to me at different
times, L'Equipe is actually one of two publications I plan to
subscribe to for the purpose of brushing up my French. I actually
learned most of my Spanish from sports newspapers AS, Marca, and
Sport. If I subscribed to it through their Android apps, Google
would tax my subscription fees . . . [GN]
BACK TO NATURE: Venticinque Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GRACEMARIE VENTICINQUE is taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing her lawsuit entitled Gracemarie Venticinque,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Back to Nature Foods Company, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 22-cv-7497, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff
Venticinque brings a class action against Back to Nature Foods, a
manufacturer of plant-based snacks. She claims that the Defendant
misled her and other consumers into believing that its "Stoneground
Wheat Cracker" contains primarily whole wheat flour as opposed to
enriched wheat flour. She brings claims for deceptive practices and
false advertising under New York General Business Law Section
349-50 ("NYGBL").
On Sept. 13, 2022, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint
alleging damages of more than $5 million for one count of deceptive
acts or practices in violation of New York General Business Law
Section 349 and one count of false advertising in violation of New
York General Business Law Section 350.
On Dec. 2, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case
failure to state a claim and for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1),
respectively, which the Court granted through an Order entered by
Judge Valerie E. Caproni.
Judge Caproni opined that the Plaintiff has failed to allege
adequately that a reasonable customer would be misled by the label
on the Product. At best, a reasonable consumer would find the label
ambiguous as to whether the Product's primary source of flour was
whole wheat rather than enriched wheat flour. A simple tilt of the
package would reveal the full list of ingredients and dispel the
confusion. Hence, the Plaintiff's claims were dismissed with
prejudice and the case was closed.
The appellate case is captioned Venticinque v. Back to Nature Foods
Company, LLC, Case No. 23-1236, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on September 7, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant GRACEMARIE VENTICINQUE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Charles D. Moore, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 South 5th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
Defendant-Appellee BACK TO NATURE FOODS COMPANY, LLC is represented
by:
Jonathan G. Kortmansky, Esq.
BRAUNHAGEY & BORDEN LLP
118 West 22nd Street, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (646) 829-9403
BARILLA CANADA: Faces Cote-St-Luc Class Suit Over Misleading Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Feith of Montreal Gazette reports that a Cote-St-Luc woman is
behind a class-action lawsuit request that argues a popular pasta
brand has misled consumers into thinking its products are Italian.
The request alleges Barilla Canada Inc. marketing itself as
"Italy's No. 1 Brand of Pasta" leads people to believe its pasta is
authentically Italian, when it's actually produced in North
America.
The mother of five says she spent more than $100 on Barilla
products last year, opting for them since she thought she was
paying for imported Italian pasta.
"People buy it over choosing a cheaper brand because they believe
Italian products are of better quality. They associate good pasta
with Italy," said David Assor, the lawyer behind the suit.
"And they feel they were duped."
The class action request has yet to be authorized by a judge and
Barilla Canada is challenging it.
In a decision rendered last week, a Quebec Superior Court judge
allowed a statement from the company's marketing director to be
filed in the case.
The statement says Barilla was founded in Parma, Italy, in 1877 and
remains an Italian family-owned company. Based on sales volume, it
says, it is accurate to say Barilla is the top brand of pasta in
Italy.
The company has used the trademark since at least 2009, it adds,
"as a way to distinguish its products from other pasta brands in
the Canadian market."
The affidavit goes on to explain Barilla Canada, based in Markham,
Ont., uses the same recipe, proportions, processes and "know-how"
in production that Barilla uses "worldwide, including Italy."
On Barilla's website, the company says its products sold in North
America are produced in Iowa, New York and Canada. Those made in
Italy state "made in Italy" or "product of Italy" on the box.
But Assor said Canadian courts have long established that when it
comes to false advertising or representation, it's the "general
impression" the product conveys that matters.
He pointed to how Barilla often combines the slogan on its
packaging with the Italian flag's green, white and red colours.
"When people in the grocery store picked up a box … their general
impression was that they were buying Italian products," Assor
added. "That general impression is wrong, and it's clear that
Barilla was trying to capitalize on this."
The proposed class action notes Barilla's U.S. branch faces a
similar lawsuit in California, where a pair of consumers sued the
company after realizing the pasta was made in the United States,
not Italy.
According to the Washington Post, a judge ruled last fall the
plaintiffs in that case had established sufficient "economic
injury" for it to continue.
The Montreal-based class action proposes anyone who purchased at
least one of Barilla's pasta products in Canada with the "Italy's
No. 1 Brand of Pasta" slogan on the box could be part of the suit.
Assor said it's too early to estimate how many people that could
represent if the lawsuit is approved. Given Barilla's sales volume
in Canada, however, he believes it could be "tens of thousands of
people."
Among other products, the lawsuit targets the company's "Classic
Blue Box" pasta, which includes popular cuts like spaghetti,
linguine, penne and fettuccine.
Barilla did not return a request for comment on September 15, 2023.
[GN]
BERKELEY, CA: Alan Sues Over Improper Rental Stabilization Measures
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ALAN WOFSY & ASSOCIATES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF BERKELEY, Defendant, Case
No. 23043503 (Cal. Sup., Alameda Cty., Sept. 11, 2023) seeks to
challenge the Defendant's levy, charge, or fees to landlords.
According to the complaint, the Defendant used a voter initiative
to prohibit eviction of qualifying tenants for non payment of rent
during state or local emergencies; authorize the Rent Stabilization
Board to set registration fees for certain partially exempt units;
and limit the Accessory Dwelling Unit exemption to owner-occupied
properties. It passed with only a simple majority, securing 57
percent favorable votes.
The Defendant used the voter initiative to raise revenue by
charging exorbitant fees to the otherwise-exempt landlords over
whom the Rent Stabilization Board ("Board") now exerts
jurisdiction, while offering dramatically reduced fees to some
categories of politically favored landlords and no fees at all for
other categories of politically favored landlords. For the
Plaintiff, it must now pay thousands of dollars of fees every year,
despite operating only non-rent-controlled units and receiving no
benefits whatsoever, the suit alleges.
BERKELEY is a city in Northern California on the east side of San
Francisco Bay. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James M. Wagstaffe, Esq.
Frank Busch, Esq.
WAGSTAFFE, VON LOEWENFELDT,
BUSCH & RADWICK LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 2250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 357-8900
Facsimile: (415) 357-8910
Email: wagstaffe@wvbrlaw.com
busch@wvbrlaw.com
BP ENERGY: Faces Suit Over High Costs of Natural Gas in Kansas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Kate of Kansas Reflector reports that BP Energy and other
suppliers took advantage of a historic cold snap two years ago to
sell natural gas at hundreds of times its normal price, two class
action lawsuits filed in Kansas allege.
The lawsuits, which name a combined eight companies in the natural
gas supply chain, allege defendants violated the Kansas Consumer
Protection Act and illegally profiteered off of the disaster.
Five Kansas residents and customers of Kansas Gas Service brought
one lawsuit "to recover damages as a result of defendants'
unconscionable practices," the petition, filed on September 12,
2023 in U.S. District Court in Kansas, says.
Another five residents who are customers of city-owned gas
utilities that are part of the Kansas Municipal Gas Agency filed
the other lawsuit.
"No one has yet brought a claim to seek reimbursement for the
Kansas consumer ratepayers, and we think that claim should be
brought because there were some very significant profits made,"
said Jay Fowler, a partner at Foulston Siefkin, representing both
groups of plaintiffs.
Along with BP, the lawsuit filed by KGS customers names Southwest
Energy, Macquarie Energy, Energy Transfer, Tenaska, MIECO and
Rockpoint Gas Storage as defendants. The KMGA customers' case also
names BP, Macquarie and Southwest Energy, along with CIMA Energy.
In February 2021, sustained, frigid temperatures brought the
Midwest power supply to the brink of collapse. The storm, called
Winter Storm Uri, caused rolling electrical blackouts, and the cost
of natural gas skyrocketed. Gov. Laura Kelly declared a state of
emergency, and Kansas energy regulators directed natural gas
utilities to do whatever was needed to ensure continuous gas
service.
But the prices utilities paid to supply gas to their customers were
astronomical.
On Feb. 1, 2020, the spot price for gas coming from the pipeline
that supplies Kansas was about $2.50 per MMBtu, the lawsuit says.
It started to climb as meteorologists predicted cold weather. By
Feb. 10, the price had risen to $329.60 per MMBtu. A week later, it
reached $622.79, nearly 245 times the price from the beginning of
the month.
Typically, the lawsuit says, utilities purchase gas in advance
based on a set price, often the first-of-the-month price. If they
need additional gas, they can purchase more at the daily "spot
price," which is the market rate at the time of purchase.
As prices skyrocketed in early February, the lawsuit alleges, the
defendants declared force majeure, a clause often included in
contracts that releases parties from responsibility because of
unforeseen events.
Having shed their responsibility to deliver gas at the
first-of-the-month price of $2.52, defendants then sold the same
gas to other distributors at the spot price -- as high as $329.60
or $622.79, the lawsuit claims.
"Defendants seized on Winter Storm Uri to redirect a substantial
volume of natural gas that it had agreed to sell at lower prices .
. . and send the same gas to make spot sales to distributors
refilling their storage capacities," both lawsuits say.
When the cold subsided, gas utilities had spent hundreds of
millions of dollars to maintain customers' service. Kansas
regulators allowed them to defer those costs to be repaid by
customers over time rather than hitting Kansans with astronomical
one-time bills.
For the state's largest gas utility, Kansas Gas Service, the cost
of the storm, including financing costs, totaled more than $366
million.
Kansas Municipal Gas Agency members suffered extraordinary costs
from the storm of more than $36 million, the lawsuit says. Many of
the member municipal utilities spread the costs out over years to
lessen the impact on customers.
Meanwhile, the lawsuit says, defendants reaped huge profits.
Energy Transfer, it says, reported $5.04 billion in revenue --
before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization -- during the
first quarter of 2021 compared to $2.64 billion during the same
period in 2020.
Similarly, BP reported profits of $4.7 billion during the first
quarter of 2021 compared to a loss of $4.4 billion the year before.
During the fourth quarter of 2020, its profits totaled $1.4
billion.
A spokeswoman for Macquarie said the company does not comment on
pending litigation.
None of the other seven companies named as defendants across the
two cases immediately responded to requests for comment. [GN]
CANADA: Faces Foreign Workers Class Suit Over Closed Work Permits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Coralie Laplante of CTV News Montreal reports that the association
that looks out for the rights of house and farm workers (DTMF)
sought approval for a class action lawsuit in Quebec Superior Court
on September 14, 2023 to oppose closed work permits, which bind
foreign workers to a specific employer. According to the
organization, these permits run contrary to the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.
The class action petition calls for this type of work permit to be
recognized as unconstitutional, since it places workers in
vulnerable situations while they are dependent on their employer,
and therefore more likely to be mistreated.
Major union groups the Confederation des syndicats nationaux (CSN)
and the Federation des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec
(FTQ) support the association's initiative.
"Even if they (workers) have rights on paper, there's always the
fear of being returned to their country, there are always threats
from employers, they're afraid of reprisals," said Katia Lelievre,
vice-president of the CSN, at a press conference outside the
Montreal courthouse on September 15, 2023 morning.
She pointed out that the union represents "thousands" of immigrant
workers, many with temporary status, and that the CSN sees the
issues surrounding closed permits.
On Sept. 6, following a two-week visit to Canada, the UN Special
Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Slavery, Tomoya Obokata,
asserted that the closed work permit system makes foreign workers
vulnerable to a form of modern slavery "as they cannot denounce
abuses suffered without fear of deportation," the UN website
states
Lelièvre reiterated the Special Rapporteur's conclusion. "It's
embarrassing for Canada to think how we're going to lecture
countries like China on human rights, when we ourselves are unable
to respect Article One of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, which states that all human beings are born free and
equal," she said.
"For us, people must be free to choose their employer. No Quebecer
has to prove that he or she is vulnerable in the workplace in order
to change jobs, and that's what they (foreign workers) have to do,"
she continued.
The class action claim also calls for compensation for workers who
have been harmed by being under duress as a result of a closed work
permit.
"The award of damages is appropriate and just, in particular to
compensate for the harm suffered by employer-linked migrant
workers, to vindicate their Charter rights and to deter the
Government of Canada from violating them in the future," reads the
document, filed in English in Montreal.
"The discriminatory attitudes underlying the introduction of
employer liaison measures have led the Government of Canada to
ignore the human rights and dignity of the workers concerned and
the foreseeable harm that employer liaison would cause them," the
DTMF Association also states in the class action application. [GN]
CEMEX CONSTRUCTION: Rose Suit Removed to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Robert Rose and Paul Simi, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated v. CEMEX CONSTRUCTION
MATERIALS PACIFIC, LLC, and DOES 1 through 50, Case No. 23CV004244
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California on Sept. 13, 2023, and assigned
Case No. 2:23-at-00930.
The Plaintiffs' Fourth Cause of Action asserts alleged meal period
violations under California Labor Code Section 512 and seeks meal
period premiums. As a preliminary matter, the Complaint alleges
that employees were not paid their contractually "agreed-upon rates
of pay," including for missed meal break pay and "premium wages for
missed meal periods."[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Dorothy S. Liu, Esq.
Kendall C. Fisher-Wu, Esq.
HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
425 Market Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 777-3200
Facsimile: (415) 541-9366
Email: dliu@hansonbridgett.com
kfisher-wu@hansonbridgett.com
CHEESESTEAK HOUSE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Faz Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
NOEMI FAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHEESESTEAK HOUSE SPORTS & BAR, LLC d/b/a
BARRA LIBRE; and JOEL PADILLA, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-02035-S
(N.D. Tex., Sept. 11, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Plaintiff Faz was employed by the Defendants as a server.
CHEESESTEAK HOUSE SPORTS & BAR, LLC owns and operates a restaurant
in Garland, Texas, known as Barra Libre. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Telephone: (817) 479-9229
Facsimile: (817) 840-5102
Email: drew@herrmannlaw.com
pamela@herrmannlaw.com
CHICAGO WHITE SOX: Faces Yaniz Class Suit Over Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that the Chicago White Sox
faces a proposed class action that alleges the American League
Central team has discriminated against individuals with
disabilities by refusing to list all available accessible-seat
season and single-game tickets on its website.
The 18-page case says that although the general public can purchase
White Sox season tickets and single-game tickets on the team's
website, season tickets for accessible seats are not sold online
and "the vast majority" of single-game accessible seats are falsely
listed as unavailable.
According to the suit, the White Sox' refusal to sell season
tickets for accessible seats on its website forces those with
disabilities to call to make a purchase and limits the seats they
can buy to only a few offered by phone, seemingly in disregard of
all the other unsold accessible seats around the ballpark.
Further, the suit alleges the White Sox also has "discriminatory
restrictions" on the team website as far as the sale of single-game
tickets for accessible seats, as the club offers only a small
percentage of accessible seats online and "frequently limit[s] them
to only certain areas of the stadium or certain games during the
year." The case says that many of the existing accessible seats at
Chicago's Guaranteed Rate Field "remained empty during games
throughout the season," and for the majority of this year's
campaign, the White Sox' website offered accessible seating
primarily in the upper deck or outfield.
"Only after the White Sox were assured of not making the playoffs
did the White Sox release some accessible seats for sale closer to
the infield on the main level," the filing states.
The lawsuit accuses the White Sox of violating the federal
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which governs public
accommodations and protects individuals from discrimination on the
basis of a disability. Under ADA regulations, individuals with
disabilities must be afforded an equal opportunity to buy tickets
for any accessible seating through the same methods of
distribution, and in the same types and numbers of ticketing sales
outlets, as the general public, the complaint relays.
The lawsuit looks to cover all people who qualify for
wheelchair-accessible seating and seek to attend a home game played
by the White Sox by purchasing either season tickets or a
single-game ticket on the White Sox' website. [GN]
CHICAGO, IL: Court Certifies Class Suit Over Parking Ticket Fines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Callie Patteson of The U.S. Sun reports that in July, a Cook County
judge granted a class action lawsuit against the City of Chicago.
The lawsuit, originally filed in 2018, has been accusing the city
of violating state law in exceeding the maximum penalty fines for
parking tickets or city sticker violations.
The plaintiffs claim the city would issue multiple tickets for the
same violation -- over through penalties for late payments --
leading to massive amounts of fines.
State law currently allows officials to issue penalties of a
maximum of $250, according to the Chicago Tribune.
However, thousands of Chicago drivers have claimed the city
exceeded that amount, even through placing tickets on cars parked
on private property.
Rodney Shelton, who lives on the West Side of Chicago, told ABC7
that he parked his grandmother's old car at a friend's private lot
because it wasn't functioning properly.
Then, one day in 2015, he discovered the car had 77 tickets for
lacking a city sticker.
The city claimed he owned $20,000.
"Just the fact that you have a municipal code that allows you to go
on someone's private property because it's open, to do that it's
just not right. It's just not right," Shelton told the outlet.
"This is egregious at the end of the day; at the end of the day
this is egregious."
Jacie Zolna, the attorney for the plaintiffs, also told the outlet
that even getting one or two of these tickets can cause trouble for
city residents.
"You get one or two of these tickets and someone is in a lot of
trouble because they can't afford to pay them, and what happens
then is they lose their car because the city tows it or they lose
their job," Zolna said.
HOW TO JOIN
Anyone who has been charged more than $250 for a single parking
ticket or city sticker violation is not expected to take an action
to join the class action lawsuit.
Zolna told CBS News that the city is required to provide his legal
team with a list of every eligible vehicle owner in the city.
"If they can track you down to make you pay a ticket, they'll be
able to track you down to refund the money," Zolna said.
In July, Zolna's team was seeking to ask the judge to require a
refund of all illegal fines and penalties imposed by the city.
It was not immediately clear whether that request had been granted.
Records from the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County reveal
that there are two court dates set regarding the class action.
The first hearing has been set for September 21 for a "motion
call," while the second date is October 3 for a "status hearing."
Since the class action was granted, court records show there has
been continuous movement forward in the case.
Specifically, various exhibits have been filed and time extensions
have been granted.
Zolna did not immediately respond to The US Sun's request for
comment. [GN]
CLEVELAND-CLIFFS STEEL: Loses Bid to File Notice of Non-Party Fault
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LOUIS CROCKER, et al., Plaintiffs v.
CLEVELAND-CLIFFS STEEL CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No.
4:21-cv-11937-SDK-CI (E.D. Mich.), Judge Shalina D. Kumar of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division, issued an Opinion and Order denying the Defendant's
motion for leave to file notice of non-party fault.
Plaintiffs Louis Crocker and Danielle and Jason Charles bring this
putative class action for private nuisance, public nuisance, and
negligence against Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corp. (CCSC), seeking
damages for the release of noxious odors, dust, and air
particulates from its steel facility.
After the Court dismissed CCSC's third-party complaint against
Marathon Petroleum Company LP (Marathon) and Edwin C. Levy Co.
(Levy) for contribution, CCSC moved for leave to file notice of
non-party fault identifying Marathon and Levy as non-parties wholly
or partially at fault for the Plaintiffs' alleged damages.
The Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion, but Marathon and Levy
filed motions for leave to respond or to intervene solely to
respond to CCSC's motion. The Court has reviewed the motions before
it and finds that neither further briefing nor a hearing is
necessary for determination.
The Plaintiffs allege that noxious odors, dust, and air
particulates, which have escaped from CCSC's steel facility in
Dearborn, Michigan, have caused property damage and substantially
interfered with the abilities of their putative class to reasonably
use and enjoy their homes and properties since 2018. The putative
class of plaintiffs are occupants of residential property located
within 1.5 miles of the CCSC steel facility. The Plaintiffs
attribute their alleged damages only to the emissions from the CCSC
facility.
On Feb. 17, 2022, CCSC filed a third-party complaint for
contribution against Marathon and Levy, alleging they were each
responsible for some or all of the releases of odors, dust, and air
particulates alleged by the Plaintiffs. The Court dismissed the
third-party complaint on Nov. 30, 2022, finding that CCSC's claim
for contribution against Marathon and Levy was premature under
Michigan law.
The Court found that no right to statutory contribution exists for
a party paying more than its pro rata share of a common liability
until the common liability is finalized in a judgment or discharged
by payment or agreement to pay. Without a judgment against or a
settlement by CCSC, the Court dismissed CCSC's third-party
complaint against Marathon and Levy without prejudice to any claim
for contribution, which may later mature.
The Court noted in its order dismissing CCSC's third-party
complaint that the appropriate way for a defendant to limit its
liability based on a non-party tortfeasor's alleged percentage of
fault is to file a notice of non-party fault and allow the jury to
determine the percentage of fault of all parties, who contributed
to the injury.
Here, CCSC filed its answer to the Plaintiffs' amended complaint on
Sept. 27, 2021, and, thus, had until Dec. 27, 2021, to file a
timely notice of non-party fault. It moved for leave to file notice
of non-party fault nearly a year later, on Dec. 23, 2022.
On motion, a court may allow a later filing of the notice if the
moving party shows that it did not and could not with reasonable
diligence have known earlier the facts on which the notice is
based, provided that the late filing of the notice does not
unfairly prejudice the opposing party. However, without a
legitimate reason for the Court to exercise its discretion to
permit an untimely filing of a notice of a non-party at fault, the
Court cannot allow for untimely notice.
CCSC claims it could not have known about the need to file notice
until after Marathon and Levy became non-parties on Nov. 30, 2022.
CCSC relies upon Salter v. Patton 682 N.W.2d 537, 542 (Mich. Ct.
App. 2004) to support its position, but the Court finds that
reliance to be misplaced.
Unlike this case, Judge Kumar explains the plaintiff in Salter
filed a claim for wrongful death against multiple defendants, some
of whom settled with the plaintiff and were dismissed from the
case. Two remaining defendants moved for leave to file notice of
non-parties at fault pursuant to MCR 2.112(K). Although their
motion was well past the 91 days from the filing of the first
responsive pleading, the court granted motion, allowing for
untimely notice because the "defendants could not have known about
the need to file notice until after the settlement."
In other words, Judge Kumar says, the settled defendants could not
have been included as non-parties at fault within the specified
time period because they were still parties at that time.
Accordingly, filing a notice of non-party fault within the 91-day
limit was impossible.
Unlike the dismissed defendants in the Salter case, Judge Kumar
points out that Marathon and Levy were not original defendants and,
most importantly, were not parties to the action during the 91-day
period for filing a non-party fault notice under MCR 2.112(K).
Marathon and Levy did not become defendants until so named by CCSC
on Feb. 17, 2022, more than 45 days beyond the expiration of the
91-day period for filing a notice of non-party fault.
Judge Kumar notes that CCSC offers no explanation for why it could
not have filed notices of non-party fault within the permitted
91-day period. Judge Kumar holds that CCSC's failed third-party
complaint against Marathon and Levy cannot resurrect the formerly
available but expired opportunity to file a notice of non-party
fault. Nor can CCSC otherwise establish that the facts on which the
notice is based were not ascertainable with reasonable diligence to
allow for late notice.
Any claim that CCSC exercised reasonable diligence within this
situation lacks merit because it knew or should have known of
Marathon and Levy's involvement in this case long before they filed
their third-party complaint to this Court, Judge Kumar holds. In
fact, CCSC's argument that the Plaintiffs would not be prejudiced
by the delayed filing--because they knew or should have known of
Marathon and Levy's involvement--undermines its reasonable
diligence argument.
Judge Kumar points out that CCSC cannot demonstrate that it
exercised reasonable diligence in ascertaining the facts warranting
a notice of non-party fault to Marathon and Levy. Accordingly, the
Court cannot permit the untimely service of that notice now.
For these reasons, Judge Kumar rules that CCSC's motion for leave
to file notice of non-party fault is denied. Marathon and Levy's
motions for leave to intervene, as well as Marathon's motion for
leave to respond, Levy's notice of joinder/concurrence in that
motion and CCSC's motion to strike the motion and concurrence for
leave to respond are terminated as moot.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Sept. 11,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yuajxxc8 from
PacerMonitor.com.
CONAGRA BRANDS: Faces Class Suit Over Frozen Chicken Contamination
------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that the maker of
Banquet-brand frozen chicken strips meals faces a proposed class
action lawsuit in New York after recalling more than 245,000 pounds
of the product earlier this month due to potential plastic
contamination.
The 10-page complaint argues that defendant Conagra Brands' recall
of the Banquet frozen chicken strips entrees was inadequate in that
consumers nationwide were not given proper notice that the product
could be contaminated with dangerous pieces of plastic. Conagra
reportedly initiated the recall of 245,366 pounds of the Banquet
frozen chicken after a consumer reported finding a piece of plastic
in the product and sustaining an oral injury.
According to the lawsuit, proposed class members have been harmed
financially in that they paid for a product that was not fit for
human consumption and, thus, worthless. Compounding matters was the
fact that consumers were instructed to throw away the Banquet
frozen chicken strip entrees they purchased, the suit adds.
"Plaintiff and the Class Members all paid money for the Products;
however, Plaintiff and the Class Members did not obtain the value
of the Product due to plastic in the food," the case summarizes.
"Plaintiff and the Class Members would not have purchased the
Product had they known the truth about the Product."
On September 2, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety
and Inspection Service (FSIS) posted an announcement of the Banquet
frozen chicken strips entree recall. The agency specified that the
products at issue were made on June 20, 2023, July 11, 2023 and
July 17, 2023, and that the recall covered, specifically:
"8.9-oz. carton containing one entree of 'BANQUET CHICKEN STRIPS
MEAL' with best if used by 'DEC 11 2024,' 'JAN 01 2025,' or 'JAN 07
2025' and lot numbers 5009317120, 5009319220, or 5009319820 located
on the side of the carton."
The Banquet products subject to the recall bear the establishment
number "EST. P-9" printed on the side of the carton, FSIS added.
The agency stated that it has "received no additional reports of
injury or illness from consumption of these products."
The lawsuit looks to cover all consumers in the United States who
bought Banquet-brand frozen chicken strips meals during the
applicable statute of limitations period.
Consumers who have questions or concerns can contact Conagra Brands
at 800-921-7404 or by email at consumer.care@conagra.com. [GN]
CONSOLIDATED EDISON: S.D. New York Dismisses S.A.M. Customer Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
lawsuit styled S.A.M. MANAGEMENT CO., INC., d/b/a HOFFMAN
MANAGEMENT, 122nd STREET, LLC, and 150 WEST BURNSIDE, LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-03494 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.).
Plaintiffs S.A.M. Management Co., Inc., d/b/a Hoffman Management,
122nd Street LLC, and 150 West Burnside, LLC, bring this putative
class action for injunctive relief, and monetary damages against
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. ("Con Edison") for
violations of New York General Business Law Section 349, breach of
contract, fraud by concealment, unjust enrichment, and money had
and received.
The Plaintiffs allege that Con Edison has been improperly charging
customers a gas rate under the wrong rate classification of its gas
tariff.
Before the Court is Con Edison's motion to dismiss the First
Amended Complaint ("FAC") for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
and for failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Judge Ramos grants Con Edison's motion, and dismisses the FAC for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court is directed
to terminate the motion, and close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Sept. 11,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3pu4hhxe from
PacerMonitor.com.
CORECIVIC INC: Lopez Suit Removed to D. Colorado
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Lopez, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated v. CoreCivic, Inc., Larry Cox, John Palomino,
Luke Holland, Steve Brown, Chris Chavez, Jerry Roark, Warden; Colin
Carson, Assistant Warden; Scott Graham, Case No. 2023CV31491 was
removed from the Arapahoe County District Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado on Sept. 13, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-02358-SBP to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.
CoreCivic -- http://www.corecivic.com/-- formerly the Corrections
Corporation of America, is a company that owns and manages private
prisons and detention centers and operates others on a concession
basis.[BN]
DAVA MARKETING: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Cook Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
AUSTIN COOK; and HARRISON FOLLETT, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DAVA MARKETING, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-07679 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 14, 2023) is
an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and
the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as video
editor/content managers.
DAVA MARKETING, LLC is a video editing, design, and content
management company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone:(818) 788-8300
Facsimile:(818) 788-8104
Email: dwarshaw@pwfirm.com
- and -
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
Amanda V. Boltax, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street, NW, Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone:(202) 542-7200
Facsimile: (202) 542-7201
Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
mboltax@hausfeld.com
- and -
Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 357-1100
Facsimile: (212) 202-4322
Email: snathan@hausfeld.com
- and -
Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq.
KIESEL LAW LLP
8648 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 854-4444
Facsimile: (310) 854-0812
Email: kiesel@kiesel.law
koncius@kiesel.law
DEL CARIBE MEAT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Blanco Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
EDWIN BLANCO; JESUS ZAMORA; and ABNER BLANCO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DEL CARIBE
MEAT, INC. d/b/a DEL CARIBE MEAT; and JOAN REYES, Defendants, Case
No. 1:23-cv-08007 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 11, 2023) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as a food
processer.
DEL CARIBE MEAT, INC. d/b/a DEL CARIBE MEAT provides insurance
agent and broker services. The Company offers auto and home, life,
and medical insurance. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 323-6980
Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com
DOMINIUM MANAGEMENT: Court Certifies Class Suit Over Consumer Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Greta Kaul of Star Tribune reports that affordable-housing
developer Dominium is facing a class-action lawsuit from a group
that could ultimately include more than 3,000 current and former
tenants accusing the company of fraud.
A Hennepin County district judge on September 11, 2023 granted a
group of tenants class-action certification, giving them added
leverage in the lawsuit against their landlord. The tenants accuse
Dominium of consumer fraud, alleging the company claims to comply
with laws surrounding the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit
program at properties financed using the credits, but knowingly
fails to do so.
At issue, the tenants allege, is Dominium charging residents money
on top of rent for reserved parking in underground facilities the
tenants say they believe were financed using the tax credits.
Federal law says affordable-housing developers cannot charge
tenants extra to use an amenity financed with low-income housing
tax credits, according to September 11, 2023's judgment.
In a memorandum filed in June, the tenants accused Dominium of
running a "double-dipping scheme" that "starts by grossly
misrepresenting the actual construction costs associated with
parking facilities to secure maximum tax credits, and the scheme
pays off when Dominium wrongly collects parking rent from its
tenants."
One of those tenants is Linda Cobb, a plaintiff in the case and a
resident of the Legends at Silver Lake Village, an affordable
property for people age 55 and older in St. Anthony. Cobb said for
most of the eight years she's lived at the property, she's paid $80
a month for underground parking.
"Most of us are on fixed incomes, so $80 a month really can make a
difference," Cobb said, adding that underground parking is
important to people in her community for health and safety
reasons.
Paula Prahl, a Dominium partner, chief policy and corporate affairs
officer and executive vice president, said in a statement the
company was disappointed in the court's actions and plans to
appeal. Prahl wrote that there are more tenants at the Dominium
properties included in the suit than there are underground parking
spots, and that free parking is available to tenants outside. If
the tenants succeed, she wrote, the company will no longer provide
reserved underground parking.
The judgment, issued by Hennepin County District Court Judge Thomas
Conley, doesn't mean the court is siding with tenants, said Allan
Erbsen, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School.
Rather, it shows that they've met the requirements to be considered
a class.
"The court is saying that the plaintiffs' legal claims are of a
type that is sufficiently similar that they should be able to
litigate them as a class rather than individually," Erbsen said.
In cases like this, plaintiffs try to get class certification
because, compared to a smaller claim by one or a few tenants, a
bigger class with larger potential damages may be more likely to
influence the defendant to settle, Erbsen said.
The way he sees it, Dominium has a steeper hill to climb now that
the tenants have been certified as a class.
Legal representatives for the tenants celebrated the class
certification. "We are pleased with the Court's order and look
forward to trial on the tenants' consumer protection claims," said
Jim Poradek, an attorney at Housing Justice Center, in a
statement.
The plaintiffs estimate the class could contain 3,000-plus people
who have paid for underground parking at 24 Minnesota Dominium
properties built with low-income housing tax-credit financing.
Those potentially eligible will be notified by mail so they can
decide whether to participate in the lawsuit. [GN]
EP GLOBAL: Failed to Prevent Data Breach, Cohen Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN COHEN individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EP GLOBAL PRODUCTION SOLUTIONS, LLC d/b/a
ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-07679 (C.D.
Cal., Sept. 14, 2023) is class action against the Defendant for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard highly-valuable, protected
personally identifiable information, including without limitation,
names, Social Security numbers and tax identification numbers, and
mailing addresses.
According to the complaint, on August 2, 2023, the Defendant filed
a notice of data breach with the Attorney General of Maine,
announcing it had been subject to a cybersecurity incident in which
a "sophisticated threat actor" was able to acquire database files
containing users' PII (the "Data Breach").
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff has been and will
continue to be at heightened risk for fraud and identity theft,
requiring continued expenditure of time, resources, and attendant
damages, for years to come. Such risk is certainly impending and is
not speculative, given that information from the Data Breach is now
in the hands of cybercriminals seeking to profit from the Plaintiff
and Class Members' PII. The Defendant failed to comply with
industry standards to protect information systems that contain PII,
and provide adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members
that their PII had been accessed and compromised, the suit
asserts.
EP GLOBAL PRODUCTION SOLUTIONS, LLC d/b/a ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS
provides accounting, management, and finance services in the
entertainment industry. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (818) 788-8300
Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
Email: dwarshaw@pwfirm.com
- and -
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
Amanda V. Boltax, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street, NW, Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 542-7200
Facsimile: (202) 542-7201
Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
mboltax@hausfeld.com
- and -
Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 357-1100
Facsimile: (212) 202-4322
Email: snathan@hausfeld.com
- and -
Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq.
KIESEL LAW LLP
8648 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 854-4444
Facsimile: (310) 854-0812
Email: kiesel@kiesel.law
koncius@kiesel.law
ESCOBAR CONSTRUCTION: Perez Appeals FLSA Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARCO ANTONIO PEREZ PEREZ, et al. are taking an appeal from a court
order dismissing their second amended complaint in the lawsuit
entitled Marco Antonio Perez Perez, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Escobar
Construction, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-8010, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, is brought against the Defendants for alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law,
including failure to compensate the Plaintiffs and all others
similarly situated construction workers minimum wages and overtime
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, failure to
provide meal periods, failure to keep payroll records, failure to
provide wage notice, and failure to provide wage statements.
On Nov. 29, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their second amended
complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Jan. 23, 2023.
On Aug. 22, 2023, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss through an Order entered by Judge Laura Taylor Swain. The
Clerk of Court was also directed to enter judgment dismissing the
second amended complaint, and closing the case.
The appellate case is captioned Perez v. Escobar Construction,
Inc., Case No. 23-1240, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, filed on September 7, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants MARCO ANTONIO PEREZ PEREZ, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-2332
Defendants-Appellees ESCOBAR CONSTRUCTION, INC., et al. are
represented by:
Daniel Joseph Grace, Esq.
DANNY GRACE PLLC
225 Broadway, Suite 1200
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 202-2485
F21 OPCO LLC: Scott Files Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against F21 OpCo LLC. The
case is styled as Erin Scott, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. F21 OpCo LLC d/b/a Forever 21, Case
No. 2:23-cv-07596 (C.D. Cal., San Francisco Cty., Sept. 13, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Forever 21 -- http://www.forever21.com/-- is a multinational fast
fashion retailer headquartered in Los Angeles, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kyle Douglas McLean, Esq.
SIRI AND GLIMSTAD LLP
700 South Flower Street Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 376-3739
Fax: (646) 417-5967
Email: kmclean@sirillp.com
FARHA ROOFING: Ford Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Farha Roofing, LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Brianna Ford, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Luna Care, Inc., Case No.
4:23-cv-00635-FJG (W.D. Mo., Sept. 13, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Farha Roofing -- https://farharoofing.com/ -- provides top quality
commercial roofing repair, replacement, and installation in Kansas,
Missouri, Colorado, and Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony E. LaCroix, Esq.
LACROIX LAW FIRM, LLC
1600 Genessee, Suite 956
Kansas City, MO 64102
Phone: (816) 399-4380
Fax: (816) 399-4380
Email: tony@lacroixlawkc.com
FCS BARBER: Mai Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FCS Barber - Buffa
L.L.C., et al. The case is styled as Lily Mai, an individual, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. FCS Barber -
Buffa L.L.C., Jonah Buffa, an individual, Does 1 to 50, Case No.
CGC23609045 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Sept. 13, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
FSC Barber Buffa LLC is a small employer located at San Francisco,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Haulk, Esq.
1101 5th Ave., Ste. 100
San Rafael, CA 94901-3046
Phone: 415-453-9433
Fax: 415-453-8269
Email: mhaulk@rflawllp.com
FLORIDA HEALTH: Fails to Secure Patient's Info, Doe Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons v. FLORIDA HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, INC. D/B/A TAMPA GENERAL
HOSPITAL (TGH), a Florida Non-Profit Corporation, Case No.
8:23-cv-02072 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 13, 2023) sues the Defendant for
failing to protect and secure personal identifiable information in
a data breach perpetrated by cybercriminals on May 12, 2023
resulting to the exposure of the protected health information
belonging to 1.2 million patients, including names, addresses,
phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, health
information, medical records numbers, patient account numbers,
dates of service, and limited treatment information used by TGH for
its business operations.
According to the complaint, the exposure disturbs patients, as they
no longer control their highly sensitive and confidential Personal
Information, cannot stop others from viewing it, cannot prevent
criminals from misusing it, and crucially cannot control where and
to whom that Personal Information is sold and subsequently used.
TGH detected unusual activity in its computer systems on May 31,
2023, but a subsequent investigation determined that the activity
started earlier—TGH admits May 12, 2023. But the details of that
investigation, like who performed it, how long it took, and what
techniques were employed, are shrouded in secrecy, the suit
alleges.
Thus, TGH exacerbated the harm its patients are suffering by
failing to notify them about the Data Breach for months, depriving
them of the earliest opportunity to mitigate the harm the Data
Breach causes. Since the Data Breach, Jane Doe has suffered
identity theft in the form of fraudulent loan and credit card
applications that she has never applied for. Jane Doe also has and
is experiencing feelings of anxiety, stress, sleep disruption,
fear, and frustration because of the Data Breach, the suit claims.
The Plaintiff is a current and former TGH patient who disclosed her
Personal Information to TGH to receive medical services.
TGH is one of the largest hospitals in the Tampa Bay Area and in
the state of Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. McGee, Esq.
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 222-4702
E-mail: RMcGee@ForThePeople.com
JYanchunis@ForThePeople.com
- and -
Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
Eura Chang, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
khriebel@locklaw.com
FORD MOTOR: Faces Dorfman Class Suit Over Defective Vehicles
------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that Ford faces a proposed
class action that alleges the automaker has equipped 2020-2023
model year Ford Explorer, Lincoln Aviator and Lincoln Corsair
vehicles with a defective 360-degree camera system prone to glitch,
display a blue or black screen, or otherwise fail.
The 87-page suit stresses that the Ford camera defect, over which
the company recalled 462,000 vehicles worldwide earlier this year,
poses a serious safety hazard to drivers and passengers given that
the loss of a vehicle's backup camera while in reverse increases
the risk of an accident and injury. The filing shares that Ford has
yet to offer an effective fix for the apparent backup camera
problem and has not disclosed the issue to drivers at the time of
sale or lease.
Per the suit, Ford advertises that buyers or lessees can add to
their Explorer, Aviator or Corsair a 360-degree camera with a
split-view display to "help[] you navigate tight spots with ease."
Further, Ford touts its Co-Pilot360 system as able to help drivers
"[g]et a clear picture of your surroundings" and allow them to "see
around the [vehicle], from every side," a feature particularly
helpful while parking or driving through tight areas, the case
relays.
According to the lawsuit, however, the defect plaguing Ford's
360-degree camera system can cause a vehicle's rearview camera
display to freeze on a blue or black screen or otherwise glitch or
fail. Because the issue can cause an affected Ford or Lincoln's
backup camera image to not display properly when the vehicle is
placed in reverse, the cars do not comply with Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard 111, which establishes certain requirements
for vehicles' rear visibility, the complaint says.
The case contends that Ford knew or should have known of the
apparent camera defect as early as February 9, 2021, the date the
first complaint about the problem was submitted to the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). In fact, Ford likely
knew about the issue "well before that" since, in March of that
year, the automaker opened its own investigation into multiple
reports of "intermittent loss of image on the rearview camera
display," the suit says.
This year's recall is the third such initiative by Ford over the
alleged camera defect, the lawsuit notes. The first recall,
affecting more than 228,000 vehicles, came on September 23, 2021
and involved Ford pushing out a software update to the cars' image
processing module software, the suit shares.
A second recall was initiated in January 2023, by which time Ford
was aware of 17 reported minor accidents linked to the camera
defect, according to the case. The third Ford camera defect recall
came in May 2023, affecting more than 422,000 vehicles equipped
with a 360-degree camera, the suit continues. Per the case, the
most recent recall, for which proposed class members received a
notice in July, "supersedes" the previous two yet still offers only
"an interim repair prior to the availability of the permanent fix."
The lawsuit looks to cover all persons or entities in the United
States, or any of its territories, who bought or leased a model
year 2020-2023 Ford Explorer, Lincoln Aviator or Lincoln Corsair
equipped with a 360-degree camera. [GN]
FTX TRADING: YouTube Influencers Agree to Settle Endorsement Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monika Ghosh of Crypto Slate reports that NFL quarterback Trevor
Lawrence, alongside YouTube influencers Kevin Paffrath and Tom
Nash, has agreed to settle a lawsuit related to their endorsement
of the now-defunct FTX cryptocurrency exchange, Bloomberg reported
on Sept. 16, citing a court filing.
The terms of the settlement remain undisclosed. These settlements
mark the first resolutions among over a dozen celebrities and firms
accused of assisting Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder of FTX, in
duping investors. Bankman-Fried is set to face his criminal trial
in Manhattan next month.
Other high-profile individuals, including Tom Brady, Gisele
Bundchen, Steph Curry, Shaquille O'Neal, and Larry David, who
endorsed FTX, are also facing lawsuits. These class-action suits
are consolidated in a federal court in Miami, along with complaints
against venture capital and private equity firms that invested in
FTX, such as Sequoia Capital and Thoma Bravo.
FTX garnered significant attention through celebrity endorsements,
including naming rights to the Miami Heat's arena and a Super Bowl
commercial featuring Larry David. Lawyers representing the
plaintiffs in the $1 billion case against endorsers told Bloomberg
that they are "engaged in ongoing confidential, settlement
discussions" with other defendants, and there is a "likelihood that
other FTX settlements will be reached."
The lawsuit alleges that FTX's celebrity endorsements contributed
to the platform's rise but asserts that the endorsers failed to
disclose details of their deals and compensation to investors. At
the time of filing, the lawsuit stated:
"Though FTX paid Defendants handsomely to push its brand and
encourage their followers to invest, Defendants did not disclose
the nature and scope of their sponsorships and/or endorsement
deals, payments and compensation, nor conduct adequate (if any) due
diligence."
Lawrence, the first overall NFL draft pick in 2021, signed an
endorsement deal with FTX, receiving a $500,000 payment in
cryptocurrency. Kevin Paffrath, known as a "landlord influencer,"
promoted FTX on his YouTube channel, "Meet Kevin," for which he was
allegedly paid $2,500 for each mention of the platform.
Lawyers for the endorsers argue that the advertisements didn't
encourage users to actually deposit money into FTX accounts.
Moreover, the lawyers maintain that the endorsers had no hand in
the alleged "FTX's misappropriation and mismanagement."
After FTX collapsed in November 2022, Paffrath and Nash removed
their FTX endorsements from their YouTube channels and issued
apologies. [GN]
GAP INC: Wiretaps Email Communications, Ramos Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
EFREN RAMOS, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. THE GAP, INC., Case caption, Case No.
4:23-cv-04715 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 13, 2023) sues the Defendant for
aiding, agreeing with, employing, or otherwise enabling the
wiretapping of electronic communications between the Defendant and
its clients via emails sent from the Defendant's email domain:
bananarepublicfactory@email.bananarepublicfacotry.com, in violation
of the California Invasion of Privacy Act.
The Plaintiff contends that the wiretaps, which are embedded in the
emails, operate without the knowledge or consent of the Defendant's
email recipients. Accordingly, the Defendant contracts with a third
party, Bluecore, Inc. to provide the software that runs on the
Emails—through URL links embedded within the words and imagery of
the Emails—and the corresponding web pages that those recipients
are routed to after clicking on the Emails' Content owned by the
Defendant at https://bananarepublicfactory.gapfactory.com/, thus
violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The nature of
Bluecore's licensing agreement with the Defendant is such that the
Defendant "aids, agrees with, employs, or conspires" to permit
Bluecore to read, attempt to read, and/or use the communications of
the Plaintiff and the Website's users without their consent, the
lawsuit claims.
When the Plaintiff and the proposed class members accessed the
Defendant's Emails and visited the Website, the contents of their
communications were intercepted in real-time by Bluecore, as
procured by the Defendant. Bluecore then used that data to create
unique identifiers for each website visitor, including the
Plaintiff, and to target advertisements to the Plaintiff and the
proposed class members. Bluecore also retained and agglomerated
this information to further enhance its proprietary algorithms, and
subsequently provide statistical reports and presentations to
attract new paying clients, the Plaintiff adds.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons who
received the Defendant's Emails, and whose electronic
communications with those Emails were intercepted or recorded by
Bluecore.
Mr. Ramos is a California resident and citizen who resides in
Alameda County, California. He received and interacted with the
Defendant's Emails on multiple occasions from his computer while in
California.
Gap owns and operates the email domain
bananarepublicfactory@email.bananarepublicfacotry.com as well as
the https://bananarepublicfactory.gapfactory.com/, website.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
jmarchese@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
- and -
Adrian Gucovschi, Esq.
GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC.
630 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
New York, NY 10111
Telephone: (212) 884-4230
Facsimile: (212) 884-4230
E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Guzzled Oil Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Steinberg of Bloomberg Law reports that General Motors LLC
won dismissal of a proposed class suit by Alabama drivers who
allege their vehicles guzzled oil, because the suit was filed too
late and a similar suit in California didn't buy them more time.
Dominguez Hurry and Terry Wasdin alleged that flawed piston rings
in certain 2011-2014 trucks and SUVs caused GM's Generation IV
engines to consume an abnormally high quantity of oil. Excessive
oil consumption can cause low oil levels and lead to engine damage,
they said.
The plaintiffs filed their complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Alabama Oct. 8, 2021. [GN]
GEO GROUP: Detainees' $1/Day Labor Constitutes Human Trafficking
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Bennett of Bloomberg Law reports that GEO Group Inc.,
faced with allegations that making immigrant detainees labor in the
company's civil detention centers constitutes human trafficking,
will attempt to convince the Tenth Circuit on September 11, 2023 to
revive its defense of derivative sovereign immunity.
The private prison corporation's contracts with the federal
government set the daily minimum pay for its voluntary work program
and require that detainees keep their own living quarters clean or
face discipline, so GEO is entitled to assert its claim of
derivative sovereign immunity, shielding it from liability,
according to a brief the company filed with the US Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit.
A federal court in Denver threw out the defense last year.
If the appellate court agrees with GEO's immunity argument, "it may
encourage other private prison companies to try this defense in
other cases nationwide," Eunice Cho, a senior staff attorney with
the ACLU's National Prison Project, told Bloomberg Law.
But there's "lengthy and well-established doctrine that federal
contractors do not share the government's unqualified immunity from
liability and litigation," she added. The ACLU filed a brief in
support of GEO detainees in a Ninth Circuit case, but hasn't
appeared as an amicus in this one.
To be able to use derivative sovereign immunity as a shield in
litigation, companies must essentially show that the federal agency
they contracted with "provided explicit instructions" and that they
"followed those instructions," Kate Sablosky Elengold, a professor
at the University of North Carolina School of Law, told Bloomberg
Law.
Unjust Enrichment, Trafficking
GEO, one of the largest private prison corporations in the US,
contracts with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement to run
immigrant detention centers. Its estimated 2022 revenues were
nearly $2.4 billion, approximately 44% of which came from ICE
contracts.
A group of people currently and formerly detained in a GEO facility
in Colorado while awaiting immigration proceeding outcomes sued the
Boca Raton, Fla.-based company in 2014.
The company forced them to perform janitorial work or risk solitary
confinement, according to the detainees. GEO also operates a
voluntary work program in which detainees perform tasks such as
food preparation and laundry for just $1 per day, their brief
opposing resurrection of the immunity defense said.
GEO previously asked the Tenth Circuit to undo the Colorado federal
court's decision to certify two classes—consisting of
approximately 60,000 people—on unjust enrichment and Trafficking
Victims Protection Act claims. The appellate court affirmed the
detainees' win on the issue in 2018, and the US Supreme Court later
that year declined to review the decision.
After the case went back to the trial court, the district judge
granted summary judgment to the detainees on the question of
whether GEO was immune from the suit, prompting this second
appeal.
Derivative Sovereign Immunity?
GEO argues that the lower court used the wrong standard when it
concluded that the company's discretion in how to comply with the
ICE contract meant it wasn't performing as the government directed
and doomed its immunity bid. Interpreting government direction to
exclude discretion "would make DSI illusory for private actors who
perform essential government work," the company's brief said.
But "GEO alone chose to use forced labor, and GEO alone chose to
unjustly enrich itself at the expense of its detained workers," so
the district judge's decision on immunity should stand, the
detainees said. They also argued that the Tenth Circuit lacks
jurisdiction to hear the company's appeal because the lower court
ruling was interlocutory.
Although courts have taken different approaches in applying the
derivative sovereign immunity doctrine, there are five factors they
typically examine in weighing whether a "sovereign shield"
defense—the broader category under which DSI falls—apply,
Elengold said.
Courts look at "congressional intent, character of the contracted
institution and its contract, discretion of the contractor, whether
the contractor exceeded its authority under the contract, and the
effect on federal policymaking and decision making," she said.
Elengold heads her school's Economic Justice Clinic and co-authored
a law review article on sovereign shield defenses.
The Ninth Circuit in March asked the Washington Supreme Court to
weigh in on whether the state's minimum wage law applies to a
different detainee group's suit over GEO's $1 per day pay program.
That suit—in which GEO also argued that its ICE contracts set the
daily pay rate—resulted in a $23.2 million federal jury verdict
for those detainees, which the company seeks to overturn.
If these detainees win at the Tenth Circuit and go on to win at
trial, there could be "serious implications" for private prison
operators that have built "free or ultra-cheap labor like that
performed by detained immigrants into their business model," Cho
said. Further, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act "includes
serious consequences for government contractors who are found to
have violated the statute," such as contract termination, she
added.
Gupta Wessler LLP, Towards Justice, and Outten & Golden LLP
represent the detainees. Jennifer Bennett of Gupta Wessler, an
attorney for the detainees declined to comment.
Greenberg Traurig LLP represents GEO. The company and its counsel
didn't respond to a request for comment.
The case is Menocal v. GEO Grp. Inc., 10th Cir., No. 22-01409, oral
arguments 9/18/23.
To contact the reporter on this story: Jennifer Bennett in
Washington at jbennett@bloomberglaw.com
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Carmen
Castro-Pagan at ccastro-pagan@bloomberglaw.com; Andrew Harris at
aharris@bloomberglaw.com [GN]
GREATER CINCINNATI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Collins Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
TAMMY COLLINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GREATER CINCINNATI BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00578-MWM (S.D. Ohio, Sept.
13, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Collins was employed by the Defendant as a case manager.
GREATER CINCINNATI BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES is a provider of
behavioral health services to persons with chronic illnesses or
disabilities. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq.
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
34555 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 250
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
Email: matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com
anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
- and -
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
8 N. Court St. Suite 403
Athens, OH 45701
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
Email: mike@fradinlaw.com
HEARTLAND EXPRESS: Court Approves Deal to Dismiss Freitas Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Stanley A. Bastian of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington approves the parties'
stipulation to dismiss the lawsuit entitled GREGG FREITAS and RYAN
CALVERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. HEARTLAND EXPRESS, INC. OF IOWA, Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-CV-00383-SAB (E.D. Wash.).
Before the Court is the parties' Stipulation of Dismissal with
Prejudice Pursuant to FRCP 41(1)(A)(ii). The motion was heard
without oral argument.
The parties stipulate and agree that they reached a class
settlement that resolves both this action, as well as two similar,
coordinated putative class action cases in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of San Bernardino.
The parties move the Court to dismiss this action with prejudice in
light of the court-approved class action settlement. The Court
finds good cause to grant the motion and instructs the Clerk of
Court to close the file.
Accordingly, Court orders that:
1. the parties' Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice
Pursuant to FRCP 41(1)(A)(ii) is granted;
2. the action is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), without costs or attorneys' fees
to any party;
3. any pending motions are dismissed as moot; and
4. the trial date and any remaining pretrial deadlines are
stricken from the Court's calendar.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order, forward copies
to counsel, and close the file.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Sept. 11, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycc3kaz3 from PacerMonitor.com.
The Plaintiff is represented by Erika L. Nusser --
enusser@terrellmarshall.com -- Joshua G. Konecky --
jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com -- Nathan B. Piller --
npiller@schneiderwallace.com -- Toby J. Marshall --
tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com.
The Defendant is represented by Cara R. Sherman, David R. Ongaro --
dongaro@ongaropc.com -- Mojdeh F. Bowers -- mbowers@yukelaw.com --
Todd Reuter -- todd.reuter@foster.com.
HS CUSTOM DESIGNS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Durmus Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
OMER DURMUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HS CUSTOM DESIGNS INC.; and HAKAN SARI,
Defendants, Case No. 9:23-cv-06843 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2023) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Durmus was employed by the Defendants as a foreman.
HS CUSTOM DESIGNS INC. provides custom airbrush, fiberglass, and
spray chrome designs. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12t Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
www.StillmanLegalPC.com
INMAR INC: Mr. Dee's Appeals Class Certification Order to 4th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
MR. DEE'S INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
granting in part and denying in part their motion for class
certification in the lawsuit entitled Mr. Dee's Inc., et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. Inmar, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00141-WO-LPA,
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina.
The case concerns an alleged conspiracy between competing coupon
processors to allocate markets and customers and fix shipping fees
in violation of the Sherman Act.
The action was initially brought in the Eastern District of
Wisconsin in 2008. In 2019, the case was transferred to the Middle
District of North Carolina. The Plaintiffs amended their Complaint
three times. The Defendants filed an Answer to the Third Amended
Complaint.
On Aug. 2, 2021, the Defendants filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment, and accompanying brief, the Plaintiffs responded, and the
Defendants replied.
On May 29, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class,
which the Court granted in part and denied in part through an Order
entered by Judge William L. Osteen, Jr. The Court held that
Plaintiffs have failed to proffer a manufacturer class that
complies with the requirements of Rule 23. The Limited Payer
Classes are not ascertainable because their scope is not defined by
the Defendants’ allegedly conspiratorial activities. The All
Payer Manufacturer Class fails the predominance requirement because
one-third of the class is uninjured. However, the All Payer
Retailer Class may be certified because it only contains a de
minimis number of uninjured members and satisfies the other
requirements of Rule 23. Thus, the Plaintiffs' motion is granted as
to the All Payer Retail Class and as to the Plaintiffs' request to
appoint class counsel. The Plaintiffs' motion is otherwise denied.
The appellate case is captioned Mr. Dee's Inc. v. Inmar, Inc., Case
No. 23-249, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit, filed on September 6, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners MR. DEE'S INC., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Kearns Davis, Esq.
Matthew Brady Tynan, Esq.
BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, LLP
P.O. Box 26000
Greensboro, NC 27420
Telephone: (336) 271-3174
(336) 271-3171
- and -
Daniel Kotchen, Esq.
Daniel Low, Esq.
KOTCHEN & LOW LLP
1918 New Hampshire Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20009
Telephone: (202) 471-1995
Defendants-Respondents INMAR, INC., et al., are represented by:
Jason Cameron Hicks, Esq.
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
201 East Main Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Telephone: (202) 857-4536
- and -
Pressly McAuley Millen, Esq.
Samuel B. Hartzell, Esq.
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
555 Fayetteville Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: (919) 755-2135
(919) 755-2112
INTEGRATED BIOMETRIC: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Moore and Brad Truitt, v. Charles Carroll and Integrated
Biometric Technology (IBT), Case No. 3:23-cv-00984 (M.D. Tenn.,
Sept. 13, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs and on
behalf of all other similarly situated persons, to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and to recover unlawful kickbacks/deductions plus an equal
amount as liquidated damages, as well as an award of reasonable
attorney's fees, costs, and expenses of litigation; and an award of
pre- and post- judgment interest, and lump sum for increased tax
liability related to any award payment.
IBT allegedly classified Mr. Moore and Mr. Truitt as exempt under
federal and state wage and hour laws. Mr. Moore's first official
day of work was June 14, 2021. Mr. Moore and Mr. Truitt worked more
than 50 hours per week on average.
On January 21, 2022, February 4, 2022, February 18, 2022, March 18,
2022, April 1, 2022, April 15, 2022, April 28, 2022, and May 27,
2022, IBT allegedly did not pay Mr. Moore a gross amount of
$6,923.08 and did not pay Mr. Truitt a gross amount of $6,153.84.
On October 4, 2021, Carroll encouraged employees to participate in
the IBT investment plan. Mr. Moore and Mr. Truitt personally
invested $10,000.00 into the IBT investment plan. But IBT did not
return Mr. Moore's and Mr. Truitt's $10,000.00 investment.
IBT, in their Offer Letter, guaranteed Mr. Moore a Bonus to be paid
on March 15 of each year, based on his salary. IBT never informed
Mr. Moore that he was not eligible for a bonus. IBT did not pay out
bonuses on March 15, 2022, or any day. Mr. Moore is owed $23,625.00
in unpaid pro-rated bonus pay, the lawsuit claims.
On May 18, 2021, Mr. Moore signed the IBT Moore Offer Letter. Mr.
Moore's job duties included overseeing state, federal, and
commercial Request for Information and Request for Proposal
processes.
IBT was a biometric service provider that specialized in projects
with municipalities and other government entities.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Weatherman, Esq.
THE WEATHERMAN FIRM
The Atrium Building
1242 Old Hillsboro Rd.
Franklin, TN 37069
Telephone: (615) 538-7555
E-mail: David@TheWeathermanFirm.com
- and -
Daniel E. Arciniegas, Esq.
ARCINIEGAS LAW
The Atrium Building
1242 Old Hillsboro Rd.
Franklin, TN 37069
Telephone: (629) 777-5889
E-mail: Daniel@AttorneyDaniel.com
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Faces Suit Over May 2023 Cyberattack
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that International
Business Machines Corporation (IBM) faces a proposed class action
lawsuit over a May 2023 data breach that reportedly impacted
millions of individuals.
The 35-page lawsuit claims IBM is to blame for the exposure of
personal information entrusted to it by its client businesses --
including the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and
Financing (HCPF). The complaint explains that the cyberattack
targeted MOVEit, a popular file transfer platform owned by Progress
Software Corporation (PSC), a software company with which IBM
contracts.
In HCPF's case alone, nearly 4.1 million consumers whose data was
given to IBM by the agency had their personal information
compromised when cybercriminals infiltrated PSC's MOVEit software
around May 28 of this year, the filing says.
According to the suit, the personal information exposed in the data
breach included at least individuals' full names, Social Security
numbers, dates of birth, home addresses, Medicaid and Medicare ID
numbers, contact details and demographic or income information. Per
the case, the attack also compromised consumers' health insurance
information and medical data, such as diagnoses, conditions, lab
results, medications and other treatment details.
The complaint argues that IBM "critically failed" to ensure the
private data entrusted to it was safeguarded, including by properly
vetting and monitoring its third-party software vendors.
To make matters worse, the defendant never directly informed
victims of the breach, the filing claims. Instead, HCPF consumers
like the plaintiff, a Colorado resident who received notice from
the governmental department in August 2023, were left in the dark
for almost 10 weeks after the incident purportedly occurred, the
lawsuit alleges.
As the company that hired PSC, IBM should have been responsible for
sending out notice letters to breach victims, the suit contends.
However, because of "IBM's incompetent response to the data
breach," impacted individuals have lost valuable time that they
could have used to mitigate the harms associated with the
unauthorized disclosure of their information, such as identity
theft and fraud, the case claims.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States whose
private information was maintained by IBM and affected by the data
breach. [GN]
IVY LEAGUE: Refuses to Award Athletic Scholarships, Suits Allege
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Hymowitz of Voices Temple Law reports that in the
ever-evolving landscape of college sports, one tenet remains the
same: the Ivy League's refusal to award athletic scholarships.
However, they may be forced to forgo tradition pending the outcome
of a lawsuit filed by current and former student athletes at Brown
University.
A class-action lawsuit filed March 2023 claimed eight Ivy League
universities unlawfully colluded to reduce financial aid and
compensation for student-athletes.
Grace Kirk '24, a current student-athlete on Brown's women’s
basketball team, and Tamenang Choh '21, a former member of
Brown’s men's basketball team, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District
Court in Connecticut on March 7. Both Plaintiffs turned down
athletic scholarships at non-Ivy League schools and claim that the
Ivy League schools colluded to "refuse to provide any athletic
scholarships or other compensation/reimbursement for athletic
services."
The Plaintiffs' claims are based on the pivotal NCAA v. Alston
decision handed down in 2021, in which the Supreme Court ruled that
the NCAA's restriction on education-related compensation was a
violation of antitrust law. The decision led to the NCAA
instituting the Name, Image and Likeness policy (NIL), which allows
student-athletes to receive compensation from brands in the form of
endorsement deals, or as social media influencers.
Although the Ivy League was not a party in the Alston case, the
Plaintiffs argued that since the Ivy League schools are members of
the NCAA, they should be held to the same antitrust standards as
other colleges.
The Ivy League denied any wrongdoing and moved to have the case
dismissed. The Ivy League and its member universities argued that
the claims by the student-athletes do not threaten competition or
produce anticompetitive effects in the market as whole. They argued
that the policies actually do the opposite, increasing competition
through creating "campus cultures that do not prioritize athletics
over other aspects of their educational mission."
The conference and their member schools argued that the
student-athletes were trying to "misuse the antitrust laws to force
the Ivy League to change the policies that help define the nature
of Ivy League athletics."
The Defendants also cited the Alston decision in their motion to
dismiss, claiming that an individual conference can write its own
rules and that "common sense and precedent confirm that a single
athletic conference in the NCAA is not an antitrust market."
Plaintiffs Kirk and Choh responded with an opposition to the motion
to dismiss in late June, arguing that the Ivy League's position on
equal treatment of athletes and non-athletes is simply a
restatement of "the NCAA's discredited amateurism defense"
resoundingly rejected in Alston.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs argued that the conference failed to
explain how its refusal to provide athletic scholarships to pay for
education is not "in harmony with these schools' educational
purposes," or how the Defendants' policies to allow
student-athletes to profit from NIL deals constitutes equal
treatment, while “athletic scholarships paying for cost of
attendance, or the higher Alston-approved sums do not.”
The Plaintiffs' opposition continued by claiming that "as a naked
price restraint among horizontal competitors, the Agreement is a
per se violation of the Sherman Act" and presumed to be
anticompetitive. As a result, Plaintiffs do not need to allege "a
relevant market, market power, market-wide anticompetitive effects,
or refute justifications."
Regardless, the student-athletes argue that the agreement itself
shows market power in a properly defined market, but the precise
"contours of the markets are a subject for discovery."
A month after the Plaintiff's opposition to the motion to dismiss,
the Ivy League responded claiming that antitrust laws do not apply
since students are free to apply to other academically elite
colleges who offer athletic scholarships.
Defendants claim that the Plaintiffs' alleged market fails because
the Plaintiffs "without explanation, lump together dozens of
different sports with facially different competitive landscapes"
and that the Plaintiffs "must allege market-wide effects, and they
focus solely on purported effect in the facially implausible
Ivy-League-only markets."
The Defendants further argue that the Alston decision supports a
finding that leagues can operate individually rather than being
automatically engaged in a naked restraint of trade. They claim
that agreements "that plausibly facilitate legitimate joint
ventures like sports leagues," such as the agreement in question
here, "are not among that narrow set of naked restraints."
In early August, Connecticut Federal Judge Alvin W. Thompson found
good cause for conditional access to discovery, including
electronic data, expert reports and records held under the
Department of Education's Free Application for Federal Student Aid
sought by Plaintiffs.
The Judge also issued limitations on the discovery, writing "to the
extent that this stipulation imposes limitations on discovery that
would otherwise be available under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure or this court's standing orders, the parties have agreed
to those limitations to increase the efficiency of their dealings
with testifying experts and to minimize discovery disputes
regarding testifying experts."
So, the question remains, will the Ivy League be forced to change
its ways? Only time and legal experts will tell.[GN]
JACK HULLAND: High Court Certifies Excessive Discipline Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Page of White Horse Daily Star reports that The Yukon Supreme
Court has given the go-ahead for class action in a lawsuit
involving alleged excessive disciplinary methods at Jack Hulland
Elementary School in Whitehorse.
The lawsuit stems from allegations that over the course of 20
years, staff at Jack Hulland had routinely and unnecessarily used
restraint techniques and isolation to deal with behavioural issues
at the school. Those included the use of purpose-built enclosures
to hold children in involuntary seclusion, it is alleged.
The RCMP began investigating these procedures in 2021 and just
announced the conclusion of their probe on September 14, 2023. They
are preparing a final report to be filed with the Public
Prosecution Service of Canada.
In a decision released Sept. 6, Yukon Supreme Court Chief Justice
Suzanne Duncan cited many common issues involving oversight and
standards of care that can be combined.
She stopped short of allowing individual accusations of assault,
battery and forcible confinement to be litigated together.
The certification of a class action does not mean any allegations
have been proven in court.
In documents filed with the court, plaintiffs claim that going back
to 2002, physical holds were overused by school staff, being
employed even in cases where there was no risk of a student harming
themselves or others.
They claim that this, in effect, constitutes "corporal
punishment."
In addition, plaintiffs say that in 2008, four separate
one-by-one-metre "isolation booths" or "cells" were constructed in
the school to hold disruptive students involuntarily and for long
periods of time, in an area referred to as either the "study hall"
or "the nest."
In a statement of defence, the Yukon government denied many of
these allegations and argued against allowing the class action to
proceed.
The government also disputed the use of terminology such as
"confinement" to describe the "study hall," and the use of words
such as "drag" to characterize actions taken by staff at the
school.
The Department of Education deferred to a Department of Justice
spokesperson to provide a statement to the Star about the case.
"Giving this is an ongoing matter before the courts, we will not be
commenting on the specific allegations outlined in the statement of
claim filed," said a written statement from Department of Justice
spokesperson Jasmine Doll.
The statement goes on to say students have a right to a safe and
inclusive learning environment and a range of free-of-charge
supports are available to students and families.
"We will continue to support the school community and share
relevant information with them," the statement reads.
In an interview with the Star on September 12, 2023, the mother of
one of the children involved in the case said her child was
repeatedly put in the isolation cubicles, while being watched on
videotape and at times not being allowed to use the washroom.
She also said the family was misled about what was happening.
The Star has agreed not to publish the names of the parents or any
other information that could reveal the identity of the children.
The mother said she had initially brought her child to Jack Hulland
because she'd heard staff at the school were skilled at supporting
children having issues with self-regulation.
"What we seem to have learned since then is that the skills that
were implemented at Jack Hulland Elementary were disciplinary
skills," she said. "They weren't necessarily skills where people
have been trained to help kids with neurodiversity."
The extent of the use of isolation and holds did not become known
to the family until May 2022, the mother said. This was after
several years of the child attending the school.
"These kids are being put in isolation, they are being held
literally against their will, they're screaming, they're crying;
their siblings are witnessing it," she said. "All of these things
now are just starting to come to light."
The mother said that in a meeting several years ago with school
officials and a local pediatrician, it was recommended by the
pediatrician that the child should not be put in isolation or have
their outdoor time taken away.
"The recommendations were not listened to," the mother said.
She said school officials told her that her child was being put in
a space for de-escalation, but did not inform her they were left
alone and unsupervised for long periods of time, or that they were
being forced to eat lunch in isolation.
"At one point, my child even soiled (their) pants in there," she
said.
All of this has caused her child to experience what is described in
court documents as emotional distress, anxiety, depression and
post-traumatic stress.
The mother says her child continues to bring up the experiences.
"It comes up all the time," she said. "I don't know how to respond
to it often; I just say that I'm sorry that they've experienced
this."
Since filing the lawsuit, the mother said, she has been the victim
of harassment on social media by people in the school systems and
others in the community.
She wants those people to stop and put themselves in her shoes.
"I'm not out to hurt anyone," she said. "Just stop and think about
'what if this was my child?'"
A second parent who is a plaintiff in the suit said in her
affidavit that she asked for records of each incident involving her
child and was told by a school administrator there were so many
reports, they "had lost count at 99."
According to the affidavit, the parent made at least eight attempts
to obtain copies of these records, but was provided an incomplete
file and told there was a court order preventing the rest of the
documents from being released.
"There is no court order," said James Tucker, the lawyer for the
plaintiffs.
Tucker hopes the reports are released during the discovery phase,
which is the next step for the case.
The actual timeline for the next steps will be set by a case
management judge, though Tucker said his team wants "to move as
fast as possible."
Their proposal suggests the Yukon government be given 60 days from
the certification date of the class action to provide all requested
documents.
At that time, the government would be legally compelled to provide
documents such as those requested by the parent.
Tucker came to the case after hearing about the issue from a client
he was representing in an unrelated matter. After some
investigation, he discovered how many people may have been
affected.
"It became apparent to me that it was a much bigger problem than
what my clients were experiencing," Tucker said.
"That's when it dawned on me there may be something that would be
suitable for a class action."
The suit can now continue as one lawsuit for most of the claims
involving the government's duty of care, but whether each child
suffered assault, battery or forcible confinement was deemed to be
"individual issues" by the judge.
"In class actions, there are common issues, which are issues that
can be resolved for everyone in the class, then there are
individual issues," Tucker said, adding that he agreed with the
decision. "In a matter like this, it is entirely expected there
would be individual issues."
The case still has broad reach, and Tucker said anyone who has ever
been held in restraint or seclusion at the school between 2007 and
2022 will now automatically become a plaintiff in this case.
He said they will have a set time period to opt out, commonly about
90 days. The final timeframe must be set in consultation with the
case management judge.
Initially, the case was to go back to 2002, but because of the
uncertainty of any allegations pre-dating 2007, the judge narrowed
the interval by five years.
How many people will be involved is still unknown.
"We just don't know at this point," Tucker said. "I do know there
are a significant number of people."
Under the guidance of the court, Tucker can now begin an
advertising campaign to find and inform any individuals who could
become a plaintiff in the case.
"In our opinion, if a student was locked in a room, or placed in
seclusion, or placed in holds and restraints, even once - just once
- then they would be captured by this definition of a class,"
Tucker said. [GN]
JELD-WEN HOLDING: To Settle Antitrust Suit Over Molded Door Prices
------------------------------------------------------------------
JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 8, 2023, that on July 14, 2023, the company
entered into a preliminary agreement with a class counsel to
resolve a Canadian Antitrust Litigation where on September 9, 2020,
Kate O'Leary Swinkels, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, filed a putative class action against the company and
Masonite Corp. in the Federal Court of Canada, which was served on
September 29, 2020.
The suit alleges an illegal conspiracy between the company and
Masonite to agree on prices, the distribution of market shares
and/or the production levels of interior molded doors and that the
plaintiffs suffered damages in that they were charged and paid
higher prices for interior molded doors than they would have had to
pay but for the alleged anti-competitive conduct. The plaintiffs
are seeking compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and
costs.
The proposed settlement remains subject to final documentation and
court approval.
JELD-WEN Holding, Inc., along with its subsidiaries, is a
vertically integrated global manufacturer and distributor of
windows, doors, and other building products with operation
facilities located in the U.S., Canada, Europe, and Mexico. Its
products are marketed primarily under the JELD-WEN brand name in
the U.S. and Canada and under JELD-WEN and a variety of acquired
brand names in Europe.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Oral Decongestants Ineffective, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that fourteen companies
that make and/or sell over-the-counter cold and flu medicines face
a proposed class action in the wake of an FDA advisory panel
announcement that the active ingredient phenylephrine is wholly
ineffective at treating nasal congestion.
The 19-page case alleges in particular that the makers of several
popular medications—such as Tylenol, Sudafed, Advil and
Dayquil—have for years marketed their products as effective at
relieving nasal congestion and other cold and flu symptoms, despite
knowing that phenylephrine works no better than a placebo.
The lawsuit was filed in California on September 12, the same day
an FDA advisory committee concluded a two-day review of existing
scientific studies on phenylephrine with a unanimous vote that the
ingredient does not work to treat nasal congestion.
According to the suit, phenylephrine is used as an active
ingredient in at least 250 cold and flu products, including, but
not limited to:
Sudafed Sinus Congestion;
Tylenol Cold & Flu Severe;
Nyquil Severe Cold & Flu;
Theraflu Severe Cold Relief; and
Mucinex Sinus Max.
The purported decongestant is also found in products sold under
generic brand names developed by major retailers such as CVS,
Walmart, Target and Walgreens, as well as medicines sold under
brand names like Benadryl, Robitussin, Theraflu, Contac, Advil,
Alka-Seltzer, Allegra and Zicam, the filing says.
The complaint names as defendants Johnson & Johnson,
GlaxoSmithKline, Reckitt Benckiser, Bayer Healthcare, Sanofi,
Procter & Gamble, Church & Dwight Co., Walmart, Target, CVS
Pharmacy, Walgreens, Albertsons Companies, Rite Aid and
Amazon.com.
As a result of the defendants' alleged misrepresentations, hundreds
of millions of unsuspecting Americans have spent their "hard-earned
money" to treat cold and flu symptoms using medications with an
active ingredient that is "entirely ineffective" for that purpose,
the filing contends.
Phenylephrine is reportedly the most popular oral decongestant in
the United States, generating nearly $1.8 billion in sales in 2022,
according to data shared by FDA officials. The FDA panel's vote
stems from evidence that showed that when phenylephrine is taken
orally, only a minimal amount of the drug reaches the nose to
relieve congestion.
The FDA's next step is to decide whether to revoke phenylephrine's
status as "generally recognized as safe and effective," a tag that
allows drugmakers to include an ingredient in over-the-counter
medications without needing to go through the regulator.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who
purchased any of the phenylephrine products mentioned on this
page.
How can I join the lawsuit?
There's usually nothing you need to do to join or be included in a
proposed class action lawsuit when it's first filed. It's only if
and when the case settles that a consumer might have to take
action, typically by filling out and filing a claim form online or
by mail. If a settlement is reached, anyone who has been affected
by the case, i.e., the "class members," may receive direct notice
with instructions on how to proceed and information on their legal
rights. [GN]
KELLOGG CO: Faces Class Suit Over Miscalculated Retirement Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille of Bloomberg Law reports that a Kellogg Co. retiree
filed a proposed class action saying the food manufacturer
shortchanges the retirement benefits of certain married workers
based on the pension formats they choose.
Thomas Reichert, an 11-year Kellogg veteran who began receiving
retirement benefits in 2019, challenges how the company calculates
the benefits of married workers who choose pensions that include
post-death payments for their surviving spouses.
Reichert says Kellogg's calculations rely on outdated formulas and
life expectancy data that don't take into account recent increases
in lifespan, causing these workers to have their benefits
improperly shortchanged compared to workers who receive
traditional, single-life pensions. [GN]
LOUISIANA: Men Prisoners Forced to Work in Farm, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press of Arkansas Democrat Gazette reports that men
incarcerated at Louisiana State Penitentiary filed a class-action
lawsuit on September 16, 2023, contending they have been forced to
work in the prison's fields for little or no pay, even when
temperatures soar past 100 degrees.
The men, most of whom are Black, work on the farm of the
18,000-acre maximum-security prison known as Angola -- the site of
a former slave plantation -- hoeing, weeding and picking crops by
hand, often surrounded by armed guards, the suit said. If they
refuse to work or fail to meet quotas, they can be sent to solitary
confinement or otherwise punished, according to disciplinary
guidelines.
It names as defendants Angola's warden, Timothy Hooper, and
officials with Louisiana's department of corrections and its
money-making arm, Prison Enterprises.
Ken Pastorick, a spokesman for the state Department of Public
Safety and Corrections, said the department hadn't officially been
served with the suit.
"We cannot comment on something we have not seen nor had any
opportunity to review," he said.
More than 2.2 million inmates in federal and state prisons, jails
and detention centers can be forced to work because the 13th
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which abolished slavery after
the Civil War, made an exception for those "duly convicted" of a
crime.
These men are forced to work "notwithstanding their increased risk
of illness or injury," the suit said.
It asserts the field work also violates their 8th Amendment rights
to be free of cruel and unusual punishment, and that some
plaintiffs in the suit were sentenced by non-unanimous juries and
therefore were not "duly convicted" within the meaning of the 13th
Amendment.
The men -- represented by the legal advocacy organizations Promise
of Justice Initiative and Rights Behind Bars -- are asking the
court to declare that work they are forced to do is
unconstitutional and to require the state to end its
generations-long practice of compulsory agricultural labor.[GN]
MADE EVENT: Faces Class Suit Over Cancelled Dance Music Festival
----------------------------------------------------------------
Olivia Perreault of Ticket News reports that Electric Zoo is now
facing a class-action lawsuit from two festivalgoers after its
disastrous 2023 event.
The festival, which was slated to run from September 1 through 3 at
Randall's Island Park, however, the first day of the festival was
cancelled due to "supply chain issues" leading to an incomplete
stage. Then, although organizers promised a "magical" remaining two
days, the final day of the festival was oversold, leaving thousands
of ticketholders unable to enter.
Now, the festival has been slapped with a class-action lawsuit from
two attendees, according to RollingStone. The festivalgoers, Nicole
Brockmole and Lauren Bair, filed the suit in a New York district
court on September 13, seeking damages on "behalf of all affected
patrons who paid for ticket(s) for access of entry to [Electric
Zoo] who were not granted access," the publication reports. The
pair noted in the suit that this year's edition for the festival
was "a nightmare endured by thousands of electronic music fans."
Electric Zoo has not returned RollingStone's request for comment on
the suit.
While the festival promised refunds for those who either held on
September 15, 2023 passes or missed on September 10, 2023's show,
no information has been released.
Ticketholders reportedly received an email from the festival this
week, according to the festival news site FestiveOwl, where
organizers admitted, "we're not prepared to offer specifics on the
refund process at this time."
According to PageSix, there was a lot more going on
behind-the-scenes. An insider told PageSix that Avant Garnder, who
purchased Electric Zoo last year, was at the root of the issues
caused during this year's festival, noting that "they bought the
festival, and then fired everyone who ran Electric Zoo, and then
rehired everyone once they found out they really couldn't put it
on." The source also told PageSix that all of the "senior people"
running the festival were let go.
As for September 15, 2023's cancellation, the same source revealed
to PageSix that supply chain issues weren't really at hand here;
instead, the festival waited until "very late in the game" to begin
planning and "were not reserving trucks, equipment, inventory,
putting stages together."
No matter the reason for the cancellation, festivalgoers are not
happy, and the festival has yet to make a public announcement,
apology, or plan for refunds. [GN]
MAPFRE USA: Access Data Without Consent, Brown Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
PAMELA BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAPFRE U.S.A. CORP.; and THE COMMERCE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-12101-IT (D. Mass.,
Sept. 13, 2023) alleges violation of the Drivers' Privacy
Protection Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that by knowingly and
intentionally adding the auto-population feature to their online
Quote Platform, the Defendants intended to obtain, use, and
disclose driver's license numbers on their Quote Platform, thereby
making it easily accessible to anyone who entered basic information
thereon.
The Defendants knowingly and intentionally failed to implement any
security protocols, stopgaps, or other processes to ensure that
website visitors accessed personal information ("PI") only about
themselves, rather than other individuals, on the Quote Platform.
Defendants did not implement or maintain any effective security
processes or systems to prevent automated bots from accessing
consumers' PI on their Quote Platform.
As a result of Defendants' the intentional conduct in obtaining,
using, and disclosing the Plaintiff's and Class Members' driver's
license numbers and other PI on their Quote Platform for all to see
and the resulting Data Disclosure, the Plaintiff's privacy has been
invaded, her sensitive driver's license information is now in the
hands of known cybercriminals, and she faces a substantially
increased risk of identity theft and fraud, the suit alleges.
MAPFRE U.S.A. CORP. of Massachusetts provides insurance services.
The Company offers motor vehicle, homeowners, inland marine, fire,
general liability, and commercial multi-peril insurance services.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Pastor, Esq.
PASTOR LAW OFFICE PC
63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 742-9700
Facsimile: (617) 742-9701
Email: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com
- and -
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Telephone: (612) 594-5999
Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
Email: emdrake@bm.net
- and -
Mark B. Desanto, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
Email: mdesanto@bm.net
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Villanueva Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants the Defendants' motion to
compel arbitration in the lawsuit captioned CINDY VILLANUEVA,
Plaintiff v. MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 3:23-cv-03403-JSC (N.D. Cal.).
Plaintiff Cindy Villanueva brings a putative class action against
Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Maxim Healthcare Services
Holdings, Inc., and Maxim Healthcare Staffing Services Inc.
(collectively "Maxim"). Maxim moves to compel arbitration according
to the terms of an arbitration agreement Villanueva signed. Because
the parties signed a valid arbitration agreement that covers
Villanueva's claims, the Court grants Maxim's motion to compel
arbitration.
Maxim proves healthcare staffing services to hospitals and
healthcare facilities throughout California. Villanueva alleges
Maxim "engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations"
under California Law, including, in part, failing to pay minimum
and overtime wages, failing to provide meal periods or rest breaks,
and failure to reimburse necessary business expenses.
The Plaintiff seeks to bring this action on behalf of a class of
Maxim's employees. She filed her action in California state court
and the Defendant removed the action to this Court.
Maxim then filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. Maxim asserts the
Plaintiff agreed to be bound by a mandatory arbitration agreement
with Maxim when she signed an arbitration agreement as part of her
onboarding. Villanueva opposes Maxim's motion, asserting the
arbitration agreement is unconscionable and, therefore,
unenforceable.
Both sides agree the arbitration agreement was a mandatory
condition of Villanueva's employment with Maxim and Villanueva had
no opportunity to negotiate or change the agreement's terms.
Ms. Villanueva argues the arbitration agreement is unconscionable
because it unfairly limits discovery. She challenges the portion of
the arbitration agreement which states: "The Arbitrator shall have
no authority to require any party to produce contact information,
or to order the issuance of a notice, based on class, collective,
or representative action procedures." She asserts this provision is
substantively unconscionable because it "expressly forbids the
arbitrator from compelling Defendants 'to produce contact
information' for any witness, preventing employees like Plaintiff
who arbitrate against Defendants from even taking the first step to
investigate whether any of their coworkers or supervisors have
evidence that may support their claims."
According to Ms. Villanueva, such a limitation is inequitable
because the employer already has such contact information in its
possession.
The Court disagrees. Judge Corley explains that the extent to which
this provision limits discovery hinges on the second comma. That
comma--which sets off "or to order the issuance of a
notice"--indicates the phrase "based on class, collective, or
representative action procedures" limits the entire sentence,
citing Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 141 S. Ct. 1163, 1170 (2021).
So, Judge Corley opines, the arbitrator does not have authority
"based on class, collective, or representative action procedures"
to force Maxim to produce contact information. In other words, the
arbitrator is not absolutely barred from requiring Maxim to product
contact information; instead, the arbitrator is barred from
ordering Maxim to produce contact information for the purpose of
pursuing a class, collective, or representative action. The
arbitrator is not restricted from compelling Maxim to produce
contact information for witnesses in connection with Villanueva's
individual claims.
Since the Plaintiff has not challenged the class action waiver
provision of the arbitration agreement, she recognizes she can
bring a proceeding in arbitration as an individual only and so any
collective or class-based limitations would not apply to the
proceeding, Judge Corley says. As a result, any limitations on the
arbitrator's ability to require Maxim produce contact information
does not apply to Villanueva.
Ms. Villanueva also argues the arbitration agreement is
unconscionable because it lacks mutuality. She argues Maxim's
arbitration agreement does just that, as it "requires claims
typically brought by employees be arbitrated" while carving out
claims that are typically brought by employers, such as claims for
breach of the Non-Solicitation and Non-Disclosure Agreement.
To start, Judge Corley finds that Maxim's insistence that the
Plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the Non-Solicitation and
Non-Disclosure Agreement because no one is seeking to bring claims
under this non-solicitation agreement is wrong. Since the
unconscionability analysis evaluates whether the agreement is
bilateral at the time it was made rather than as applied to
specific plaintiff, it does not matter neither party is bringing
any claims under the Non-Solicitation and Non-Disclosure
Agreement.
Judge Corley finds that the Plaintiff has not met her burden on
showing non-mutuality sufficient to make the agreement
unconscionable. During oral argument, Villanueva asserted for the
first time this provision is non-mutual because it excludes
potential claims made by Maxim against former employees whose
breach of the Non-Solicitation, Non-Disclosure and Non-Competition
agreement occurred after the termination of their employment with
Maxim.
Ms. Villanueva asserts the claims most important to Maxim--e.g.,
actions alleging a former employee is stealing clients or exposing
Maxim's confidential information to Maxim's competitors--can be
brought in court, whereas the claims most important to employees
must be arbitrated.
The Court agrees this element of the arbitration agreement is
non-mutual. To the extent a former employee's breach occurred after
the termination of employment, Maxim is not required to arbitrate
the claim. However, not all one-sided contract provisions are
unconscionable.
Most of Maxim's potential claims will go to arbitration, only those
claims related to a breach of the "Non-Solicitation, Non-Disclosure
and Non-Competition Agreement" by former employees that occurred
after the employee's Maxim employment ended are exempted, Judge
Corley holds. Indeed, the complaints Villanueva identified suggest
breaches of confidentiality, non-solicitation, or the trade secrets
agreement often occur while an employee works for Maxim--meaning
those complaints would likely be subject to arbitration in
California.
Judge Corley notes that two of the complaints identified explicitly
allege employees "downloaded" confidential information while
working for Maxim, then later used passed that stolen information
to Maxim's competitors. The remaining complaints also allege some
violations that occurred while the employee worked for Maxim.
Judge Corley finds that Villanueva has not met her burden of
showing the arbitration agreement is unconscionable. She cites no
cases suggesting this one-sidedness alone is sufficient for finding
the contract unenforceable. Every case Villanueva cites in which a
court found a contract to be unenforceable involves multiple
findings of substantive unconscionability. As a result, Judge
Corley points out that Villanueva has failed to establish the
arbitration agreement is unenforceable.
The arbitration agreement extends to "all existing or future
disputes, claims, or complaints that directly or indirectly arise
out of or relate to EMPLOYEE'S recruitment, application, employment
or separation from employment with MAXIM."
Ms. Villanueva does not assert her claims fall outside the
arbitration agreement, nor could she. So, Judge Corley holds, the
arbitration agreement covers her claims.
For these reasons, Judge Corley finds that the arbitration
agreement applies to all of Villanueva's claims and is enforceable
under the Federal Arbitration Act. Accordingly, the Court grants
the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and stays this action
pending resolution of arbitration.
Maxim also requests the Court take judicial notice of orders in two
federal cases--Marchant v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case
No. 2:18-CV-02757-RMG (D.S.C. Nov. 5, 2018), and Hammer v. Maxim
Healthcare Servs., Inc., Case No. 8:16-CV-03533-EAK-AAS (M.D. Fla.
Mar. 15, 2017).
The Court declines to take judicial notice of these cases because
both can be found in widely available online legal research
services and caselaw is ordinarily not a proper use of judicial
notice.
Next, Maxim requests the Court take judicial notice of three
California superior court orders. Since these cases are not
available on commonly used legal research services, the Court
grants Maxim's request for judicial notice of the California state
orders.
The parties are directed to file a status update with the Court
within (1) 30 days of the arbitration ruling, (2) within 30 days of
the parties' own resolution of the case, or (3) Sept. 1, 2024,
whichever occurs first.
This Order disposes of Docket Number: 8.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Sept. 11, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/46jh58wx from PacerMonitor.com.
MERRILL LYNCH: Sued Over Harm From Funding Mining Activities
------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF OURO PRETO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER &
SMITH INC.; BARCLAYS CAPITAL, INC.; CITIBANK INC.; CITIGROUP GLOBAL
MARKETS, INC.; JP MORGAN, and JP MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 1:23-cv-08139 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2023) is a class action
pursuant to Brazil's National Environment Policy Act, Federal Law
No. 6,938/1981, for lender liability against the Defendants arising
from loans and financing which directly promoted, and continues to
promote, significant environmental degradation in and around the
Brazilian State of Minas Gerais, as well as continuing harm to the
Plaintiff and the proposed Class members.
According to the complaint, the mining company Vale, S.A. (the
"borrower" or "Vale") has constructed high risk tailings dams
within the Metropolitana de Belo Horizonte mesoregion in the state
of Minas Gerais known as the "Iron Quadrangle".
The Defendants, a group of banks, provided essential financing to
Vale, a company notorious for committing horrendous environmental
ruination in Brazil. The Defendants profited from their customer's
environmental degradation that was imposed upon Plaintiff and the
proposed Class without any concern for the devastation that has
ravaged those communities.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' alleged funding
of Vale's mining activities, Plaintiff and the Class members have
suffered and will continue to suffer injuries to themselves and
their families, a reduction or elimination of their property
values, a reduction in their use and enjoyment of their real and
personal property, and a collapse of their businesses/livelihoods
all of which continues to be deleterious to their health and
well-being.
MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC. is an American
investment management and wealth management division of Bank of
America. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex Straus, Esq.
Milberg Coleman Bryson, Esq.
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
280 SOUTH BEVERLY DRIVE, PH Suite
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Email: astraus@milberg.com
- and -
Roy L. Mason, Esq.
Milberg Coleman Bryson, Esq.
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
100 GARDEN CITY PLAZA
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Email: rmason@milberg.com
- and -
Glenn Phillips, Esq.
Milberg Coleman Bryson, Esq.
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
1420 Fifth Ave, Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gphillips@milberg.com
- and -
Greg Coleman, Esq.
Milberg Coleman Bryson, Esq.
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
800 S. GAY STREET, SUITE 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gcoleman@milberg.com
META PLATFORMS: BIPA Class Suit Removed From State Ct. to Dist. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris of Madison – St. Clair Record reports that Facebook
owner Meta Platforms, defending a claim that it violated privacy of
everyone in pictures on Messenger and Messenger Kids applications,
removed the claim from St. Clair County Circuit Court to U.S.
district court.
Meta asserted federal jurisdiction under national class action law
that limits state court jurisdiction to $5 million.
Meta counsel Daniel Fenske of Chicago claimed no exceptions to the
national law apply.
Millions of Illinois citizens might belong to the class according
to Ryan Keane of Clayton, who represents St. Clair County residents
Rebecca Hartman and Joseph Turner.
Keane filed a complaint for Hartman, Turner, and their minor
children in St. Clair County in July, alleging violations of
Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).
He sought statutory liquidated damages of $1,000 for each negligent
violation and $5,000 for each reckless or intentional violation.
He also sought actual damages, unlike plaintiffs who allege
violation without alleging harm.
Keane claimed device users downloaded Messenger and Messenger Kids
for free from the application stores of Google, Apple, and others.
He claimed the applications collected face data through augmented
reality filters and effects.
"Users of the apps are not told by defendant that it is collecting
biometric data," he wrote.
Keane claimed the steps in signing up for Messenger Kids provided
no process for parent consent.
He added that Facebook published a privacy notice last year but
didn't address past data, disclose current collection, or deny
possession.
Keane also claimed the applications collect information from all
individuals in the frame and Meta can't obtain consent from those
who don't use the applications.
He claimed many individuals in the pictures are minors who can't
consent.
He alleged a data breach on one device could disclose data on many
devices.
Keane claimed solid state memory can withstand drops, extreme
temperatures, and magnetic fields.
Unless corrupted, Keane alleged it will outlive its user and last
in perpetuity.
He proposed to certify a class of Illinois citizens who used
Messenger and Messenger Kids and whose faces were used by augmented
reality filters from 2018 to judgment.
He proposed a subclass for other Illinois citizens whose faces were
used.
As for jurisdiction, Keane claimed Meta does business in St. Clair
County and is therefore a resident of the county.
He added that all transactions with Hartman and Turner occurred in
St. Clair County.
Those points didn't deter Meta from removing the case to district
court.
The clerk randomly assigned Magistrate Judge Reona Daly, who will
preside unless a party declines consent to magistrate
jurisdiction.
If that happens the clerk will randomly assign a district judge.
[GN]
NATERA INC: Must Face Class Suit Over Efficacy of Genetic Tests
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Miller of Bloomberg Law reports that Natera Inc. and its
leadership must face allegations that they misrepresented the
efficacy of certain genetic tests, as well as sales and billing
practices the diagnostics company used, a judge said.
Judge David Ezra found that the Natera shareholders sufficiently
stated actionable omissions and plead loss causation stemming from
the alleged misrepresentations' impact on share prices, citing a
33% stock drop on Mar. 9, 2022 after the release of a negative
short-seller report. The defendants' motion to dismiss the
investors' proposed class action was partially granted by Ezra.
[GN]
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces Class Suit Over Racial Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Magann of City News reports that former North Melbourne
great Phil Krakouer is the face of the suit, with the other six
players still unnamed but known to have played between 1975 and
2022.
Documents for the class action were lodged in the Supreme Court on
September 15, 2023.
Lawyer Michel Margalit told ABC "News 24" the players would be
seeking compensation for the alleged lack of duty of care.
"Our claim alleges that the impact of this racial vilification has
had life-long consequences, and has caused significant pain and
suffering and this remains with the players for life," she said.
Phil Krakouer told the ABC the AFL was aware of the racist
treatment of players but failed to act.
"For decades, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and
people of colour have been racially abused while playing AFL, and
we feel the AFL sat back and watched it all go by," he said.
"Sorry doesn't cut it."
Ms Margalit said on September 9, 2023 that other players are
expected to join the suit.
"Even though in recent times there's been more significant steps
towards recognition that racism existed in the AFL and steps to
prevent it, the AFL has failed in enforcing the policies and this
is where they have failed, fallen down."
"It's not enacting policies, it's the enforcement," she said.
The code has come under fire in recent years over allegations it
has failed to address racism in the past.
In 2021, Collingwood released a report finding a culture of
"structural racism" under the leadership of former president Eddie
McGuire at the club, eventually leading to his resignation. [GN]
NATIONAL VISION: S.D. California Dismisses Herrera Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Larry Alan Burns of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California dismisses without prejudice the lawsuit
captioned DANIEL HERRERA, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL VISION, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01350-LAB-WVG (S.D. Cal.).
On Aug. 16, 2023, Plaintiff Daniel Herrera and Defendant National
Vision, Inc., filed a joint stipulation to stay this class action
pending the resolution of an earlier-filed and overlapping action
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
entitled Maisnier v. National Vision, Inc., Case No.
22-cv-7859-WHO.
The Court found that a stay wouldn't advance the interests of
efficiency or judicial economy, denied the joint stipulation to
stay, and ordered the parties to show cause why this action
shouldn't be dismissed or transferred to the Northern District of
California under the first-to-file rule. The parties filed timely
responses.
On June 2, 2023, Plaintiff Daniel Herrera filed this class action
against Defendant National Vision, Inc. (the "Herrera Action") in
California Superior Court asserting seven class claims for: (1)
failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime wages;
(3) failure to authorize or permit meal periods; (4) failure to
authorize or permit rest periods; (5) failure to provide complete
and accurate wage statements; (6) failure to timely pay final wages
at termination; and (7) unfair business practices.
The class is defined as all persons, who worked for National Vision
in California as an hourly or non-exempt employee from June 2,
2019, to present. On July 24, 2023, National Vision removed the
Herrera Action to this Court.
On Sept. 20, 2022, Paul F. Maisnier filed a class action against
National Vision (the "Maisnier Action") in California Superior
Court asserting eight class claims for: (1) failure to pay wages
including overtime; (2) failure to provide meal periods; (3)
failure to provide rest periods; (4) failure to pay timely wages;
(5) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (6)
failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; (7) unlawful
deductions from wages; and (8) violation of California Business &
Professions Code.
The class in the Maisnier Action is defined as all persons, who
worked for National Vision in California as non-exempt or
equivalent employees from Sept. 20, 2018, to present. On Dec. 9,
2022, National Vision removed the Maisnier Action to the Northern
District of California.
The Court incorporates the analysis from its Aug. 21, 2023 Order
and finds the first-to-file rule applies to this action. Under the
rule, the Court has discretion to transfer, stay, or dismiss the
Herrera Action in the interest of efficiency and judicial economy.
The Court already determined a stay isn't warranted here, so it
considers only transfer and dismissal.
Mr. Herrera is the only named plaintiff in this action. He worked
for National Vision at 7155 Broadway, in Lemon Grove, California
91945, a location within the Southern District of California.
Because none of the events giving rise to Herrera's claim took
place in the Northern District of California, Judge Burns holds
that venue isn't proper there under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b)(2).
National Vision is incorporated in Georgia and its corporate
headquarters--where all executive and administrative functions take
place--is in Duluth, Georgia. The Court finds National Vision is at
home in the state of Georgia and, therefore, not subject to general
personal jurisdiction in California. As for specific personal
jurisdiction, Herrera's claims arise out of his employment in the
Southern District, so National Vision isn't subject to specific
personal jurisdiction in the Northern District in this action,
Judge Burns notes.
Nor is venue proper in the Northern District under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1391(b)(3), Judge Burns says. That section applies only if
there is no district where venue lies under Section 1391(b)(1) or
(b)(2). Because venue is proper in this District and in the
Northern District of Georgia (where Duluth is located), the
residual provision doesn't apply, Judge Burns points out.
Venue in this action isn't proper in the Northern District of
California under the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1391,
and this action may not be transferred there, Judge Burns holds.
If transfer isn't proper and the first-filed case doesn't present a
"likelihood of dismissal," the court may dismiss the second-filed
case, Judge Burns says, citing Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods.,
Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 629 (9th Cir. 1991).
Mr. Herrera opposes dismissal, arguing he and other members of the
putative class will be severely prejudiced by the statute of
limitations if this action is dismissed and the Maisnier class
isn't certified or only partially certified. He also asserts
dismissal would potentially eliminate any value and/or nuance which
his claims may bring to the Maisnier action.
Judge Burns finds both arguments unpersuasive. First, there is no
indication the Maisnier Action will be dismissed. Second, as the
parties previously stipulated, the claims in the Herrera and
Maisnier actions are nearly identical and there is nothing to
suggest this action would be certified while the Maisnier Action
would not.
Third, Herrera hasn't presented any compelling reason why this
action shouldn't be dismissed: if the Maisnier Action settles,
Herrera, as a member of the putative Maisnier class, will have the
opportunity to participate in the settlement or he may opt out to
pursue his claims individually.
Accordingly, the Court dismisses the action without prejudice to
Herrera pursuing his claims on an individual basis.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Sept. 11, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3nm97pyh from PacerMonitor.com.
ONTARIO: Awaiting the Approval of Prisoners' Class Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Aidan Macnab of Law Times News reports that Justice Paul Perell of
the Ontario Superior Court will soon decide whether to approve a
settlement and claims protocol in the class action lawsuit that
found administrative segregation in Ontario jails a Charter
violation.
In Francis v. Ontario, 2020 ONSC 1644, the Superior Court found
that the system of administrative segregation infringed the
Sections 7 and 12 Charter rights of subjected prisoners. Through
mediation, class members and the province settled on a method for
receiving claims and distributing damages to inmates who experience
prolonged segregation and inmates with serious mental health
issues. Justice Perell will decide whether to approve the process
on Sept. 22.
"People who have been significantly harmed and are generally
marginalized and vulnerable will be able to access damages," says
James Sayce, a lawyer for the class members and a partner at Koskie
Minsky LLP. "From an access to justice perspective, this protocol
and this judgment is a huge win."
Sayce and his colleagues brought an action on behalf of Conrey
Francis, who was an inmate of the Toronto South Detention Centre
and placed in administrative segregation. Francis was the class
representative for inmates who were detained in administrative
segregation while experiencing a severe mental illness, were in
administrative segregation for 15 days or more, or experienced
both.
The court certified the case as a class proceeding, and Justice
Perell ruled on a summary judgment motion that putting an inmate in
administrative detention for more than 15 days is negligent and
contravenes their rights under Sections 7 and 12 of the Charter.
Section 7 guarantees the "right to life, liberty, and security of
the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in
accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." Under
Section 12, Canadians have "the right not to be subjected to any
cruel and unusual treatment or punishment."
Justice Perell also found that placing an inmate with a serious
mental illness in administrative detention for any period is
negligent and a violation of Sections 7 and 12.
Ontario appealed, but their case was dismissed.
Justice Perell awarded the class $30 million in base damages.
Additional damages will be distributed through the claims protocol.
According to Sayce, qualified class members will apply for a
portion of the damages based on their individual circumstances, the
length of their administrative segregation, whether they were
seriously mentally ill, and whether the segregation had lasting
effects on them.
"We've developed a very streamlined procedure that will allow
people to come forward and make claims in a very quick way for the
harm that they suffered while they were in solitary confinement in
Ontario prisons," he says.
The protocol will take a few years to administer, but Sayce says it
will be faster than litigation and require less from the courts
because adjudication will occur outside of them. "From a judicial
economy perspective, it's hugely important."
In June 2019, the federal government passed Bill C-83, abolishing
administrative detention and replacing the practice with Structured
Intervention Units. Courts have found administrative segregation
unconstitutional at the Ontario Court of Appeal in Canadian Civil
Liberties Association v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 ONCA 243,
and at the BC Supreme Court in British Columbia Civil Liberties
Association v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 BCSC 62. [GN]
PENSKE TRUCK: Cabral Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SERGIO CABRAL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO., L.P., Case No. 1:23-cv-01316-JPW (M.D.
Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the
time to file his motion for class certification.
Pursuant to Local Rule 23.3, the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification is due on October 23, 2023. However, upon a showing
of good cause, including the need to sufficiently develop the
record before moving for certification, courts in this District
will permit an extension of time.
The Plaintiff proposes a deadline of April 25, 2024 -- six months
from the date of the Court's scheduling conference -- for Plaintiff
to move for class certification.
Penske operates a truck rental and leasing company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 6, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PHxV0B at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel Hiraldo, Esq.
Andrew M. Carroll, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
AndrewCarrollEsq@gmail.com
- and -
Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq.
KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A.
2110 West Platt Street
Tampa, FL 33606
Telephone: (813) 422–7782
Facsimile: (813) 422–7783
E-mail: ben@theKRfirm.com
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Violates First Amendment Rights, Teachers Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
6ABC Action News reports that three Philadelphia school teachers
filed a proposed class action lawsuit on August 18 against the
School District of Philadelphia, accusing the district of violating
their First Amendment rights after they protested against asbestos
in the school.
Ethan Tannen and Carolyn Gray, who are current teachers at Julia R.
Masterman Laboratory and Demonstration School along with Karen
Celli, who retired in June 2023, claim in a lawsuit obtained by ABC
News that the school docked their pay for unauthorized absences
after they assembled their workstations on the outdoor patio of the
school amid concerns over asbestos in the facilities.
The complaint alleges that the district failed to provide complete
information to teachers and parents about asbestos remediation
efforts and potential dangers of asbestos at the school.
The school district marked the teachers as absent and docked their
pay for Aug. 26 and 27, according to the complaint.
"Those teachers were not 'absent'. The district knew that and knew
they were working," Mary Catherine Roper, an attorney who
represents all three teachers, said to ABC News in a statement on
Sept. 13. "The district wanted to stop the protest, so they
threatened the teachers and then punished them. That violates the
First Amendment."
The School District of Philadelphia told ABC News in a statement
that they could not comment on pending litigation. They also would
not elaborate on whether asbestos exists at the Masterman school.
The latest AHERA (Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act) report
published for the Masterman School building, which is from the
2018-2019 school year, identified over 100 "confirmed" or "assumed"
sources of asbestos in the building, according to the lawsuit.
"Asbestos is a naturally occurring fibrous material that has
historically been used for many industrial and construction
purposes," said Dr. Stephanie Widmer, an ABC News contributor and
medical toxicologist, who was not involved in this case. "The
material itself is very fire resistant and is a great thermal
insulator, many houses built before 1980 contained asbestos. Since
the discovery of negative health effects, 66 countries and
territories have banned asbestos."
Though asbestos' use is now limited in the United States, it is not
completely banned, Widmer said.
"Well established health risks of asbestos exposure include
'asbestosis', which is scarring of the lungs that results from
inhaling asbestos fibers, and an aggressive form of lung cancer,
Mesothelioma," Widmer said. "Asbestos is a known carcinogen."
According to Widmer, it is important to note that negative health
effects from asbestos exposure don't mount right away. It can take
many years to develop illness.
The issue of asbestos in schools is one that the School District of
Philadelphia has dealt with over the years. Two schools had to
close last April due to concerns of the presence of the potentially
hazardous mineral fiber.
Amid school closures, School District of Philadelphia
superintendent Tony Watlington told ABC News in April that it would
cost almost $5 billion to "fully repair and bring our buildings up
to code."
"With decades of underfunding, the district has had to balance
insufficient resources to work on our facilities and the need to
deliver pressing educational services," Watlington added.
To curb the effects of asbestos in schools, Congress passed the
Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act in 1986, ordering districts
"to inspect their school buildings for asbestos-containing building
material, prepare asbestos management plans and perform asbestos
response actions to prevent or reduce asbestos hazards," according
to the Brookings Institute, a non-profit public policy organization
in Washington D.C.
Research has shown that lower-income and minority communities are
disproportionally impacted by asbestos exposure, similar to other
environmental pollutants compared to their wealthier, white
counterparts because these groups are more likely to live in places
or work in jobs that have environmental and occupational exposure.
"The class members suffered damage as a result of the district's
retaliatory actions in the form of a loss of First Amendment
freedoms, lost wages and other employment benefits, and damage to
their professional reputations from the discipline recorded in
their employment records," according to the teachers' complaint.
According to the lawsuit, up to 50 teachers were improperly
disciplined. The three educators are seeking an award of financial
damages from lost wages, plus interest and an expungement of their
employment records from the school district's disciplinary actions.
[GN]
POLISHED.COM INC: Maschhoff Securities Suit Over IPO Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Polished.com Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 8, 2023, that on October 31, 2022, a putative
shareholder class action was filed against Polished.com Inc. and
certain of its current and former officers and directors, as well
as certain underwriters of the company's 2020 initial public
offering.
The action was commenced in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York court and is captioned "Maschhoff
v. Polished.com Inc., et al., No. 1:22-cv-06606." The complaint
asserts violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as well as Sections 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 arising from alleged misstatements and omissions made in
certain of the company's SEC filings made in connection with the
IPO.
On or about December 20, 2022, plaintiffs filed a motion for the
appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel.
Polished.com is a content-driven and technology-enabled shopping
destination for appliances, furniture and home goods.
PRIDE SECURITY: Hoffman Seeks to FLSA Conditional Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bobby Hoffman, an Arizona
resident; v. Pride Security LLC, an Arizona company; Roy Gartley an
Alabama resident; and Jillian Gartley an Alabama resident, Case No.
2:23-cv-01247-DJH (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order:
(1) Conditionally certifying the case as a collective action
pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") consisting of:
"All persons who work[ed] for Defendant Pride Security
and/or
Roy Gartley within the past three years; who work[ed] over
40
hours in any given workweek as a past or present worker; who
worked on an hourly basis; who did not receive overtime
compensation for all hours worked are known as (the
"Collective
Members");"
(2) Authorizing the Opt-In procedure outlined above; and
(3) For any such other relief as this Court deems just and
proper.
Mr. Hoffman seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages for himself and
the Collective Members, requiring the proper payment of overtime
wages to workers, under the collective action mechanism of the
FLSA.
The Plaintiff was a full-time employee who worked for Defendants
from December 21, 2021, until March 1, 2023.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 5, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RnGtec at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Barrat, Esq.
WEILER LAW PLLC
5050 N.40th St., Suite 260
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Telephone: (480) 442-3410
Facsimile: (480) 442-3410
E-mail: jbarrat@weilerlaw.com
www.weilerlaw.com
PROCTER & GAMBLE: FDA Panel Says Decongestant Drug Ineffective
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Dunleavy of Fierce Pharma reports that questions first
circulated about decongestant pills containing phenylephrine in
2007. Sixteen years later, the products may be pulled from shelves
nationwide as experts have concluded they don't work.
But when did the sellers of the cold and flu products know?
That's the question before a U.S. federal court in Florida, where a
plaintiff has filed a class-action lawsuit against Johnson &
Johnson Consumer Inc. and Procter & Gamble.
Steve Audelo claims that the companies knew that Sudafed PE, Vicks
NyQuil and Benadryl Allergy Plus Congestion—all over-the-counter
products containing phenylephrine—did not work as advertised.
"As a result of the defendants' false and deceptive marketing,
plaintiff and the class members suffered economic damages,
including the cost of purchasing the product," the lawsuit says.
After a recent spinoff, J&J's consumer division is now known as
Kenvue, an independent and publicly traded company.
In a New Jersey federal court, Walgreens, Kenvue and Procter &
Gamble were among the companies named in a separate filing.
"There's a serious problem when a 'decongestant' doesn't
'decongest,' and the FDA's recent findings are a prime example of
how the pharmaceutical industry makes billions by knowingly selling
questionable products to consumers who are suffering from specific
ailments," Adam Levitt, founding partner of DiCello Levitt, said in
a statement.
RELATED
It's unanimous: FDA panel says decongestant drug phenylephrine does
not work
The lawsuits come in response to an FDA advisory committee agreeing
by a 16-0 vote on September 12, 2023 that products containing
phenylephrine are ineffective. The FDA will now decide whether to
ban the products. Products that include the ingredient—some 242
of them—generated $1.76 billion in sales in 2022, the FDA said
this week.
Data presented to the panel showed that phenylephrine performed no
better than placebo in relieving congestion. Phenylephrine is
designed to reduce the swelling of blood vessels, but the committee
concluded that when the drug is taken orally, not enough reaches
the nasal passages.
The FDA's scrutiny of phenylephrine began in 2007, when the
Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee came to a similar
conclusion on its ineffectiveness. While four subsequent studies
showed the ineffectiveness of phenylephrine when taken as a pill,
there was enough variability in the results to raise questions
about how the studies were conducted. [GN]
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Nasal Congestant Drugs Ineffective, Fichera Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT FICHERA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE
GROCERS, INC., and VALU MERCHANDIERS CO. (AWG), Case No.
2:23-cv-05274-JTM-KWR (E.D. La., Sept. 13, 2023) arises from the
putative class members' purchase of alleged ineffective and
worthless over-the-counter drugs that were designed, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, packaged, and/or ultimately sold by P&G and
AWG in the United States that contained phenylephrine (PE).
The lawsuit seeks economic damages for those who paid for or made
reimbursements for oral PE as nasal congestant drugs that were
illegally and willfully manufactured and/or introduced into the
market by the Defendants.
The products for P&G include but are not limited to: DayQuil Severe
and NyQuil Severe Cold & Flu. The products for AWG include but are
not limited to: Best Choice Maximum Strength Mucus Relief Sinus
Pressure & Pain.
On September 12, 2023, an FDA advisory panel unanimously voted 16-0
that PE is not effective for treating nasal congestion. Thus, it
recommends avoiding unnecessary costs or delays in care by "taking
a drug that has no benefit."
Allegedly, the Defendants' PE drugs are non-merchantable, not fit
for ordinary purpose, and are not effective for treating the
indications identified, and were misbranded as a result. Each
Defendant's conduct constitutes breach of express and implied
warranties and breach of warranty under the Magnuson Moss Warranty
Act, fraud (affirmative and omission), negligent misrepresentation
or omission, negligence and negligence per se, breach of consumer
protection laws, and unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent:
National Class: All individuals and entities in the United
States and its territories and possessions who
paid any amount of money for any Defendant's
PE Drugs (intended for personal or household
use).
Louisiana Subclas: All individuals and entities in Louisiana who
paid any amount of money for any Defendant's PE
Drugs (intended for personal or household use).
Mr. Fichera is a citizen and resident of Louisiana. He purchased a
combination package of DayQuil Severe Cold & Flu and NyQuil Severe
Cold & Flu, and Best Choice Maximum Strength Mucus Relief Sinus
Pressure & Pain within the applicable period.
P&G is an American multinational consumer goods corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Conlee S. Whiteley, Esq.
KANNER & WHITELEY, L.L.C.
701 Camp Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 524-5777
E-mail: c.whiteley@kanner-law.com
- and -
Andrew D. Bizer, Esq.
BIZER & DEREUS
3319 St. Claude Ave.
New Orleans, LA 70117
Telephone: (504) 619-9999
E-mail: andrew@bizerlaw.com
- and -
Ruben Honik, Esq.
David J. Stanoch, Esq.
HONIK LLC
1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (267) 435-1300
E-mail: ruben@honiklaw.com
david@honiklaw.com
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Nasal Congestant Drugs Ineffective, Juneau Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NATALIE JUNEAU, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY and GSK CONSUMER
HEALTHCARE, INC. (GSK), Case No. 2:23-cv-05273-ILRL-MBN (E.D. La.,
Sept. 13, 2023) arises from the putative class members' purchase of
alleged ineffective and worthless over-the-counter drugs that were
designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, packaged, and/or
ultimately sold by P&G and GSK in the United States that contained
phenylephrine (PE).
The lawsuit seeks economic damages for those who paid for or made
reimbursements for oral PE as nasal congestant drugs that were
illegally and willfully manufactured and/or introduced into the
market by the Defendants.
The products for P&G include but are not limited to: DayQuil Severe
and NyQuil Severe Cold & Flu. The products for GSK include but are
not limited to: Theraflu Multi-Symptom Severe Cold / Severe Cold
Cough.
On September 12, 2023, an FDA advisory panel unanimously voted 16-0
that PE is not effective for treating nasal congestion. Thus, it
recommends avoiding unnecessary costs or delays in care by "taking
a drug that has no benefit."
According to the complaint, the Defendants' PE drugs are
non-merchantable, not fit for ordinary purpose, and are not
effective for treating the nasal congestion, and were misbranded as
a result. Each Defendant's conduct constitutes breach of express
and implied warranties and breach of warranty under the Magnuson
Moss Warranty Act, fraud (affirmative and omission), negligent
misrepresentation or omission, negligence and negligence per se,
breach of consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent:
National Class: All individuals and entities in the United
States and its territories and possessions who
paid any amount of money for any Defendant's
PE Drugs (intended for personal or household
use).
Louisiana Subclas: All individuals and entities in Louisiana who
paid any amount of money for any Defendant's PE
Drugs (intended for personal or household use).
Ms. Juneau is a citizen and resident of Louisiana. She purchased
DayQuil Cold & Flu, and Theraflu Multi-Symptom Severe Cold/Severe
Cold Cough within the applicable period.
P&G is an American multinational consumer goods corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Conlee S. Whiteley, Esq.
KANNER & WHITELEY, L.L.C.
701 Camp Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 524-5777
E-mail: c.whiteley@kanner-law.com
- and -
Andrew D. Bizer, Esq.
BIZER & DEREUS
3319 St. Claude Ave.
New Orleans, LA 70117
Telephone: (504) 619-9999
E-mail: andrew@bizerlaw.com
- and -
Ruben Honik, Esq.
David J. Stanoch, Esq.
HONIK LLC
1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (267) 435-1300
E-mail: ruben@honiklaw.com
david@honiklaw.com
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Martin Suit Removed to N.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Troy A. Martin, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Progressive Casualty Insurance
Company, Case No. 23-CA-014378 was removed from the Circuit Court
of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 14, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-02086 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Progressive Preferred Insurance Company --
https://www.progressive.com/ -- provides insurances services. The
Company offers homeowners insurance, workmen's compensation
coverage, automotive insurance, and property and casualty
re-insurance services to individuals and businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Ross Elliot Linzer, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
Southeast Financial Center
200 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4700
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 462-6029
Email: rlinzer@kslaw.com
PURFOODS LLC: D'Angelo Files Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PurFoods, LLC. The
case is styled as Steven D'Angelo, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. PurFoods, LLC doing business as: Mom's
Meals, Case No. 4:23-cv-00358-RGE-SBJ (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 13, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Federal Trade
Commission Act (Unfair or Deceptive Acts).
PurFoods, LLC -- https://www.purfoods.com/ -- provides meal
delivery services. The Company offers food packaging, safety, and
delivery services to seniors, patients, and healthcare
organizations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
Brian O. Marty, Esq.
SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE P.C.
5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
West Des Moines, IA 50265
Phone: (515) 223-4567
Fax: (515) 223-8887
Email: goplerud@sagwlaw.com
marty@sagwlaw.com
PURFOODS LLC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Aldridge Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
LOGAN ALDRIDGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PURFOODS LLC D/B/A MOM'S MEALS, Defendant,
Case No. 4:23-cv-00357-SHL-WPK (S.D. Iowa, Sept. 13, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendant for its abject failure to
properly secure and to safeguard its network thereby allowing a
data breach to occur resulting in a tremendous amount of sensitive
and personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected
health information of the Plaintiff and the Class to be accessed
and compromised by third-party hackers.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that as a result of
PurFoods's inadequate security and breach of their duties and
obligations, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information
was accessed by third-party ransomware attackers who have the
intent to take that data and to sell it on the dark web, among
other things.
The Plaintiff and Class Members therefore face an imminent and
ongoing risk of identity theft, which is heightened here by the
loss of social security numbers—the gold standard for identity
thieves, the suit says.
PURFOODS, LLC provides meal delivery services. The Company offers
food packaging, safety, and delivery services to seniors, patients,
and healthcare organizations. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy M. Hansen, Esq.
HANSEN REYNOLDS LLC
301 N. Broadway, #400
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Telephone: (414) 273-8473
Email: thansen@hansenreynolds.com
- and -
Nicholas J. Mauro, Esq.
CARNEY & APPLEBY LAW FIRM
303 Locust St., #400
Des Moines, IA 50309
Telephone: (515) 282-6803
Email: mauro@carneyappleby.com
QUTOUTIAO INC: Pappas Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES PAPPAS is taking an appeal from a court order granting the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled Steven Burnham,
et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Qutoutiao Inc., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 20-cv-06707, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff
Steven Burnham seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Qutoutiao offers a
mobile application called "Qutoutiao" that aggregates articles and
short videos from professional media and freelancers and presents
customized feeds to users. On September 14, 2018, Qutoutiao's IPO
sold 13.8 million American Depository Shares (ADS) at a price of
$7.00 per share and raised $85.8 million.
Qutoutiao had allegedly overstated its revenues by recording
non-existent advances from advertising customers, allowed ads on
its platform promoting exaggerated or impossible claims from
weight-loss products and its app had been removed from domestic
Android app stores. As a result, Qutoutiao's shares traded as low
as $3.08 per share, nearly 56% decline from the $7 per share IPO
price. Burnham purchased Qutoutiao ADSs and lost as a result of
federal securities law violations.
On Jan. 15, 2021, Plaintiff James Pappas filed an amended class
action complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Mar. 16,
2021. The Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint asserts
violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of anyone who
(a) purchased or otherwise acquired QTT ADSs pursuant or traceable
to its September 2018 IPO; (b) purchased or otherwise acquired QTT
ADSs pursuant or traceable its April 2019 SPO; and/or (c) purchased
or otherwise acquired QTT securities between September 14, 2018 and
December 16, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
On Aug. 3, 2023, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss through an Order entered by Sidney H. Stein. The Court
finds that the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim. Accordingly, the
case was closed.
The appellate case is captioned In re QUTOUTIAO, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 23-1233, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, filed on September 5, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JAMES PAPPAS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Ivy T. Ngo, Esq.
FREEDMAN NORMAND FRIEDLAND LLP
1 SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 1240
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (786) 924-2900
Defendants-Appellees QUTOUTIAO INC., et al. are represented by:
George S. Wang, Esq.
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
425 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 455-2000
- and -
Jonathan Rosenberg, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Times Square Tower
7 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 408-2409
RAVEN3 HOME: Bid to Dismiss TCPA Class Action Denied
----------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman of TCPA World reports that Still some ongoing
debate around whether an offer to buy a home constitutes marketing
for TCPA purposes.
If it is not marketing then there can be no DNC claim.
The Court in Helfrich v. Raven3, 2023 WL 5956221 (S.D.N.Y. Sept.
13, 2023) concluded that such calls CAN constitute marketing, at
least where the purpose of the call is to profit from the sale of a
home buying service.
In Helfrich the Defendant allegedly made cold calls to home owners
asking if they were interested in selling their home. If so the
consumer would be connected with an interested buyer who might pay
cash for the home or otherwise help the home owner to quickly
sell–presumably at a below-market price.
The Defendant in Helfrich moved to dismiss arguing -- correctly --
that a mere offer to buy cannot constitute marketing. Marketing
requires a party to have offered a good or service for sale or
rent. So buying something is not marketing.
The Helfrich court disagreed and -- weighing in on the age old
debate -- concluded that offering a home service is offering a
service. And, unfortunately, the Court did not address the second
piece of the formulation -- that the service must be "for sale or
rent." Instead the court concluded:
Defendant allegedly called Plaintiff and other homeowners without
their consent and left pre-recorded voice messages offering to buy
their homes. (Compl. 18-21). Defendant's argument that these calls
and pre-recorded voice messages merely "encouraged the selling of
property, goods, or services" is not persuasive given the nature of
its business and is contrary to the allegations made in the
Complaint. (Def. Br. at 6). Indeed, Defendant's website refers to
sellers as "client[s]" and promotes itself as providing benefits to
sellers such as elimination of paperwork, time, and fees required
to sell a house through a real estate agent. (See Raven3 About Us
Webpage). Therefore, Plaintiff has plausibly pled that Defendant's
calls and pre-recorded voice messages advertise the commercial
availability of its house-buying service and constitute
advertisements within the meaning of the TCPA. Defendant for its
part has offered nothing, at this stage of the litigation, for the
Court to conclude to the contrary.
So there you go.
Notably the calls at issue were prerecorded so it does not matter
whether they were marketing or not -- prerecorded calls are
automatically and ALWAYS subject to the TCPA's consent rules, at
least when made to a cell phone. No marketing content required.
Couple of take aways here:
Courts continue to struggle with the "an offer to buy is not
marketing" rule. So watch out;
Cold calls of any kind are likely to draw lawsuits–especially
PRERECORDED cold calls. Don't do it!;
Folks offering to buy houses for cash have seen a big uptick in
litigation recently. Be cautious with your process and thoughtful
about how you are engaging in outreach.
Also on September 15, 2023 is the VERY LAST DAY to get on the
Deserve to Win magazine mailing list free FOR life. As of September
16, 2023 you will only be able to buy an issue on our swag store
website. [GN]
REALPAGE INC: Haynes Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Maya Haynes, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. RealPage, Inc., BH Management
Services, LLC, Cortland Partners, LLC, Pinnacle Property Management
Services, LLC, Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC, Highmark
Residential, LLC, Independence Realty Trust, Inc., Lincoln Property
Co., Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc., Morgan Properties
Management Company, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03813 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on
Sept. 13, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00979 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.
RealPage -- https://www.realpage.com/ -- provides data analytics,
property management software, and services to efficiently manage
rental properties and real estate.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jennifer W. Sprengel, Esq.
Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
Alexander Sweatman, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 312-782-4880
Facsimile: 312-782-4485
Email: jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com
dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
asweatman@caffertyclobes.com
- and -
Amanda Boltax, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street, Ste. 300
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 540-7200
- and -
Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq.
Michael Srodoski, Esq.
G. Dustin Foster, Esq.
Isabella De Lisi, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
156 South Main Street
P.O. Box 192
Colchester, CT 06145
Phone: (860) 537-5537
Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
Email: pmcgahan@scott-scott.com
alawrence@scott-scott.com
msrodoski@scott-scott.com
gfoster@scott-scott.com
idelisi@scott-scott.com
- and -
Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq.
Tricia R. Herzfeld, Esq.
Anthony A. Orlandi, Esq.
HERZFELD SUETHOLZ GASTEL LENISKI AND WALL, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 300
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 800-6225
Email: ben@hsglawgroup.com
tricia@hsglawgroup.com
tony@hsglawgroup.com
- and -
Benjamin J. Widlanski, Esq.
Javier A. Lopez, Esq.
KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP
2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Phone: (305) 372-1800
Email: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com
jal@kttlaw.com
- and -
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Breanna Van Engelen, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, Washington 98101
Phone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
breannav@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Brendan P. Glackin, Esq.
Dean M. Harvey, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, Ste. 2900
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415-956-1000
Email: bglackin@lchb.com
dharvey@lchb.com
- and -
Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
Steven N. Williams, Esq.
Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
Kevin E. Rayhill, Esq.
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94108
Phone: (415) 500-6800
Email: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com
krayhill@saverilawfirm.com
- and -
Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
Carmen A. Medici, Esq.
Fatima Brizuela, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 West Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 798-5325
Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
Email: pcoughlin@scott-scott.com
cmedici@scott-scott.com
fbrizuela@scott-scott.com
- and -
Christian P. Levis, Esq.
Vincent Briganti, Esq.
Peter Demato, Esq.
Radhika Gupta, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Phone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
Email: vbriganti@lowey.com
clevis@lowey.com
pdemato@lowey.com
rgupta@lowey.com
- and -
Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
Walter W. Noss, Esq.
Yifan (Kate) Lv, Esq.
KOREIN TILLERY P.C.
707 Broadway, Suite 1410
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 625-5621
Facsimile (314) 241-3525
Email: cburke@koreintillery.com
wnoss@koreintillery.com
klv@koreintillery.com
- and -
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
Daniel J. Nordin, Esq.
Shashi K. Gowda, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South Sixth Street, Ste. 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: 612-333-8844
Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
dnordin@gustafsongluek.com
sgowda@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Daniel J. Walker, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 559-9745
Email: dwalker@bm.net
- and -
Dennis Stewart, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
600 W. Broadway, Ste. 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-595-3299
Email: dstewart@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
Michaela L. Wallin, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 875-3000
Email: ecramer@bm.net
mwallin@bm.net
- and -
Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 633-1908
Email: gsmith@hausfeld.com
- and -
Stacey Slaughter, Esq.
Thomas J. Undlin, Esq.
Geoffrey H. Kozen, Esq.
Stephanie A. Chen, Esq.
J. Austin Hurt, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 349-8500
Facsimile: (612) 339-4181
Email: sslaughter@robinskaplan.com
tundlin@robinskaplan.com
gkozen@robinskaplan.com
ahurt@robinskaplan.com
- and -
Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
Hannah R. Lazarz, Esq.
Kenneth S. Byrd, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
222 2nd Avenue South, Ste. 1640
Nashville, TN 37201
Phone: (615) 313-9000
Email: mchalos@lchb.com
hlazarz@lchb.com
kbyrd@lchb.com
- and -
Katie R. Beran, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
325 Chestnut Street, Suite 900
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: 1 215 985 3270
Email: kberan@hausfeld.com
- and -
Swathi Bojedla, Esq.
Mandy Boltax, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 540-7200
Email: sbojedla@hausfeld.com
mboltax@hausfeld.co
RECKITT BENCKISER: Barton Sues Over Ineffective Nasal Decongestant
------------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Barton, Kimberly Buscaglia, Francis W. Catanese, and Samuel
Gallo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. RECKITT BENCKISER LLC; KENVUE, INC.; MCNEIL CONSUMER HEALTHCARE;
PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY; GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC; and WALGREENS INC.,
Case No. 2:23-cv-20370 (D.N.J., Sept. 14, 2023), is brought seek
damages and equitable relief, individually and on behalf of all
other Class members, for Defendants' sales of products to be taken
orally containing phenylephrine, a compound that purportedly acts
as a decongestant, but that Defendants have long known does no such
thing.
Phenylephrine is one of two compounds found in nasal decongestants
administered orally and offered for sale on store shelves. The
other compound is pseudoephedrine. While pseudoephedrine is
effective as a decongestant, purchasing pseudoephedrine is often
inconvenient for a consumer: because pseudoephedrine has been used
as an ingredient in illicit methamphetamine laboratories, products
containing it are usually placed behind store counters or in locked
cabinets, and purchasers are sometimes forced to leave personal
information every time they purchase it or are otherwise limited in
the number of pseudoephedrine-containing medications they can buy.
Consumers are naturally attracted to a decongestant that could be
purchased without intendant inconvenience.
By contrast, phenylephrine-containing products have no such
restrictions and are not subject to a highly inconvenient buying
process. Phenylephrine is found in many popular over-the-counter
oral medications that purportedly act as decongestants--the
"Decongestant Products"--including such popular products produced
by Defendants as Mucinex Sinus Max (Reckitt Benckiser), Sudafed PE
(Kenvue 1/McNeil Consumer Healthcare), Tylenol Cold & Flu Severe
(Kenvue/McNeil); Benadryl Allergy Plus (Kenvue/McNeil); Theraflu
(GlaxoSmithKline); Nyquil Severe Cold & Flu (Procter & Gamble
Company); along with more generic Decongestant Products produced
and sold by Defendant Walgreens.
Last year alone, nearly $1.8 billion in sales of phenylephrine
containing purported decongestants were made in the United States
across more than 250 products, accounting for approximately 80% of
the market for over-the-counter decongestants. Unknown to the
public, but known to the manufacturers in this lucrative market,
phenylephrine taken orally is ineffective. It provides no relief
for congestion, and is no better than a placebo, like a sugar pill,
as a decongestant when taken orally.
Since at least 2007, scientific studies using modern testing
methodologies and rigors have, time and again, shown that
phenylephrine taken orally is ineffective. However, rather than
acknowledge the truth of these studies, manufacturers, like
Defendants, have continued to market and sell their products with
phenylephrine as effective decongestant medicine.
Had Plaintiffs known that the phenylephrine-containing products
were entirely ineffective as a nasal decongestant, they would not
have purchased them, or would have paid substantially less for
them. Accordingly, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all
other purchasers of Defendants' phenylephrine products, seek to
hold Defendants accountable for their deceptions, breaches of
warranties, and violations of consumer protection statutes.
Defendants knew these products were ineffectual. They marketed and
sold them anyway, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs had sinus congestions and purchased a product
manufactured by the Defendants containing phenylephrine for
purported decongestant relief.
Reckitt Benckiser LLC is a Delaware limited liability corporation
with its headquarters and principal place of business located in
Parsippany, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: (973) 994-1700
Email: jcecchi@carellabyme.com
- and -
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
Ten North Dearbom Street
Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 214-7900
Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
SEEGER LLP
55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
Phone: (973) 639-9100
Email: cseegef@seegenveiss.com
- and -
Paul J. Geller, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Phone: (561) 750-3000
Email: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
REGENCY MANAGEMENT: Gallegos Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Gallegos, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. REGENCY MANAGEMENT XLIX, INC. DBA REGENCY
MANAGEMENT; BRIDGE MANAGEMENT XIII DBA BRIDGE MANAGEMENT; GOLDEN
MANAGEMENT SERVICES XLIX, INC. DBA GOLDEN MANAGEMENT; PRO
MANAGEMENT COMPANY XIV, INC. DBA PRO MANAGEMENT; PAMA MANAGEMENT,
INC.; I.E. RENTAL HOMES, INC.; LEGACY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
INC.; EQUITY MANAGEMENT INC; SCOTT BROWN; MICHAEL NIJJAR; MICHAEL
BROWN; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV22143
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 13, 2023), is brought
under the Private Attorneys General Act Of 2004 and the California
Labor Code as a result of the Defendants failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover, among other things, penalties from
unpaid wages earned and due, including but not limited to unpaid
minimum wages and unpaid wages, unpaid and illegally calculated
overtime compensation, illegal meal and rest period policies,
illegal rent reimbursement, failure to timely pay wages, failure to
pay all wages due to discharged or quitting employees, failure to
maintain required records, failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements, failure to indemnify employees for necessary
expenditures and/or losses incurred in discharging their duties,
and interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of California who was
employed by the Defendants as non-exempt employee.
The Defendants is a company authorized to do business in the State
of California and doing business in the State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shoham J. Solouki, Esq.
Grant Joseph Savoy, Esq.
SOLOUKI | SAVOY, LLP
316 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: (213) 814-4940
Facsimile: (213) 814-2550
Email: info@soloukisavoy.com
- and -
Dan B. Yakobian, Esq.
DBY LAW
3250 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 706
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: 213.316.8844
Facsimile: 213.618.4466
Email: dan@bigdlaw.com
RESIDENT HOME: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resident Home LLC.
The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Resident Home LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-08129 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Resident Home -- https://www.residenthome.com/ -- offers
mattresses, bed frames, bedroom furniture& other bedding products
for every type of sleeper.[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
ROB BONTA: Court Denies as Moot Welchen Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY WAYNE WELCHEN, v. ROB
BONTA, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00185-TLN-DB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an order on the following injunctive
relief:
-- The Sheriff and Attorney General, in its role as supervisor
over
the Sheriff, are enjoined from using or enforcing the 2016
Sacramento County pre-arraignment bail schedule at issue in
the
instant case, as well as any subsequent pre-arraignment bail
schedules in Sacramento County that set specific dollar
amounts
for bail by reference solely to criminal charges, without
allowing defendants to modify an amount by making an
individualized determination as to the arrestee’s ability
to
pay, risk of nonappearance, or threat of public safety before
trial.
In addition, the Court denies as moot Plaintiff’s Motion for
Class Certification.
The Plaintiff indicates he seeks only declaratory and injunctive
relief. As such, the Court's orders grant Plaintiff and any
potential class members complete relief.
On September 22, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff Gary Wayne
Welchen's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against Defendant Rob
Bonta, in his official capacity as Attorney General of California,
and Defendant Jim Cooper, in his official capacity as the
Sacramento County Sheriff.
More specifically, the Court found Sacramento County’s
pre-arraignment bail schedule -- which sets specific dollar amounts
for bail by reference solely to criminal charges, without allowing
defendants to modify an amount by making an individualized
determination as to the arrestee's ability to pay, risk of
nonappearance, or threat of public safety before trial -- violated
Plaintiff's substantive due process rights.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rhKJBn at no extra charge.[CC]
ROSEBUD ECONOMIC: Huntley Appeals Arbitration Order to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
KATEY HUNTLEY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
granting Defendant 777 Partners LLC's motion to compel arbitration
and motion to dismiss in the lawsuit entitled Katey Huntley, et
al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Rosebud Economic Development Corporation, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01172-L-MMP, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on Aug. 22,
2022, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against the
Defendants asserting violations of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962, the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"); 47
U.S.C. Section 227 the Telephone Consumer Protection Act;
California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. C. Sections
17200 et seq.; and California's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, Cal. Civ. C. Sections 1788, et seq.
On Nov. 17, 2022, Defendant 777 Partners LLC filed a motion to
compel arbitration and motion to dismiss. On Jan. 6, 2023, the
Plaintiffs filed Oppositions to the motion to compel arbitration
and motion to dismiss.
On Aug. 11, 2023, the Court granted 777 Partners' motion to compel
arbitration and denied its motion to dismiss as moot through an
Order entered by Judge M. James Lorenz.
Judge Lorenz held that non-signatory 777 may compel arbitration
because the claims are intimately founded in and intertwined with
the underlying contract and the signatory alleges substantially
independent and concerted misconduct by the non-signatory and
another signatory and the allegations of interdependent misconduct
are found in or intimately connected with the obligations of the
underlying agreement. Moreover, the Plaintiffs have failed to show
that the substantive law of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe is contrary to
California's policy on usury, or that the arbitrator will not apply
California law to those claims. Therefore, the choice of law
provision does not violate California's choice of law framework.
The appellate case is captioned Katey Huntley, et al. v. Rosebud
Economic Development Corporation, et al., Case No. 23-55765, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on
September 8, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants Katey Huntley and Gary Jackson Mediation
Questionnaire was due on September 15, 2023; and
-- Appellants Katey Huntley and Gary Jackson opening brief is
due on November 9, 2023;
-- Appellees 777 Partners, LLC, Fintech Financial, LLC, Rosebud
Economic Development Corporation, Rosebud Lending LZO and Tactical
Marketing Partners, LLC answering brief is due on December 11,
2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants KATEY HUNTLEY, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Jason Ibey, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
321 N. Mall Drive, Suite R108
St. George, UT 84790
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
- and -
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
- and -
Ahren A. Tiller, Esq.
BLC LAW CENTER, APC
1230 Columbia St., Suite 1100
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 894-8831
Defendants-Appellees ROSEBUD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, et
al. are represented by:
Artin Betpera, Esq.
BUCHALTER, APC
18400 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 760-1121
- and -
Patrick O. Daugherty, Esq.
VAN NESS FELDMAN, LLP
1050 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 298-1810
SAN FRANCISCO AIDS: Ellenburg-Wiley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against San Francisco Aids
Foundation, et al. The case is styled as Andrew Ellenburg-Wiley, on
behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated
v. The Computer Merchant, LTD., Does 1-50, Case No. CGC23609040
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Sept. 13, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
The San Francisco AIDS Foundation -- https://www.sfaf.org/ -- is a
nonprofit organization dedicated to providing services for people
with HIV/AIDS, with a mission to end the AIDS epidemic in the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shani O. Zakay, Esq.
ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
5440 Morehouse Dr., Ste. 3600
San Diego, CA 92121-6720
Phone: 619-255-9047
Fax: 858-404-9203
Email: shani@zakaylaw.com
SAN FRANCISCO OPERA: Benitez Suit Removed to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Rogeberto Benitez, an individual, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. HYATT
CORPORATION, a Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
37-2023-00028524-CU-OE-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego, to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California on Sept. 14, 2023,
and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01696-JLS-AHG.
The Complaint asserts ten causes of action for violation of the
California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code,
set forth as: unfair competition; failure to pay minimum wages;
failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide required meal
periods; failure to provide required rest periods; failure to
provide accurate itemized statements; failure to reimburse
employees for required expenses; failure to provide wages when due;
failure to pay sick pay wages; and failure to provide gratuities in
Violation of California Labor Code and the Applicable IWC Wage
Order.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Brian P. Long, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793
Phone: (213) 270-9600
Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
Email: bplong@seyfarth.com
- and -
Michael Afar, Esq.
Sofya Perelshteyn, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
Email: mafar@seyfarth.com
sperelshteyn@seyfarth.com
SAN FRANCISCO OPERA: Hooks Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Leighland Hooks, and others similarly situated
v. SAN FRANCISCO OPERA ASSOCIATION, a California corporation; and
DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. CGC-23-608130 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco,
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on Sept. 13, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-04703.
The complaint alleges claims for unpaid overtime in violation of
the California Labor Code; unpaid meal premiums in violation of the
California Labor Code; unpaid rest period premiums in violation of
the California Labor Code; unpaid minimum wages in violation of the
California Labor Code; failure to pay timely final wages in
violation of the California Labor Code; failure to pay timely wages
in violation of the California Labor Code; non-compliant wage
statements in violation of the California Labor Code; failure to
keep requisite payroll records in violation of the California Labor
Code; failure to reimburse business expenses in violation of the
California Labor Code; and unfair business practices in violation
of the California Business & Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Nick C. Geannacopulos, Esq.
Timothy M. Hoppe, Esq.
Andrew Cohen, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 397-2823
Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
Email: negeannacopulos@seyfarth.com
thoppe@seyfarth.com
acohen@seyfarth.com
SEA WORLD: Morgan Suit Removed to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Bruce Morgan, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. SEA WORLD LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,
Case No. 49D01-2308-PL-031254 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of San Diego, to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on Sept. 13, 2023, and assigned Case No.
3:23-cv-01692-RBM-SBC.
The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges seven causes of action, including
Failure to Pay Wages for all Hours Worked at Minimum Wage; Failure
to Pay Overtime Wages for Daily Overtime Worked; Failure to
Authorize or Permit Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit
Rest Periods; Failure to Provide Complete and Accurate Wage
Statements; Failure to Timely Pay All Earned Wages and Final
Paychecks Due at the Time of Separation of Employment; and
Violation of Unfair Competition Laws.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Aaron H. Cole, Esq.
Catherine L. Brackett, Esq.
Sona P. Patel, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213-239-9800
Facsimile: 213-239-9045
Email: aaron.cole@ogletree.com
catherine.brackett@ogletree.com
sona.patel@ogletree.com
SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Made Unsolicited Calls, Beaudreault Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
TAMMY BEAUDREAULT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE SERVICES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:23-cv-61745-RS (S.D. Fla., Sept. 11,
2023) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited
calls.
SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. provides insurance agent and
broker services. The Company offers auto and home, life, and
medical insurance. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Geoffrey J. Moul, Esq.
MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
1114 Dublin Road
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 488-0400
Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
Email: moul@mmmb.com
SELENE FINANCE: Fails to Provide Requested Info, Estrella Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Estrela and Heather Estrela, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. Selene Finance LP, Case No.
1:23-cv-12105 (D. Mass., Sept. 13, 2023) alleges that the Defendant
failed to conduct a "reasonable investigation" of the Plaintiffs'
account and also failed to provide the Plaintiffs with a complete
record of the Plaintiffs' file in response to a qualified written
request, in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has allegedly failed to
fulfill its duty to provide information available to it in the
regular course of business to the Plaintiffs upon receipt of the
Plaintiffs' a Qualified Written Request or a Request for
Information. The Defendant has demonstrated a "pattern or practice"
of failing to adequately respond to borrowers' requests for account
information, which makes the Defendant liable for statutory damages
in an amount up to $2,000 for each failure to adequately respond.
On February 6, 2023, the Plaintiffs, through counsel, mailed a QWR
via certified mail to the Defendant. The Plaintiffs' QWR was mailed
with a signed authorization to furnish and release information to
their counsel. The QWR was received by the Defendant on February
21, 2023. The. Defendant did not provide a written response
acknowledging receipt of the Plaintiff's correspondence within five
days, as required by 12 U.S.C. section 2605(e)(1)(A).
The Plaintiffs' counsel received a letter from the Defendant dated
March 2, 2023, in which the Defendant indicated that the Defendant
would be directing all correspondence to the Plaintiffs' firm and
provided some documentation and information regarding the
Servicing Transfer Information from Selene, Validation of Debt
Notice, Note, Mortgage Instrument/Deed of Trust, etc. However, the
Defendant failed to provide any of the requested audio recordings
or transcripts of said recordings. Despite the Plaintiffs informing
Defendant of its failure, the Defendant continues to incorrectly
state that the recordings are "privileged or proprietary," says the
suit.
Plaintiffs Estrella are residents and citizens of Bristol County,
in the State of Massachusetts.
Selene Finance is a residential mortgage servicing company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicola S. Yousif, Esq.
Matthew McKenna, Esq.
SHIELD LAW, LLC
157 Belmont St.
Brockton, MA 02301
Telephone: (508) 588-7300
E-mail: nick@shieldlaw.com
matt@shieldlaw.com
SHOREWOOD FOREST: $47.7K in Atty. Fees Awarded in Stratford Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge John E. Martin of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, grants Stratford
Insurance Company's notice of itemization of attorneys' fees and
orders the reimbursement of $47,711 in attorney fees in the lawsuit
captioned STRATFORD INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff v. SHOREWOOD FOREST
UTILITIES, INC., et al., Defendants; CARLOTTA HOLMES and GREG
SCHAFER, Counterclaim Plaintiffs v. STRATFORD INSURANCE CO.,
Counterclaim Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00372-PPS-JEM (N.D.
Ind.).
The matter is before the Court on Stratford's Notice of Itemization
of Attorneys' Fees Pursuant to Order Regarding Class Plaintiffs'
and SFU's Motions to Compel Party Discovery, filed on May 15, 2023.
Greg Schafer and Carlotta Holmes and Shorewood Forest Utilities,
Inc., filed responses addressing the requests on May 30, 2023, and
on June 5, 2023, Stratford filed a reply in support of their fee
request.
Stratford Insurance Company issued an insurance policy to Shorewood
Forest Utilities (SFU). The board of SFU ("Former Board")
investigated the possibility of expanding its subdivision to add
homes with Rex Properties. SFU and Rex Properties formed an
agreement to expand the sewer system to support the new
development. Community members, who were opposed to the
development, including named Plaintiffs Greg Schafer and Carlotta
Holmes ("S&H"), filed a class action lawsuit in state court.
After the lawsuit was filed, a number of those class action
members, including Schafer and Holmes, were elected to the SFU
board in an election (the "New Board"). The New Board voted to
rescind the sewer agreement. Eventually, a consent judgment was
entered between the class action Plaintiffs and SFU, one of the
Defendants in the case, but not with the Former Board defendants.
The consent judgment included a covenant promising that the class
action Plaintiffs would only seek enforcement of payment of the
judgment against Stratford as SFU's insurer and not against any
other parties. The class action is still proceeding against the
Former Board in state court. A number of other lawsuits were also
filed in state court, some of which were removed to federal court.
In the instant Complaint, filed Oct. 15, 2020, Stratford claims it
did not agree to the consent judgment in the state court class
action lawsuit filed by S&H on behalf of SFU and seeks a
declaration that it has no obligation regarding the consent
judgment. After a motion to dismiss was granted in part on Sept.
27, 2021, the declaratory judgment claims regarding the extent of
Stratford's insurance obligations remain, as do counterclaims
against Stratford for bad faith, breach of contract, and abuse of
process, arising out of the consent judgment and other state court
suits.
On Sept. 2, 2022, the Court denied S&H's previous motion to compel,
finding that it was premature and warning the parties of the need
to work together to resolve their discovery disputes without
involving the Court. S&H filed another to compel discovery from
Stratford in November, and SFU also filed a motion to compel
discovery from Stratford.
Two motions to quash non-party depositions of attorneys noticed by
S&H, another motion to compel filed by S&H, and a motion to strike
filed by S&H (not subject to the instant fees request) were also
filed and briefed between Nov. 2, 2022, and Feb. 3, 2023, totaling
hundreds of pages of briefs and exhibits. Only a month after the
last motion was fully briefed, S&H filed a motion to expedite
ruling on the pending motions.
On May 1, 2023, the Court entered orders denying S&H's motion to
compel discovery from SFU, denying both S&H's and SFU's motions to
compel discovery from Stratford and quashing the depositions of
non-party attorneys that S&H sought. As relates to the instant fee
request, the Court directed Stratford to file itemizations of its
costs and fees incurred in defending against the motions to compel
filed by S&H and SFU.
Stratford seeks $35,413 in attorney fees from S&H and SFU,
representing 142 attorney hours at rates ranging from $235 to $260
per hour, and an additional $4,862 for preparing the fee petition
and $7,436 to create the briefs responding to SFU and S&H's
arguments. In response to the fee petitions, S&H and SFU request
that the Court reconsider the order. They both argue that the
requested discovery is necessary and not protected by privilege.
SFU again argues that Rex Properties LLC is not a member of the
common interest group, so the information being sought in its
motion to compel is not privileged and it was substantially
justified in filing the motion. Likewise, S&H reiterate their
argument that Stratford and Rex Properties communicated about
settlement without informing SFU or S&H, so they were justified in
seeking discovery from Stratford and continue to insist that
communications between Stratford and Rex's counsel are not
privileged.
Continued reiteration of what SFU and S&H want the relationship
between the entities to be does not mean that exists, their
continued argument that Stratford was asserting a common interest
privilege with Rex Properties is inconsistent with the privilege
actually being claimed as laid out in the privilege log, and those
assertions and arguments were not substantially justified, Judge
Martin opines. Likewise, S&H's arguments about the alleged
collusion of the attorneys, unsupported by evidence of collusion,
remain insufficient to overcome the presumption against requiring
disclosure of privileged information, including attorney-client
information and communications made during negotiations and
mediation.
Neither SFU nor S&H object to the hourly rate charged by
Stratford's attorneys. S&H argues that the petition fails to
include detailed itemized attorney time to determine what time was
legitimately billed. SFU and S&H both argue that the imposition of
fees is unjust and that the time billed by Stratford's attorneys is
disproportionate and excessive, and SFU argues that the time spent
responding to the motion to compel was more time than necessary.
However, Judge Martin finds the billing statements included with
the requests appear adequately itemized to determine that, although
a lot of time was billed, the time appears to have been spent
primarily addressing the privilege contentions and the numerous
pages of arguments made by S&H and SFU.
S&H also argue that awarding fees would be a financial burden on
them since they are self-funding the class action litigation and
the counterclaim filed in the instant case. They do not argue that
they are completely unable to pay, and the Court notes that the
extensive briefing that they filed contributed to the number of
hours Stratford worked to respond to it.
The Court finds that an award of fees as requested by Stratford is
appropriate, including the time spent on the fee petition and other
briefing with respect to the request.
Accordingly, the Court grants Stratford's Notice of Itemization of
Attorneys' Fees Pursuant to Order Regarding Class Plaintiffs' and
SFU's Motions to Compel Party Discovery and orders counsel for
Schafer and Holmes and counsel for Shorewood Forest Utilities to
arrange for the reimbursement, within a reasonable time, of $47,711
in attorney fees to Stratford incurred in defending against their
motions to compel.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Sept. 11,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr3py5ty from
PacerMonitor.com.
SOCIAL CATFISH: Faces Class Suit Over Publicity Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Beasley of Cook County Record reports that a new class action
lawsuit has accused online background report service Social Catfish
of violating an Illinois right of publicity law by using people's
names and other personal information to sell their products.
The company's practices allegedly violate the Illinois Right of
Publicity Act, according to the lawsuit in Cook County Circuit
Court filed by named plaintiffs Leroy Jacobs and Jocelyn Roberts.
The law, enacted in 1999, prohibits anyone from "using an
individual's identity for commercial purposes during the
individual's lifetime without having obtained previous written
consent from the appropriate person," the lawsuit states.
Social Catfish offers users a free search of a person's name and
demographic information, the suit claims.
"The purpose of Social Catfish's free preview is simple: to
advertise a monthly subscription that allows one to access and
retrieve unlimited reports detailing various data points on anyone
contained in the Social Catfish's database, including pictures,
phone numbers, home addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, job
histories, and social media profiles," the lawsuit states.
In 2023, Jacobs allegedly "discovered that Social Catfish was using
his identity to solicit the purchase of paid subscriptions to
SocialCatfish.com," the suit says. "On its marketing page, Social
Catfish specifically identified Plaintiff Jacobs by his first and
last name, along with his current and former city of residence.. At
no point did Plaintiff Jacobs provide Social Catfish with consent
(written or otherwise) to use any attribute of his identity to
advertise paid subscriptions to SocialCatfish.com, or for any other
commercial purposes."
Jacobs has never been a SocialCatfish customer, according to the
suit.
"He has never subscribed to SocialCatfish.com or had a relationship
of any kind with Social Catfish," according to the lawsuit.
Roberts allegedly had a similar experience with the company, the
suit said.
The lawsuit seeks to include a class of additional plaintiffs,
including all "Illinois residents whose identities were displayed
on Social Catfish's marketing page" within the past year.
The lawsuit seeks either actual damages from the alleged violations
of the law or $1,000 per violation, whichever is greater, plus
attorney fees and legal costs.
The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Keith J. Keogh and
Gregg M. Barbakoff, of Keogh Law, of Chicago. [GN]
SOUTHEAST CONNECTIONS: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON STALLWORTH and, JAHLEEL WILSON on behalf of themselves and
all similarly situated persons v. SOUTHEAST CONNECTIONS LLC., Case
No. 1:23-cv-04106-LMM (N.D. Ga., Sept. 13, 2023) is a collective
action for unpaid overtime and straight time minimum wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs contend that Defendant required the Collective
Members including Mr. Wilson and Mr. Stallworth to arrive at its
facility at 6:30 AM to begin work, such as loading the truck for
the day. However, the Defendant did not start counting Collective
Members' compensable time until 7:00 AM. The Plaintiffs and other
Collective Members worked an average of 15-30 minutes off the clock
each morning. After they finished working at the job site each day,
Collective Members including Mr. Stallworth and Mr. Wilson returned
from the job site to the Defendant's facility riding in a company
vehicle.
Per Collective-wide policy and practice, the Defendant only deemed
the crew member who drove the truck back to the facility to be on
the clock. The other crew members, riding back to the same facility
from the same job site in the same company truck were, per
Defendant's policy and practice, deemed off the clock and therefore
no longer paid once work at the job site ended. Thus, non-driving
Plaintiffs and other Collective Members worked an additional 45-60
minutes, and often much longer, off the clock each day during their
return trips from the work site to the Defendant's facility in
company vehicles, the lawsuit alleges.
The Plaintiffs and other Collective members are entitled to
recover: straight time minimum wages for uncompensated off the
clock work under 40 hours per work week; overtime wages at 1.5
times their regular hourly rates for uncompensated off the clock
hours exceeding 40 hours per work week, liquidated damages equal to
their unpaid straight and overtime wages, and their attorneys' fees
and costs.
The Plaintiffs bring the action on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated current and former employees of Defendant:
Laborers, Pipefitters, Foreman, and other workers whom Defendant
compensated on an hourly basis.
Mr. Stallworth was employed with the Defendant from May 2019
through April 2023. He began his employment as a Pipefitter and
became a Foreman in June 2021.
Mr. Wilson was employed as laborer by the Defendant from April 2020
through April 2022.
The Defendant is an energy infrastructure contractor focused on the
natural gas industry. Its primary businesses are constructing and
replacing pipelines, natural gas and liquids facilities
maintenance, horizontal directional drilling, and sewer
Inspections.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steven E. Wolfe, Esq.
Marissa R. Torgerson, Esq.
LEGARE, ATTWOOD & WOLFE, LLC
Two Decatur Town Center, Suite 380
125 Clairemont Ave.
Decatur, GA 30030
Telephone: (470) 823-4000
Facsimile: (470) 201-121
E-mail: sewolfe@law-llc.com
mrtorgerson@law-llc.com
SOVOS COMPLIANCE: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Stadnik Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
SERGEI STADNIK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SOVOS COMPLIANCE, LLC, Case caption, Case No.
1:23-cv-12100-DLC (D. Mass., Sept. 13, 2023) alleges that the
Defendant fails to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's
and other similarly situated individuals' names, dates of birth,
Social Security numbers, and account numbersfrom hackers.
On July 13, 2023, Sovos filed its first of three official notices
of data security incident with the Maine Attorney General, followed
by another notice on August 23, 2023, and September 5, 2023.
On August 30, 2023, Sovos also sent out data breach notice letters
to individuals whose Private Information was compromised as a
result of the cyber attack. Based on the Notice, Sovos detected
unusual activity on some of its computer systems on May 31, 2023.
The Defendant's investigation revealed that unauthorized third
parties had accessed certain files that contained sensitive
clients' customer's information.
At the time of this filing, Defendant has not disclosed how long
the unauthorized users had access to the Plaintiff's and
approximately 215,114 other individuals highly sensitive private
information stored on the Defendant's systems. As a result of
Defendant's inability to timely detect the Data Breach, the
Plaintiff and "Class Members" had no idea for more than two months
that their Private Information had been compromised, and that they
were at significant risk of experiencing identity theft and various
other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. This
substantial and imminent risk will remain for their respective
lifetimes. There has also been no assurance offered by the
Defendant that all personal data or copies of data have been
recovered or destroyed, or that the Defendant has adequately
enhanced its data security practices sufficient to avoid a similar
breach of its network in the future, the Plaintiff claims.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class,
asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and
declaratory and injunctive relief.
Plaintiff Sergei Stadnik is an individual citizen of the State of
Arizona.
Sovos is a global digital regulatory compliance organization
incorporated in Wilmington.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christina Xenides, Esq.
Mason A. Barney, Esq.
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
1005 Congress Avenue, Suite 925-C36
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 265-5622
E-mail: cxenides@sirillp.com
mbarney@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.com
SPEARS MANUFACTURING: Estrada Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spears Manufacturing
Co., et al. case is styled as Jaime Estrada, an individual on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and the
general public v. Spears Manufacturing Co., Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2023-0009772 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Sept.
13, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Spears Manufacturing Company -- https://www.spearsmfg.com/ -- has
been an industry leader in the highest-quality Plastic Fittings,
Valves, Pipe and Solvent Cement Products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Yeremian, Esq.
DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
2540 Foothill Blvd., Ste. 201
La Crescenta, CA 91214-4583
Phone: 818-230-8380
Fax: 818-230-0308
Email: david@yeremianlaw.com
STATE FARM: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Clippinger Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO. is taking an appeal from
court orders in the lawsuit entitled Jessica Clippinger, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. State
Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 2:20-cv-02482, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Tennessee Court of Common Pleas for
Allegheny County to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee, alleges that Defendant State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company violates its insurance contracts and
Tennessee law by paying its insureds less than the actual cash
value of their loss vehicles. The Plaintiff brings claims for
breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, and for a declaratory judgment that the Defendant's
actions breached its insurance contracts and violated Tennessee
law.
On Mar. 17, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class.
On June 2, 2023, the Defendants filed motions to exclude the report
and testimony of Kirk Felix and of Jason Merritt, two of the
Plaintiff's experts.
On Aug. 25, 2023, Judge Thomas L. Parker granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiff's motion to certify class and denied the
Defendants' motions to exclude the report and testimony of the
Plaintiff's experts. The Court granted the Plaintiff's motion to
certify the State Farm class, but denied without prejudice the
Plaintiff's motion to certify the Audatex Class. Judge Parker
agreed with the Plaintiff saying "the damages suffered are small
when compared to the expense and burden of individual litigation"
and that "a class action is therefore superior here."
The appellate case is captioned In re: State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company, Case No. 23-0508, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on September 8, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent JESSICA CLIPPINGER, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
Law Office
3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175
Orlando, FL 32803
Telephone: (407) 603-6031
Defendant-Petitioner STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
is represented by:
Peter W. Herzog, III, Esq.
Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, Esq.
211 N. Broadway, Suite 2825
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 326-4129
TEXAS HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arthur Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
DAVID ARTHUR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, TEXAS HEALTH RESOURCES, Defendant, Case No.
4:23-cv-00817 (E.D. Tex., Sept. 13, 2023) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Arthur was employed by the Defendant as a computerized
tomography technologist.
Texas Health Resources operates as a non-profit healthcare
organization. The Organization offers asthma, behavioral health,
cancer, cardiac rehabilitation, diabetes, fitness, vascular,
hospice care, kidney transplant, maternity, gynecology,
orthopedics, pain management, pediatrics, and pharmacy services.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Javier Perez, Esq.
PEREZ LAW PLLC
One Energy Square
4925 Greenville Avenue, Suite 1450
Dallas, Texas 75206
Telephone: (214) 499-0667
Facsimile: (214) 550-2566
Email: javier@javierperezlaw.com
- and -
Tetteh Quaynor, Esq.
QUAYNOR LEGAL SERVICES, PLLC
5465 Legacy Drive, Suite 650
Plano, TX 75024
Telephone: (469) 573-4739
Email: quaynor.tetteh@qlslegal.com
TILRAY INC: Bid for Reconsideration in Securities Suit Gets OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP of JD Supra reports that on August 21,
2023, Judge Paul A. Crotty of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York granted a motion for
reconsideration of his denial of an earlier motion to dismiss a
putative securities class action against a pharmaceutical and
cannabis company that sells cannabis, hemp, and related products
(the "Company") and certain of its officers (the "Individual
Defendants"). Kasilingam et al. v. Tilray Inc., et al., No.
1:20-cv-03459 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2023). Based on the Court's
reconsidered analysis, the Court granted defendants' second motion
to dismiss. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by making false and
misleading statements to inflate the Company's stock price.
The Company's predecessor was allegedly formed in 2014 as a
subsidiary of a holding company formed by the CEO and two
non-parties (the "Kennedy Group") to invest in the cannabis
industry. According to plaintiffs, over time, the Kennedy Group
privately sold economic interests in the holding company but
retained voting control through "supervoting" shares. In July 2018,
at the time of the Company's initial public offering, the holding
company allegedly purchased the majority of the shares. Plaintiffs
are purchasers of the Company's common stock during the purported
class period—from January 16, 2019 through March 2, 2020, which
spans from the day after the Company entered a high-profile
co-marketing deal with a marketing company (the "Marketing
Agreement") until the day the Company allegedly announced it had
impaired its valuation of the Marketing Agreement by $102.6 million
and also written down the value of its inventory by $68.2 million.
In December 2019, the Company allegedly executed a downstream
merger (the "Share Exchange") with the holding company to wind down
the holding company's operations.
The Court granted defendants' first motion to dismiss plaintiff's
First Amended Complaint (the "FAC"), with leave to replead.
Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint (the "SAC"), alleging
false statements falling into three categories: (1) the value of
the Company's inventory and its gross margins; (2) the
misclassification of labor as an input; and (3) the value of the
Marketing Agreement. Plaintiffs further alleged that the purpose of
the Share Exchange was to eliminate the holding company's corporate
sales tax, control the flow of the holding company investors'
shares of the Company into the market, and secure personal control
over the Company. Defendants again moved to dismiss, and the Court
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion. Defendants
moved for reconsideration.
At the outset, the Court noted that it would decline to address the
bulk of defendants' arguments on reconsideration. However, the
Court credited one argument presented by defendants as a ground for
reconsideration regarding an oversight in the Court's scienter
evaluation of plaintiffs' Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim. In
addressing defendants' second motion to dismiss, the Court
determined that plaintiffs' allegations regarding the CEO's motives
created an inference of scienter at least as compelling as the
inferences offered by defendants. The Court based its determination
on the circumstances surrounding the CEO's individualized trades,
including the timing and volume, indicating that the CEO may have
profited from the alleged misrepresentations. As a competing
inference, defendants advanced the argument that the CEO's trades
were made pursuant to Rule 10b5-1 trading plans. The Court noted
that "the mere presence of a 10b5-1 plan is not a complete defense
to scienter," especially because the plans were entered into during
the putative class period, and held that the trades were suspicious
enough to overcome defendants' proposed inference of the 10b5-1
plan's probative value negating scienter.
On reconsideration, the Court found that, in so previously holding,
it had neglected aspects of defendants' arguments and overlooked
controlling Second Circuit precedent. The Court noted that, in
Arkansas Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 28 F.4th
343 (2d Cir. 2022), the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of
Section 10(b) claims, finding a failure "to adequately allege a
material misstatement or omission or facts giving rise to a strong
inference of scienter." With respect to scienter, the Second
Circuit determined that the defendants' stock trades were not
unusual enough to warrant a finding of motive. The Second Circuit
in Bristol-Myers Squibb concluded that "the vast majority of the
sales were conducted pursuant to a 10b5-1 trading plan or were
executed for procedural purposes, and therefore could not be timed
suspiciously." It similarly concluded that the plaintiffs in that
case failed to allege suspicious timing of the plan, even though
the defendant "entered into such plan during the putative class
period," because the complaint itself did not allege that the plan
was entered into in bad faith.
On defendants' motion for reconsideration, the Court first held
that it had erred in its scienter analysis when considering
defendants' motion to dismiss, because it did not address whether
the SAC alleged that the CEO entered into the 10b5-1 plans in bad
faith but instead relied solely on the alleged suspicious timing of
the 10b5-1 plans as related to the putative class period.
Turning anew to plaintiffs' allegations, and applying Bristol-Myers
Squibb, the Court found that it could no longer determine that
plaintiffs' allegations related to the CEO's motive created a
strong inference of scienter. The Court previously found that the
CEO's proceeds from stock sales were a factor that had weighed
heavily in establishing scienter, but that in light of Bristol
Meyers Squibb, the Court found it had weighed the CEO's financial
benefit too heavily in its initial analysis. The Court noted that,
by alleging that the CEO traded pursuant to 10b5-1 plans,
defendants offered at least one cogent inference of a non-culpable
explanation for the CEO's trades and his financial benefit during
the putative class period for at least 12 out of the 14 trades at
issue, and that inference was stronger than the one presented by
plaintiffs. The Court emphasized that this significantly "narrowed"
any potential untoward benefit received by the CEO. Regarding
plaintiffs' allegations that the CEO sold 34% of the shares
available for sale at the beginning of the putative class period
and 26.7% of the shares that were available to sell during the
putative class period for a total of 643,164 shares and
$28,389,051.71, the Court noted that scheduled 10b5-1 plan trades
accounted for approximately 274,278 of the shares sold and
approximately $16 million in profit for the CEO. The existence of
the 10b5-1 plan thus made the stock sales and profits less
probative of scienter. According to the Court, the lack of
allegations as to the CEO's financial benefit therefore weakened
plaintiffs' arguments that he "sought to be the leader of the
cannabis world."
Turning next to its analysis of plaintiffs' allegations as to
defendants' conscious misbehavior or recklessness—a separate
basis for finding scienter where motive allegations are
lacking—the Court found that, in analyzing defendants' first
motion to dismiss, it had determined that plaintiffs failed to meet
the high bar of alleging "a state of mind approximating actual
intent, and not merely a heightened form of negligence." Moreover,
the Court found that plaintiffs failed to allege specific facts
pertaining to the CEO's state of mind. The Court found that the
confidential witness ("CW") allegations in the FAC and SAC were
insufficient to suggest that the CEO or other decisionmakers from
the company subjectively believed the Company's due diligence was
lacking, or that the CEO "actually knew or had been presented with
information indicating that [the Company's] trim was worthless."
Upon reconsideration, the Court found that plaintiffs had not
sufficiently pled new facts related to the CWs between the FAC and
SAC to support the circumstantial evidence of the CEO's intent to
deceive the public. The Court found that the CWs still failed to
allege that the CEO had any knowledge of the inventory
discrepancies. Moreover, the SAC contained no allegations that the
CEO himself was or should have been on notice that the inventory
analysis was false. Regarding the Marketing Agreement, the Court
reiterated its finding on defendants' first motion to dismiss that
plaintiffs did not adequately allege that any decisionmakers at the
Company subjectively felt that the Company's due diligence was
lacking. Likewise, the Court rejected the other alleged categories
of circumstantial evidence plaintiffs relied on to bolster their
scienter allegations, finding that allegations regarding the CEO's
statements on extract revenue and trim, even if false, failed to
sufficiently allege that he knew facts or had access to information
suggesting that his public statements were not accurate. The Court
similarly rejected plaintiffs' circumstantial evidence allegations
regarding stock acquisitions and the increase in the volume of the
Company's trades, noting that plaintiffs did little to tie these
vague allegations to the alleged misrepresentations at issue.
Finally, the Court found that, because plaintiffs failed to allege
an underlying securities claim, it also reconsidered and dismissed
plaintiffs' claims under Section 20(a) and 20A of the Exchange Act.
[GN]
TRAINCROFT INC: Concepcion Seeks Initial Class Settlement Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTIAN CONCEPCION, for
himself and others similarly situated, v. TRAINCROFT, INC. Case No.
1:21-cv-11100-NMG (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order:
(1) Granting preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement and
Release Agreement, subject to the right of any Class Member
to
challenge the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the
Settlement Agreement and to show cause, if any, why a final
judgment should not be entered after due notice to the Class
and after a hearing on final approval;
(2) Preliminarily certifying the Class for purposes of the
Settlement and appointing Concepcion as class
representative;
(3) Confirming Bruckner Burch PLLC, Gordon Law Group, LLP, and
Josephson Dunlap PLLC as class counsel;
(4) Confirming ILYM Group, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator;
(5) Approving the parties' proposed Notice to the Class
informing
them of pending Action and the proposed Settlement; and
(6) Directing that such Notice be sent to the Class Members as
provided in the Settlement Agreement.
Traincroft is a global provider of engineering services, technical
documentation and training, on and off-site logistics, and MRO
support.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 5, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48lotae at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8065
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
- and -
Philip J. Gordon, Esq.
Kristen M. Hurley, Esq.
GORDON LAW GROUP
585 Boylston Street
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 536-1800
Facsimile: (617) 536-1802
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
UNITED STATES: Certifies Class Suit Over Pregnant Workers
---------------------------------------------------------
FEDweek Staff reports that the EEOC has certified a class action
case against the CBP in which a group of employees argued that they
suffered financial losses and damage to their careers when the
agency put them on light duty involuntarily on learning the were
pregnant, and without assessing whether they could continue
performing their regular duties.
The EEOC for example cited evidence that members of the class who
normally carried weapons " were required to return their weapons
because they were pregnant and had to requalify upon their return
to full duty. They were then assigned to various light duty
positions, such as cashier positions, which affected their ability
to work overtime or earn additional compensation, such as night
differential pay."
The assignments also affected their "abilities to qualify for
promotions; take trainings; and bid on positions,"" it said in
agreeing with a hearing officer that the complaint should be
handled as a class action.
"Multiple employees added that they were told that they were a
"liability" because they were pregnant" and one "averred that she
hid her pregnancy for as long as possible because she was aware
from the experiences of other pregnant employees that she would be
immediately instructed to go on light duty due to her pregnancy,"
it said.
"Despite working at different duty stations across the country,
these declarations reveal that employees were treated in a
consistent manner once the agency learned that they were pregnant,"
it added in certifying as a class any employees who experienced
such treatment since July 2016. [GN]
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Foster Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TARA FOSTER, individually and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, Case No.
27-CV-23-14464 (Minn. Dist., Sept. 13, 2023) alleges that the
Defendant fails to properly secure and safeguard sensitive
personally identifiable information, including the Plaintiff's and
Class members' names, addresses, telephone numbers, email
addresses, and Social Security numbers.
The Plaintiff, like millions of other current or former students,
employees, applicants, and others affiliated with the UMN,
entrusted her sensitive PII to the Defendant when she applied to
and attended the UMN, relying on them to protect her PII. As a
public institution, UMN has acknowledged that it is governed by the
Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, and is prohibited from
releasing PII without consent.
The lawsuit contends that UMN apparently wasn't even aware that a
hacker with a username of "niggy" had infiltrated UMN's database,
gained access to and exfiltrated PII and other sensitive
information, including over 7 million unique social security
numbers, until the hacker claimed responsibility for the data theft
in a post on the Internet. The stolen information includes data
from digitized records initially created as far back as 1989.
Despite the heightened risks that Plaintiff and the Class members
now face because of the theft of their PII, the Defendant waited
over a month before it even acknowledged that the Data Breach had
occurred, and has not formally notified all affected parties as of
the date of this Complaint, the lawsuit alleges.
Not only has this delay increased the risk of harm to the Plaintiff
and the Class members, the Defendant failed to fully inform the
impacted Class members of exactly what information was stolen and
the full extent of the Data Breach, depriving them of necessary
information they could use to take measures to protect themselves,
the lawsuit claims.
As such, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, brings this Action for all available damages including
actual damages, injunctive relief, reasonable costs and attorney's
fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and all other relief that
this Court deems just and proper.
The Plaintiff is a former student at the University of Minnesota
Duluth.
UMN is a public institution of higher education in the state of
Minnesota, which accepts applications to its undergraduate and
graduate programs from people across the United States and
internationally.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
Brant D. Penney, Esq.
Roberta A. Yard, Esq.
REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
332 Minnesota Street, Suite W1050
St. Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (651) 287-2100
E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
r.yard@rwblawfirm.com
- and -
William G. Caldes, Esq.
Diane Zinzer, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
E-mail: bcaldes@srkattorneys.com
dzinzer@srkattorneys.com
USA LOGISTICS: Peterfai Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against USA Logistics Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Laszlo G. Peterfai, an individual, and
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. USA
Logistics Inc. doing business as: USA Movers, Top Moving Specialist
Inc. doing business as: Hercules Moving Solutions, Rado Express
Logistics, Inc., Ackermann Express LLC, Monopoly Moving LLC, Gal
Robi Jeddae, Travis Ackermann, Rafael Ohanesyan, Does 1 through 25,
inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-01695-WQH-KSC (S.D. Cal., Sept. 14,
2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization for
Civil Remedies: Racketeering (RICO) Act.
USA Logistics Inc. -- https://usa-logisticsinc.com/ -- are a family
owned asset light trucking company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Deborah L. Raymond, Esq.
RAYMOND LAW OFFICES APC
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 300
Del Mar, CA 92014
Phone: (858) 481-9559
Email: deborah@raymondlawoffices.com
VIKING RIVER CRUISES: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Viking River Cruises,
Inc. The case is styled as Frangie Espinal, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Viking River Cruises,
Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08110 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 13, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Viking River Cruises, Inc. -- https://www.vikingrivercruises.com/
-- provides cruise line services. The Company offers river and
ocean cruises. Viking River Cruises serves customers
worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
VISA INC: Pending Payout for Interchange Suit Settlement Discussed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Daly of Digital Transactions reports that the federal court
overseeing a $5.54-billion settlement between millions of
card-accepting merchants, on one hand, and Visa Inc. and Mastercard
Inc., on the other, over interchange costs recently took several
steps that ultimately could get payments out to merchants. But
checks still won't be in the mail for some time.
"I don't think folks should expect anything in 2024, maybe 2025 to
receive proceeds from the settlement," Sam Wares, director of
client success at Omaha, Neb.-based merchant-acquiring consulting
firm TSG tells Digital Transactions News.
The settlement arose from merchant lawsuits against the card
networks dating back to 2005 that challenged card-acceptance rules
and interchange, the controversial fee set by the networks and paid
to card issuers by acquirers, which pass the expense on to their
merchant clients. Visa and Mastercard in 2012 first agreed to
settle the cases, which had been consolidated into a massive class
action overseen by the U.S. District Court in Brooklyn, N.Y., but a
federal appellate court vacated the settlement in 2016, leading to
more action in the district court.
What's before the court now is a pending payout of network-funded
monetary damages that won court approval in 2019 in the case dubbed
MDL (for multi-district litigation) 1720.
Last week, presiding Judge Margo K. Brodie approved several items
necessary for getting payments to merchants. They included approval
of the claim form and permission for the settlement administrator
to begin sending those forms to class members in December,
according to TSG. Brodie also okayed the administrator's plan to
hire a public-relations firm to make eligible merchants aware of
the settlement.
Any merchant that accepted Visa- and Mastercard-branded cards in
the U.S. between January 2004 and up to Jan. 25, 2019, is
potentially eligible to receive payments, according to the
court-approved informational Web site about the case,
paymentcardsettlement.com. Some issues involving gas stations and
franchise businesses may still need to be resolved, according to
Wares.
Many large merchants opted out of the damages portion and instead
pursued their own lawsuits against the card networks over rules and
interchange. As of September 2022, Visa had reached settlements
with merchants representing approximately 58% of the Visa-branded
payment card sales volume of merchants who opted out of the amended
settlement, according to the company's annual report for fiscal
2022. Corresponding figures for Mastercard were not immediately
available.
While many merchants have gone out of business since 2005, "upwards
of 16 million" businesses potentially could be eligible for
damages, Wares says. The administrator is using the last known
addresses of defunct merchants, he says. TSG is working with MCAG,
a class-action settlement firm that helps claimants get payments,
to assist merchants with payouts from the MDL 1720 case.
This latest court action comes as controversy about interchange
continues to rage. Pending in Congress is the Credit Card
Competition Act, a bill that would regulate credit card interchange
in a manner somewhat similar to what the Durbin Amendment did to
debit card interchange back in 2011 by promoting merchant choice in
routing credit transactions. [GN]
WALDEVAIA INC: Almendares Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adilio Almendares, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. WALDEVAIA INC. d/b/a BOCCONCINI DELI & PIZZA
and STAGE DELI & PIZZA INC. d/b/a STAGE DOOR EAST, JOSEPH WALDNER
and MICHAEL RUTIGLIANO, as individuals, Case No. 2:23-cv-06827
(E.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2023), is brought against the Defendants to
recover damages for egregious violations of state and federal wage
and hour laws arising out of the Plaintiff's employment under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law as a result of
the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages.
Although the Plaintiff worked approximately 66 hours or more hours
per week from August 2017 until December 2019 and 60 hours or more
hours per week from January 2020 until June 2022, Defendants 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. Furthermore, Plaintiff ADILIO ALMENDARES worked in excess
of 10 or more hours per day approximately 6 days per week from
August 2017 until December 2019, however, Defendants did not pay
Plaintiff an extra hour at the legally prescribed minimum wage for
each day worked over 10 hours, a blatant violation of the spread of
hours provisions contained in the NYLL, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from January 2003
until June 2022 as a cook, food preparer, dishwasher, and cleaner,
while performing other miscellaneous duties.
WALDEVAIA INC. d/b/a BOCCONCINI DELI & PIZZA, is a domestic
business corporation organized under the laws of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Phone: 718-263-9591
WALMART INC: Discriminates Disabled Employees, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Riddhi Setty of Bloomberg Law reports that Walmart Inc. and Walmart
Stores Arkansas LLC are facing a proposed class action alleging
discrimination against disabled employees after the workers did not
pass an assessment test and were fired.
In a lawsuit filed on Sept. 11 in an Arkansas federal court, the
EEOC claimed that Walmart's "Pathways Graduation Assessment" test,
which the multinational retailer required all entry-level
associates to take as of 2017, "tended to screen out" disabled
workers and led to their termination.
The commission said in its complaint that the PGA test wasn't
related to the workers' job nor necessary for Walmart's business.
[GN]
WINE GROUP: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Wine Group LLC.
The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. The Wine Group LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-08145 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Wine Group -- http://www.thewinegroup.com/-- is an American
alcoholic beverage company founded in 1981, and based in Livermore,
California.[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
WSFS BANK: Assesses Multiple OD Fees on Same Transaction, To Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN TO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
WSFS BANK, Case No. 230901210 (Philly. Com. Pleas, Sept. 13, 2023)
sues the Defendant for its routine practices of assessing more than
one insufficient funds fee ("NSF Fee") or overdraft fee ("OD Fee")
on the same transaction.
According to the complaint, WSFS Bank's customers have been injured
by the Bank's improper practices to the tune of millions of dollars
bilked from their accounts in violation WSFS Bank's clear
contractual Commitments. WSFS Bank reprocessed previously declined
transactions, and charged an additional fee upon reprocessing. For
example, on November 5, 2019, the Plaintiff was charged an NSF Fee
on a transaction that was resubmitted by the merchant for payment
without the Plaintiff's request to reprocess the transactions. The
transaction was specifically labeled "RETRY PYMT." Each merchant
request for payment was for a single transaction and, as is laid
out in WSFS Bank's Account Documents, should be subject to, at
most, a single NSF or OD Fee (if WSFS Bank returned it or paid it),
says the suit.
Accordingly, WSFS Bank exercises its discretion in its own favor --
and to the prejudice of the Plaintiff and its other customers --
when it defines "item" in a way that directly leads to more NSF
Fees. Further, WSFS Bank abuses the power it has over customers and
their bank accounts and acts contrary to their reasonable
expectations under the Account Documents. This is a breach of the
Bank's implied covenant to engage in fair dealing and act in good
faith, the Plaintiff claims.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly
situated consumers, seeks to end WSFS Bank's abusive and predatory
practices and force it to refund all of these improper charges.
The Plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of contract, including
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and seeks
damages, restitution, and injunctive relief, as set forth more
fully below.
The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
WSFS Bank is engaged in the business of providing retail banking
Services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
65 Overhill Road
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (954) 525-410
X CORP: Faces Dutch Class Suit Over MoPub Data Trading
------------------------------------------------------
Natasha Lomas of TechCrunch+ reports that make way for another
Dutch class action privacy damages lawsuit -- this one targeting
the company formerly known as Twitter (now X Corp); and MoPub, the
mobile ad platform it used to own (before selling it to AppLovin at
the start of last year), which is accused of "illegal trafficking"
of millions of app users' personal data.
While X no longer owns MoPub it was the owner and operator of the
mobile adtech during the period the litigation targets -- including
several years when the EU's General Data Protection Regulation
(GDPR) was in application.
The suit, which is an opt out (rather than an opt in) class claim,
alleges the MoPub adtech platform unlawfully tracked app users,
collecting people's data as they used third party software such as
games, period trackers and dating apps, and then sharing/trading
what could be very sensitive personal data on users with scores of
companies without the individuals' knowledge or consent --
something the plaintiffs contend is a clear violation of the GDPR.
The pan-EU data protection regime regulates how people's
information can be processed -- putting an obligation on companies
to have a valid legal basis for any operations they carry out that
involve personal data.
The plaintiffs in the suit are seeking compensation from X Corp on
behalf of 10 million Dutch adults and one million children who are
estimated to have used apps which embedded MoPub's trackers (circa
30,000 free apps). They also want unlawfully collected data to be
deleted.
"Between [October] 2013 and [December] 2021, advertising platform
MoPub and X Corp (formerly known as Twitter) unlawfully collected
and exchanged user data from over 30,000 free mobile applications
in the Netherlands. In addition to Wordfeud, Buienradar, Vinted,
Shazam and Duolingo, these included numerous fitness apps such as
MyFitnessPal, menstruation apps, dating apps such as Grindr and
Happn, games for children such as My Talking Tom and apps centered
on the Bible or apps targeting Muslims," they wrote in a press
release.
"For eight years, even if users never sent a tweet, the free apps
enabled X. Corp and MoPub to collect and share their personal data.
Consumers did not know with whom and for what purpose X. Corp and
MoPub did so. For example, MoPub shared personal data and data
about sexual orientation, child desire or religious beliefs on the
ad market. This data was then traded on to thousands of parties.
They collected far more information than necessary, violating the
most important law surrounding the protection of personal data: the
GDPR."
The litigation against X Corp, which begun proceedings on September
14, 2023 via a summons issued at a court in Rotterdam, is being
brought by a not-for-profit data protection foundation, called
Stichting Data Bescherming Nederland, (SDBN).
Discussing the suit in a phone call, SDBN's president, Anouk
Ruhaak, pointed to an enquiry undertaken in recent years by
Norway's data protection authority into the gay dating app Grindr,
which drew on an earlier investigation of third party apps
conducted by Norway's Consumer Council that had uncovered evidence
of widespread and "unexpected" data sharing -- including with
MoPub.
"Grindr collects massive amounts of data, it's quite concerning,
but MoPub was one of the ways in which they do that. And so that's
how this came to light. It was kind of known by the regulator
already. It just hasn't been well regulated," she explained. "[Our
claim it that it's] absolutely impossible to even get meaningful
consent for this. They also, in many cases, didn't even try. But
meaningful consents would be giving a list of all the companies
you're about to share the data with, to the user, and that goes
into the 1000s. So yeah, that's not possible."
"Every individual app may have had terms and conditions that said
something about data being shared. But those were hosted by the
app. Whereas the collector of the data is not the app, it's MoPub.
And so even if the app developer themselves have mentioned we
installed MoPub and they may be collecting data, MoPub is a
controller here, and so they have an obligation, for themselves, to
also check that consent has been given -- and they've never done
that. So just that on its own is a massive violation of GDPR. The
fact that it's then been shared out to 1,000s of companies that
user was unaware of, of course, that's another violation."
"Our goal is really to fix a broken internet and to uphold privacy
rights," Ruhaak also told TechCrunch. "My sense is -- and I may be
very wrong about this -- but my sense is unless it becomes too
expensive to violate the GDPR companies will continue to violate
it."
Should the suit prevail, she suggests damages could be in the order
of several billion euros -- i.e. if individuals are awarded a few
hundred euros apiece. Although she said it's hard to predict how
high damages might go given some "uncharted territory".
"Regarding the damages, this is still a little bit of uncharted
territory -- we haven't seen these kinds of class actions play out
all the way through the higher courts. However, in individual
cases, where individual claimants went to court, we see judges
award anywhere between GBP250 and GBP500 per person," she noted.
"So it could potentially put some actual pressure on companies like
X Corp."
The legal process could also take several years -- SDBN says it
does not expect a ruling until 2026 at the earliest -- assuming X
Corp does not seek to settle the suit. (X Corp was contacted via
email about the lawsuit. In what appears to be an automated
response it sent the following message: "Busy now, please check
back later.")
Per Ruhaak, X did engage in some "back and forth" with the
plaintiffs initially, seeking more information and seeming open to
talks on a possible settlement. But the now Elon Musk-owned company
subsequently withdrew the offer to talk -- "and that's when we
decided to go to court", she added.
The legal action against X is being funded by a London-based global
alternative asset manager called Orchard Global Capital Group. SDBN
also has another privacy class action against Amazon in train (that
one funded by US-based Longford Capital Management Group). Ruhaak
told TechCrunch a third strategic litigation is underway although
it's not releasing any details of that yet.
"We started this foundation with the goal to do strategic
litigation but not necessarily just class actions," she said. "At
the moment, we have two class actions in process, and then we have
a third one that I can't really talk about it yet -- that will
probably launch very soon… We're also looking into other ways to
do strategic litigation, for instance, through injunctions."
On September 13, 2023 we reported on a separate class action-style
suit targeting Google's adtech in the Netherlands that's seeking
compensation for alleged breaches of the bloc's GDPR. Meta's adtech
is also facing class-action privacy litigation in the Northern
European market.
More privacy suits are likely to follow in the Netherlands,
especially, as litigation funders spot opportunities to cash in
thanks to a new opt-out class action regime the country brought in
when it implemented an EU directive on collective redress. (Other
EU Member States may apply the directive differently so the bloc
could end up with a patchwork of more and less class
action-friendly countries.)
Similar foundations to SDBN are popping up behind other Dutch
privacy damages suits. Per Ruhaak, that reflects requirements in
the local law to ensure people's interests are well represented
within the class -- and she said raising awareness about the
privacy violations is a key piece of the work they're undertaking.
All these suits share the stated goal of not only obtaining
compensation for consumers affected by the alleged privacy
violations but forcing reform of privacy-hostile adtech business
models which operate by tracking and profiling web users at vast
scale.
While complaints against consentless adtech are nothing new in the
EU, and some were even lodged with data protection regulators the
very moment the GDPR entered into application (back in May 2018),
it's fair to say enforcement against surveillance ads has been slow
and painstaking -- meaning widespread and even systemic flouting of
the EU's data protection framework has the been left to continue
unchecked in the meanwhile.
For example, it was only at the start of this year that a major
GDPR decision against Meta's tracking and profiling of web users
was handed down for lacking a proper legal basis. After that the
tech giant took a few months to switch to another legal basis
(still not consent) -- which the EU's top court has since
stipulated is unlawful for its purpose. And despite years of
privacy complaints and a string of decisions and rulings Meta
continues to operate services in the EU that track and profile web
users for ad targeting by default, without asking permission.
In August the adtech giant did finally announce it intends to
switch to consent for the ad processing -- but has yet to do so.
This ongoing lack of enforcement on Meta's consentless ads has led
to a recent intervention by Norway's DPA which banned it from
running tracking ads without consent locally. Meta's response to
that? Not to comply with the ban; rather it sued to try to obtain
an injunction against it…
Asked whether the growing wave of privacy class actions in the EU
is a response to the failure of regional data protection regulators
to rein in privacy-hostile adtech business models, Ruhaak suggested
both tracks -- regulatory enforcement and privacy litigation --
have a place.
"The regulator's portion of this is that they can investigate and
they can hand out fines. But that doesn't compensate people for the
loss they have incurred, or the violation of their privacy rights.
And so that's where we come in," she suggested. "In addition to
that, we often find that the regulator is incredibly overwhelmed by
the enormous amount of work to be done on this. And so the
enforcement of privacy rights is often not perfect. And so that's,
I think, another role for us… [to] come in and do another part."
"That's something we really saw in, for instance, the Amazon case
that we launched in June -- where the regulator in Luxembourg
already fines Amazon for almost the exact same violations and
Amazon has to pay that fine but has also continued doing things
that they were fined for. And so that is an opportunity for us to
come in and be like, okay, if that wasn't enough, we will launch
our own class action and put additional pressure on Amazon to
change the way it's doing data collection and storage." [GN]
XE HOLDING: Court Grants in Part CNA's Motion to Dismiss Brink Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia grants in part and denies in part Continental Insurance
Company's motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled DANIEL BRINK, et
al., Plaintiffs v. XE HOLDING, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:11-cv-01733-EGS-ZMF (D.D.C.).
Nicky Pool ("Plaintiff") brings this action against Continental
Insurance Company ("CNA" or "Defendant"), alleging breach of
contract and tortious breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.
Pending before the Court is CNA's Motion to Dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
On May 19, 2022, Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui issued a Report
& Recommendation ("R. & R.") recommending that the Court grant in
part and deny in part CNA's motion. Both parties raise several
objections to Magistrate Judge Faruqui's R. & R. The Court adopts
in part Magistrate Judge Faruqui's R. & R.; and grants in part and
denies in part CNA's Motion to Dismiss.
For the purposes of resolving CNA's Motion to Dismiss, the Court
assumes the facts alleged in the Fourth Amended Complaint ("FAC")
to be true and construes them in Pool's favor.
In 2007, CNA arranged for Pool to provide daily nursing services in
South Africa to Daniel Brink, a contractor, who had sustained
several injuries from an explosion in Iraq. Pool submitted a series
of invoices to CNA seeking payment for her services and
reimbursement for other services and supplies. CNA initially paid
some invoices but at some point, stopped.
Because she had not been reimbursed for services and supplies,
medical companies and service providers later brought collections
actions totaling over $150,000 against Pool and her company,
Guardian Medical.
On Sept. 26, 2011, Pool and other plaintiffs (collectively,
"Plaintiffs") filed this class action against various government
contractors and their insurance carriers. The Plaintiffs alleged
violations of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act;
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; and the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"); along with various
state-law claims.
The Court dismissed all claims, see Brink v. XE Holding, LLC, 910
F. Supp. 2d 242, 258 (D.D.C. 2012), aff'd in part, vacated in part,
remanded sub nom. Brink v. Cont'l Ins. Co., 787 F.3d 1120 (D.C.
Cir. 2015); and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit ("D.C. Circuit") affirmed the ruling except the dismissal
of the ADA claims. The D.C. Circuit stated that its ruling did "not
preclude separate proceedings for . . . Nicky Pool to allege a
breach of contract."
Pool, thereafter, filed an amended complaint alleging breach of
contract and tortious breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.
On March 5, 2018, CNA filed this Motion to Dismiss Pool's state-law
claims in the FAC. Pool submitted her opposition brief on April 8,
2018. CNA filed its reply brief on April 17, 2018.
On May 19, 2022, Magistrate Judge Faruqui issued his R. & R.
recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part CNA's
motion. Both parties raise several objections to the R. & R.; and
have submitted briefs in opposition.
The FAC alleges diversity of citizenship as a basis for the Court's
jurisdiction. Magistrate Judge Faruqui concluded that Pool failed
to establish diversity jurisdiction because she provided no facts
to support her legal conclusion that "there is complete diversity
of citizenship of the parties." She did not object to Magistrate
Judge Faruqui's conclusion in her objections to the R. &. R.; but
did argue in her response to CNA's objections that CNA incorrectly
argued that there is no diversity jurisdiction, arguing that the
FAC alleges complete diversity of citizenship as to herself and
CNA.
At this time, the only parties that remain in this action are Pool
and CNA. Accordingly, Pool needs to allege complete diversity
between herself and CNA.
For the reasons explained in this Memorandum Opinion and liberally
construing the pleadings in her favor, the Court concludes that
Pool has adequately alleged diversity jurisdiction.
Pool alleges that she is a foreign national of South Africa. The
FAC alleges that one of the Plaintiffs is a foreign national from
South Africa, who was denied pay under an agreement with
Continental Insurance Company that caused loss to her and her
business. The only Plaintiff, who alleges that she was denied pay
under an agreement with CNA is Pool.
The FAC alleges that CNA's headquarters is in Chicago, Illinois.
With these allegations, Pool has adequately alleged complete
diversity between herself and CNA because she has alleged that she
is a citizen of South Africa and that CNA is a citizen of Illinois.
She also alleges damages in excess of $200,000.
For these reasons, the Court concludes that Pool has adequately
alleged diversity jurisdiction.
The FAC does not allege that the Court has supplemental
jurisdiction over Pool's claims against CNA. She alleges claims for
breach of contract, and tortious breach of covenant of good faith
and fair dealing. However, the FAC alleges only that the Court has
supplemental jurisdiction over the federal common law or state law
claims for fraud, bad faith insurance practices, outrage, and
deception in trade practices. Because the Court has determined that
it has diversity jurisdiction over Pool's claims, however, the
Court need not address the parties' arguments regarding
supplemental jurisdiction.
Both parties object to Magistrate Judge Faruqui's conclusions as to
whether the statute of limitations bars Pool's claims. The Court
agrees with Magistrate Judge Faruqui that Pool's invoices from June
30, 2008, to Oct. 30, 2009, fall within the statute of limitations
and that her invoices preceding that period are barred.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that (i) Pool's individual claims
relate back to the original Complaint and adopts that portion of
the R. & R.; (ii) Magistrate Judge Faruqui correctly assumed an
installment contract with a three-month payment term; and (iii)
Magistrate Judge Faruqui correctly disregarded Pool's equitable
tolling arguments.
Finding no error, the Court adopts the portion of the R. & R.
pertaining to the statute of limitations.
CNA objects to Magistrate Judge Faruqui's conclusion that Pool
adequately pleaded her claim for breach of contract. The Court
concludes that Pool has properly pleaded her breach of contract
claim.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that Pool has stated a claim for
breach of contract and adopts this portion of the R. & R.
Finally, Pool objects to Magistrate Judge Faruqui's conclusion that
she has not pleaded a claim for breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing.
CNA defends Magistrate Judge Faruqui's determination that Pool's
allegations are vague, conclusory, and otherwise duplicative of her
breach of contract claim. The Court agrees with CNA. Pool's
allegations of "evasion" and "refusal" are vague and conclusory.
The Court, therefore, is persuaded that Pool has failed to state a
claim for a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing and adopts this portion of the R. & R.
For these reasons, the Court adopts in part Magistrate Judge
Faruqui's R. & R.; and grants in part and denies in part CNA's
Motion to Dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Sept. 11,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/rtz9xxtv from
PacerMonitor.com.
ZESTFUL MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Ferrando Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA NOEL FERRANDO-GUERRA; and ARTURO LOPEZ GOMEZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
ZESTFUL MANAGEMENT CORP. d/b/a BAR SIX, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv008123 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2023) is an action against the
Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class minimum
wages, and overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as restaurant staff.
ZESTFUL MANAGEMENT CORP. d/b/a BAR SIX owns and operates as a
French Moroccan bistro in Grennwich Village, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Chaya M. Gourarie, Esq.
BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
116 Jackson Avenue
Syosset, NY 11791
Telephone: (516) 280-3008
Email: CG@belllg.com
ZING ZANG: Faces Class Suit Margarita Mixes' False Ads
------------------------------------------------------
Andy Nghiem of Madison – St. Clair Record reports that an
Illinois man has filed a class action lawsuit against Zing Zang,
claiming the company falsely advertises its margarita mixes as
having "no preservatives" and "made with all natural ingredients."
Plaintiff Kyle Swierczek filed a class action lawsuit in the St.
Clair County Circuit Court against Zing Zang, LLC, citing
violations of the state's Consumer Fraud Act and Deceptive Business
Practices Act.
The lawsuit alleges the defendant markets its Zing Zang line of
margarita mixes as having "no preservatives" and being "made with
all natural ingredients" on the label of the packaging.
Swierczek claims that in 2020, he bought Zing Zang margarita mixes.
He allegedly paid a premium price for the products because he
believed they contained no preservatives and were made with all
natural ingredients without any artificial ingredients. Swierczek
states that despite the defendant's claims, the products contain
ascorbic acid and citric acid, both of which are preservatives. The
products also allegedly contain xanthan gum, which is a synthetic
ingredient. Swierczek adds that had he known of the ingredients, he
would not have purchased the products at all or paid a lower price.
According to the lawsuit, Zing Zang deceptively and fraudulently
misrepresented the products in violation of the state's Consumer
Fraud Act and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
Swierczek is seeking damages for himself and everyone in his
proposed class action lawsuit, plus interest, court costs, attorney
fees and any other relief the court deems proper. He is represented
in this case by attorneys David C. Nelson, Matthew H. Armstrong,
Robert L. King and Stuart L. Cochran.
St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 23LA0872 [GN]
ZOCCOLA LLC: Aquino Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Angel Aquino, and others similarly situated v. ZOCCOLA LLC
(DBA TAVOLA) and NICK ACCARDI, individually, Case No. 1:23-cv-08118
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") as recently
amended by the Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA"), and related
provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations
("NYCRR"), to recover, inter alia, unpaid minimum wage and overtime
wage compensation.
Defendants were required, under relevant New York State law, to pay
and compensate Plaintiff at a minimum rate of $15.00 per hour (the
"minimum wage"); however, Plaintiff was compensated at a rate of
$13 and $14 per hour for 40 hours workweek. Defendants were
required, under relevant New York State law, to compensate
Plaintiff with overtime pay at one and one-half the regular rate
for work in excess of forty (40) hours per work week.
However, despite such mandatory pay obligations, Defendants only
initially compensated Plaintiff at a rate of $13, $14, $16, and $17
per hour and failed to pay Plaintiff his lawful overtime pay for
the relevant work period Defendants' conduct extended beyond
Plaintiff to all other similarly situated employees, Defendants
maintain a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and other
employees to work without providing the minimum and overtime
compensation required by federal and state law and regulations,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook.
The Defendants owned and operated ZOCCOLA LLC (DBA TAVOLA), a
corporate entity located in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL PC
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: 212-203-2417
Web: www.StillmanLegalPC.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 ***