/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231018.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, October 18, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 209
Headlines
ABLETO INC: Faces Class Suit Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
ALASKA: Court Certifies Suit Over Mismanaged Foster Care System
ALCO WINDOWS: Expert Disclosures in Difiore Extended to Nov. 6
ALEX ADRIAN MOLINAROLI: Dismissal of Gumm Suit Under Appeal
ALLSTATE LIFE: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Continued to Nov. 8
AMARIN CORP: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Alleged Drug Monopoly
AMARIN CORP: Faces Dang Suit in New Jersey Court
AMAZON CANADA: Faces Combined Appeals in Labor Class Suit
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Flannery Class Suit Over Credit Inquiries
AMERICAN FAMILY: Faces Class Suit Over Breach of Contract
AMERICOR FUNDING: Seeks Deadline for Class Certification Filing
AMERITA INC: Rose Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info
ANI PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal of Consolidated Suit Under Appeal
ARCHDIOCESE OF WASHINGTON: Faces Child Sexual Abuse Class Action
ARIZONA: Must Pay Toomey $375K in Attorneys' Fees
ATHIRA PHARMA: Court Denies Class Suit Settlement Over Equity Issue
BANXA HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit Over App's Facial Geometry Scan
BATON ROUGE, LA: Faces Class Suit Over Unlawful Strip Searches
BAUSCH HEALTH: Court Certifies Class Suit Over COLD-FX Advertising
BEAUMONT INDEPENDENT: Murphy Seeks to Certify Employee Class
BELL CANADA: Court Certifies Class Suit Over Door-to-Door Sales
BGC GROUP: Faces Antitrust Charges from Former Partners
BIMBO BAKERIES: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Elder
BINANCE HOLDINGS: Sued Over Cryptocurrency Market Manipulation
BOK FINANCIAL: Court Stays Securities Suit
BROCK PIERCE: Seeks to Restrict Filing on Opposition to Class Cert
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Bright Seeks to Conditionally File Under Seal
CALIFORNIA: D'Souza et al. Sue Over Children Custody Orders
CALIFORNIA: Letricia Brown Files 9th Cir. Appeal
CASE WESTERN: Class Cert Response in Lozada Due Oct. 27
CENTERSTATE BANK: Claim Filing in Overdraft Fees Suit Until Oct 21
CENTRAL PARK: Court Conditionally Certifies FLSA Class Suit
CHINA XD: Court Narrows Claims in Schmitt Suit
CHRIS REYKDAL: N.D. Bid for Reconsideration Partly OK'd
CHW GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Katz Class Suit Tossed
CLEARESULT CONSULTING: Dauch Files Suit in W.D. Texas
CO HCPF: Torres Sues Over Failure to Protect PII & PHI
COLORADO: Settles Trans Women's Class Action Suit for $2.1M
CONNECTICUT: Plaintiffs Seek More Time for Class Cert Filing
CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Settles Suit Over COVID Tuition Refunds for $3M
CORNWELL QUALITY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Hudson Claims
CRUMBL LLC: Faces Cytryn Class Suit Over Cookies' False Ads
CUTERA INC: Faces ECERS Suit on California
CVS HEALTH: Court Junks McCabe Class Action
CVS PHARMACY: Faces Class Suit Over Improper Medicare Fees
DELAWARE: Light Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal to 3rd Cir.
DELTA AIR: Court Certifies Flight Attendants' Wage Class Action
DENISE RICHARDS: Faces Class Action Over OnlyFans Account
DISH DBS: Brooks Sues Over Data Breach
DISH DBS: Court Dismisses Fund Mismanagement Suit
DOLLAR GENERAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Flint Alleges
DR. DENNIS GROSS: Gunaratna Files Suit in D. Utah
EAGLE DISPOSAL: Bousquet Seeks Conditional Class Certification
EDWARD JONES: Anderson Suit Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses
EDWARD JONES: Plaintiffs Must Oppose Dismissal Bid by Nov. 10
EPIC GAMES: Settles Class Suit Over Loot Boxes for $2.75-Mil.
ESH RESTAURANT: Paguay Sues Over Line Cooks' Unpaid Wages
EYEMED VISION: Court Narrows Claims in Tate Class Suit
FAPOO LLC: Cardero Suit Asserts TCPA Breach
FAYETTE COUNTY, KY: Faces Class Suit Over New Anti-Trans Law
FIVE BELOW: Bid to Dismiss Krawitz First Amended Complaint Tossed
FRANCE: Faces Class Suit Over Police Racial Profiling
FRESHWORKS INC: Investors Suit Over IPO Statements May Proceed
FRITO-LAY INC: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Biometric Collection
G&A OUTSOURCING: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 3, 2024
GARDNER TRUCKING: Stipulation to Continue Briefing Deadlines Filed
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Dismisses Class Suit Over Defective Engines
GOOGLE INC: Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Opposition Bid
GREAT LAKES: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in ADL
HENKEL CORP: Ochoa-Cornman Sues Over Mislabeled Laundry Detergent
HENRY FORD HEALTH: Mogk Files Discrimination Class Action
I.C. SYSTEM: Galloway Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
INNOVATE CORP: FVI Shareholder Suit Over DBMG Payments Dismissed
INNOVATIVE RECOVERY: Martinez Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
INOVA HEALTH: Court Dismisses Class Suit Over COVID Policy
INOVIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Court OK's Settlement of Shareholder Suit
INTERMIX HOLDCO: Seeks Extension of Time to File Class Cert Reply
J&C AMBULANCE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 31, 2024
JERNIGAN CAPITAL: Challenges Class Cert. Ruling in Erickson Suit
JEWELRY ARTISANS: Vasquez Seeks Conditional Status of FLSA Action
KISS NUTRACEUTICALS: Gamboa Bid for Leave to Restrict Tossed
LANDMARK RECOVERY: Seeks to Certify Interlocutory Appeal
LIVEPERSON INC: Straub Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filings Dismissed
LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit Over Environmental, Health Risks
MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Petition to Review 2022 Ruling Granted
MAILROOM SHIPPING: Lawrence Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
MARTIN & BAYLEY: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Gamble
MCADOO'S SEAFOOD: Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge
MCKESSON CORP: Settles Antitrust Suit Over Alleged Drug Monopoly
MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Faces Recapitalization Transactions Class Suit
META MATERIALS: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Fraud Class Action
MID-CENTURY INSURANCE: Sausman Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
MONSANTO CO: Faces Class Suit Over Glyphosate-Based Herbicides
MOUNTAIN LAUREL: Seeks Hearing on Costello Class Certification Bid
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Court Allows More Time to Amend Class Cert Order
NFL ENTERPRISES: Wins Class Suit Over Sharing of Video Info
NITROGEN LLC: Halasz Sues Over Improper Payment of Overtime Wages
NORTHEAST WORK: Obermeier Must File Class Cert Bid by May 16, 2024
ON24 INC: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filings
ONITY INC: Boggs Seeks More Time to File Class Certification Bid
PACIFIC CCI: Faces Ruiz Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
PASCHALL TRUCK: Bid for Order on Discovery Tossed
PEACHY CORP: Website Not Blind-Inaccessible, Martinez Says
PHARMACARE US: Class Cert Bid Hearing Set for Oct. 25
PHE INC: Faces Doe Suit Over Disclosure of Personal, Private Info
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Settles Suit Over Oil Spill Incident
PLUG POWER INC: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Ongoing in NY Court
PORTLAND, OR: Faces Class Suit Over New Anti-Homeless Camping
PORTLAND, OR: Homeless People File Class Action
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Taylor Sues Over Nasal Decongestants' False Ads
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Travis Sues Over Ineffective Nasal Decongestants
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Biston Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Tucker Files Suit in E.D. Louisiana
QUEBEC: Nunavik Child Welfare Class Suit Awaits Court Certification
RESONETICS LLC: All Pre-Class Cert Discovery Due March 1, 2024
RIOT PLATFORMS: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing in D.N.J.
RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Ct. Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Cosenza
ROADMASTER DRIVERS: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by Nov. 1
RTX CORP: New England Teamsters Fund Sues Over Share Price Drop
SAMARASCENTS LLC: General Pretrial Management Entered in Sookul
SAVE RITE: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Campbell
SEAWORLD PARKS: Court Partly OK's Bid to Extend Discovery Deadline
SELECT ENERGY: Oct .18 Preliminary Pretrial Conference Vacated
SERVICE CORP: Settlement in Taylor Suit Gets Court OK
SIMILASAN CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Eye Drops' Marketing
SONESTA INTERNATIONAL: Travelers United Suit Removed to D.D.C.
SOVEREIGN LENDING: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Suit for $500,000
STARBUCKS CORP: Court OK's PAGA Settlement in Connelly Suit
STEWARD PARTNERS: Jacob Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Damages
STRATA SKIN: Labor Suit in California Settled
STURM RUGER & CO: Faces Jones Data Breach Suit in Connecticut
SUPERIOR AIR-GROUND: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hill Suit Alleges
TESLA INC: Faces Class Suit Over Racial Discrimination
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Asthma Inhaler
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Colchicine Tablets
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Opioid-Related Suits in Canadian Courts
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Settles Opioid-Related Suit in New York
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Settles Opioid-Related Suits in Various States
THOMAS THOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Schotter Alleges
TINDER INC: Faces Class Suit Over Photo Verification System
TORONTO, ON: Must Face Lawsuit Over Inflated Commissions
TRANSAM TRUCKING: Roberts Bid for Conditional Status Partly OK'd
TRESOR: Faces Class Action Suit Over Workers' Exploitation
UNION SECURITY: Seeks More Time to File Reply Brief in Class Suit
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Files Bid to Appeal Ruling in R.B. ERISA Suit
UNITED COAL: Settlement in Chapman Suit Gets Initial Nod
UNITED SERVICES: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment vs MSP Recovery
UNIVERSAL NAVIGATION: Risley Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Class in COVID Suit Certified
USD FUNDING: Dimitrov Allowed Leave to Conduct Discovery
VANGUARD HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, MacKinney Alleges
VO HOLDINGS: General Pretrial Management Entered in Castro Suit
WALMART INC: Holmes Sues Over False Marketing of Equate Products
WEST VIRGINIA: Magistrate Hears Testimony in Jail Class Action
WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Former Employee Files Labor Suit in CA Court
WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit
WYNN RESORTS: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing in D. Nev.
[*] AFB Veterans Join Forever Chemicals Class Action Suit
[*] Cook County, IL Sees Influx of GIPA Class Action Claims
*********
ABLETO INC: Faces Class Suit Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a class action
alleges AbleTo, Inc. has placed unlawful telemarketing calls to
consumers' cell phones without first securing their permission to
be contacted.
A proposed class action alleges AbleTo, Inc. has placed unlawful
telemarketing calls to consumers' cell phones without first
securing their permission to be contacted.
The 25-page case was filed by a Florida resident who claims the
online therapy company has called him approximately 30 to 50 times
since October 2021 to promote its services despite having never
obtained prior express consent to do so.
Although the plaintiff has asked AbleTo multiple times to stop
contacting him, the company has continued to call him and left at
least three prerecorded, nearly identical voicemails offering its
virtual therapy services and self-help coaching programs, the
lawsuit contends.
According to the filing, the federal Telephone Consumer Protection
Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act prohibit the use of
an artificial or recorded voice to deliver non-emergency telephone
calls without first receiving the recipient's express consent.
Moreover, the filing accuses the company of allegedly placing calls
to thousands of consumers listed on the national do-not-call
registry without their prior express consent.
The complaint claims AbleTo has subjected tens of thousands of
individuals to its "knowing, willful, and intentional" violations
of state and federal laws. The case argues that, as a result, the
defendant owes consumers $1,500 for each of its allegedly unlawful
phone calls, which the plaintiff says have inconvenienced him,
disrupted his daily life, invaded his privacy and taken up memory
on his cell phone.
The suit looks to cover anyone in the United States who, within the
past four years, received any solicitation/telemarketing phone
calls from AbleTo to their telephone made through the use of an
artificial or prerecorded voice and had not previously consented to
receive such calls.
The lawsuit also seeks to cover anyone within the United States
who, within the past four years, received two prerecorded phone
calls within a 12-month period from AbleTo to their telephone. [GN]
ALASKA: Court Certifies Suit Over Mismanaged Foster Care System
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Gennaro of Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge advanced a putative class action brought by 14 foster
children against Alaska's Office of Children's Services.
Plaintiffs seek "wide-ranging reform" of Alaska's foster care
system, which plaintiffs claim is beset by structural issues that
violate their federal statutory and constitutional rights.
Examples of these structural failures include high caseworker
turnover and unmanageable caseloads, which together "prevent OCS
from adequately supervising and providing services to the children
in its protective custody."
Children in the agency's care are subjected to "destabilizing
placement changes," according to the plaintiffs. These placement
changes are a result of a failure to "recruit, reimburse, and
maintain enough foster homes and other community-based placements."
Children with disabilities are "often placed in inappropriately
restrictive environments," the plaintiffs say, and the agency does
not do enough to meet the needs of Alaskan Native children, who are
disproportionately represented in Alaska's foster care system.
The plaintiffs claim the agency doesn't try to place Alaskan Native
children with Alaskan Native foster families. As a result, many
Native children end up in non-Native households, "severing them
from their culture and their identity."
Services for mental health or substance abuse are also particularly
poor, the plaintiffs claim.
They sued on behalf of themselves and a proposed class consisting
of "all children for whom OCS has or will have legal responsibility
and who are or will be in the legal and physical custody of OCS."
Their claims include violations of their substantive due process
rights under the 14th Amendment, rights to familial association
under the First, Ninth, and 14th Amendments, rights under the
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as well as the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
On September 28, 2023, U.S. District Judge Joshua Kindred ruled
that plaintiffs had standing to bring the action in federal court.
Their complaint, he wrote, "adequately alleged they are suffering a
continuing injury or are under imminent threat of future injury.
Each named plaintiff is in OCS custody and therefore cannot avoid
exposure to the defendants' challenged conduct."
"The persistent deficiencies identified in the complaint present a
threat of repeated injuries connected to those deficiencies. Courts
analyzing similar foster care class actions have arrived at the
same result," Kindred wrote.
The children's claims regarding familial association with their
parents advance. Members of the ADA subclass have stated a claim
for "a failure to implement reasonable modification to avoid
unjustified isolation."
The state sought to dismiss the case, arguing the injunctive relief
the plaintiffs seek would undermine state court decisions about
foster children's placements and services, and said plaintiffs
should have to litigate the action in superior court instead.
Kindred was unconvinced, writing that any prospective relief from a
federal court does not undermine state court's competency to
conduct individual foster care proceedings or to "independently
correct any structural problems state courts themselves identify."
In addition, state court would be inappropriate because the
plaintiffs in the case are not challenging their current services,
they are seeking a reform of the Office of Children's Services'
system.
"None of the plaintiffs challenge their current placements or
current services in this suit. Rather, they seek systemic reform of
OCS so that their problems -- for example, being shuffled from
placement to placement -- do not persist," wrote Kindred.
Alaska argued Kindred must abstain under the precedent of O'Shea v.
Littleton, wich instructs federal courts to abstain in cases "where
the plaintiff seeks an 'ongoing federal audit' of the state
judiciary, whether in criminal proceedings or in other respects."
O'Shea's "general proposition is that courts 'should be very
reluctant to grant relief that would entail heavy federal
interference in such sensitive state activities as administration
of the judicial system.'"
Kindred says abstention under O'Shea doesn't apply in this case,
however, because plaintiffs' relief is targeted "directly" at the
administration and functioning of the children's services agency.
"This feature distinguishes this case from the majority of cases in
which O'Shea is applied, which involved plaintiffs who requested
federal court oversight of state courts' operations and
procedures," Kindred wrote.
The state also argued the case should be dismissed because of a
violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, which states that
"every order granting an injunction . . . must state the reasons
why it issued; state its terms specifically; and describe in
reasonable detail -- and not by referring to the complaint or other
document -- the act or acts restrained or required."
Kindred rejected the argument "By its plain terms, Rule 65 governs
the scope and content of court orders granting an injunction; it
does not impose a heightened pleading standard on plaintiffs
seeking an injunction," Kindred wrote. Plaintiffs need only to
provide the "general contours" of an injunction that would provide
relief.
"Plaintiffs have done so here by detailing 17 specific actions they
request this court order defendants to undertake and one action
they request the court order defendants to cease taking," Kindred
wrote. [GN]
ALCO WINDOWS: Expert Disclosures in Difiore Extended to Nov. 6
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY DIFIORE,
individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities
similarly situated, v. ALCO WINDOWS AND DOORS LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-21522-JEM (S.D. Fla.), the Parties file a joint motion to
extend class certification deadline for 31 days, until November 6,
2023.
-- The deadlines for Plaintiff Oct. 6, 2023
(a) to amend the complaint and
(b) to seek class certification
are both:
-- The deadline for Plaintiff to Nov. 6, 2023
serve expert disclosures is:
ALCO provides services for the installment of the impact windows,
doors, and garage doors.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3F1WAGY at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
rachel@kaufmanpa.com
The Defendant is represented by:
George N. Andrews, Esq.
Michael I. Feldman
KRINZMAN, HUSS, LUBETSKY
FELDMAN & HOTTE
169 E. Flagler Street | Suite 500
Telephone: (305) 854-9700
E-mail: gna@khllaw.com
mif@khllaw.com
ALEX ADRIAN MOLINAROLI: Dismissal of Gumm Suit Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International PLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that in the case
captioned "Gumm v. Molinaroli, et al.," the oral argument has yet
to be scheduled by the court since plaintiffs have appealed to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit the
dismissal of the case.
Briefing on the appeal is completed. Alex Adrian Molinaroli served
as Chief Executive Officer of Johnson Controls, from 2013 through
2017.
On August 16, 2016, Case No. 16-cv-1093 was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, naming
Johnson Controls, Inc., the individual members of its board of
directors at the time of the merger with the company's merger
subsidiary and certain of its officers, the company and the
company's merger subsidiary as defendants. The complaint asserted
various causes of action under the federal securities laws, state
law and the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, including that the individual
defendants allegedly breached their fiduciary duties and unjustly
enriched themselves by structuring the merger among the Company,
Tyco and the merger subsidiary in a manner that would result in a
United States federal income tax realization event for the putative
class of certain Johnson Controls, Inc. shareholders and allegedly
result in certain benefits to the defendants, as well as related
claims regarding alleged misstatements in the proxy
statement/prospectus distributed to the Johnson Controls, Inc.
shareholders, conversion and breach of contract.
The complaint also asserted that Johnson Controls, Inc., the
Company and the company's merger subsidiary aided and abetted the
individual defendants in their breach of fiduciary duties and
unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks, among other things,
disgorgement of profits and damages. Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on February 15, 2017.
Johnson Controls International PLC, headquartered in Cork, Ireland,
is into engineering, manufacturing, commissioning and retrofitting
building products and systems, including residential and commercial
heating, ventilating, air-conditioning equipment, industrial
refrigeration systems, controls, security systems, fire-detection
systems and fire-suppression solutions.
ALLSTATE LIFE: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Continued to Nov. 8
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN L. HOLLAND-HEWITT,
v. ALLSTATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00652-ADA-SAB
(E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley A. Boone entered an order
granting ex parte motion in part, continuing hearing on the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and setting
supplemental briefing schedule.
-- The Defendant's ex parte motion is granted in part.
-- The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
continued from October 4, 2023, to November 8, 2023, at 10:00
a.m., in Courtroom 9.
-- The parties shall file any initial supplemental briefing on or
before October 16, 2023.
-- The parties shall file any reply supplemental briefing on or
before October 30, 2023.
Allstate provides life insurance, retirement and investment
products, and voluntary accident and health insurance to
individuals and institutional customers.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QdLsNP at no extra charge.[CC]
AMARIN CORP: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Alleged Drug Monopoly
------------------------------------------------------------
Amarin Corporation PLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that the company is a defendant in a
class action lawsuit filed by The International Union of Operating
Engineers Locals 137, 137A, 137B, 137C, 137R, on behalf of indirect
purchasers, in the District Court for the District of New Jersey,
Civil Action No. 21-12416, alleging Amarin violated state and
federal antitrust laws by monopolizing and engaging in a conspiracy
to restrain trade in the icosapent ethyl drug and API markets.
Amarin Corporation PLC is a pharmaceutical company focused on the
commercialization and development of therapeutics to improve
cardiovascular health.
AMARIN CORP: Faces Dang Suit in New Jersey Court
------------------------------------------------
Amarin Corporation PLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that on October 21, 2021, a purported
investor in the company's publicly traded securities filed a
putative class action lawsuit against Amarin Corporation PLC, the
former chief executive officer and the former chief financial
officer in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
captioned "Vincent Dang v. Amarin Corporation PLC, John F. Thero
and Michael W. Kalb," Case No. 1:21-cv-19212 (October 21, 2021,
D.N.J.).
Plaintiffs are shareholders who claim that Amarin issued material
misstatements or omissions about the status of an ongoing
abbreviated new drug application litigation challenging the
validity of "Vascepa," a prescription-grade ultrapure omega-3 fatty
acid.
Amarin Corporation PLC is a pharmaceutical company focused on the
commercialization and development of therapeutics to improve
cardiovascular health.
AMAZON CANADA: Faces Combined Appeals in Labor Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Dino of Canadian Lawyer reports that the Ontario Court of
Appeal has permitted the appeals of certification and stay
decisions to be combined despite an existing arbitration
agreement.
In Davis v. Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services, ULC, 2023 ONCA 634,
approximately 73,000 delivery drivers retained as independent
contractors or employed by third-party companies filed a class
action lawsuit against Amazon. The delivery drivers claimed that
they were, in fact and law, employees of Amazon. Consequently, they
are entitled to overtime, holiday pay, and other entitlements under
provincial employment standards legislation.
The class action judge dismissed the plaintiff's motion to certify
the action as a class proceeding and granted Amazon's motion to
stay according to the Arbitration Act. The judge found that the
claims of some members of the proposed class were parties to
agreements that contained arbitration provisions. The plaintiff
sought to appeal the stay decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal
because it was a final order of a Superior Court judge from which
an appeal lies to the Court of Appeal. The plaintiff sought an
extension of time to appeal the stay decision and requested the
appeal transfer from the certification decision, which is currently
pending in the Divisional Court, to the Court of Appeal.
The plaintiff brought a motion seeking an extension of time to
deliver his notice of appeal from the stay decision and an order
transferring to the Court of Appeal the appeal certification
decision that was pending in the Divisional Court and combining it
with the appeal from the stay decision.
Amazon consented to the extension of time for the appeal of the
stay decision but opposed the transfer of the certification
decision appeal to the Court of Appeal.
The court noted that the fact that one appeal lies to the Court of
Appeal and another to the Divisional Court and that both were in
the same proceeding were necessary but insufficient conditions to
make an order for transfer. Such an order is discretionary, and the
court may refuse to grant it even if the parties consented. The
court emphasized that the overriding consideration was whether
separate appeals in different courts or combining them in the Court
of Appeal better comports with the administration of justice.
The court further explained that relevant factors to whether a
joinder is appropriate include the risk of inconsistent results,
the extent of overlap in the matters to be addressed in the two
appeals, and whether the different issues in the two appeals
contraindicate the joinder.
In this case, the judge highlighted the intertwined nature of the
issues, as the motion to stay was part of Amazon's resistance to
the certification motion. The court observed that Amazon moved to
have the proposed class action stay in favour of arbitration for
those with arbitration provisions in their work contracts.
The court also considered that it was only because certification of
a class proceeding was under consideration that the court could
even entertain whether claims of delivery drivers who had
arbitration agreements should be stayed in favour of arbitration.
The court found these considerations relevant to the administration
of justice. It militated strongly in favour of the appeals being
combined in the same court so that they can be managed, sequenced,
considered, and decided, taking into account and specifying the
effect a decision may have on the other.
As a result, the time to deliver a notice of appeal from the stay
decision was extended. Additionally, the appeal from the
certification decision, pending in the Divisional Court, is
transferred to the Court of Appeal and combined with the appeal
from the stay decision. [GN]
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Flannery Class Suit Over Credit Inquiries
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Styf of Top Class Actions reports that American Express is
facing a class action lawsuit alleging the company makes hard
credit inquiries on new applications when it claims it only makes
soft inquiries until the new card is finalized.
That means a potential customer's credit can be negatively affected
even if their credit application is denied, the American Express
hard credit class action claims.
A soft credit pull is not visible to third parties on a credit
score, while a hard credit pull does have an impact.
"Soft inquiries include inquiries made when a consumer checks his
or her own credit report, inquiries made by businesses with which
the consumer already does business, such as a mortgage servicer
reviewing the status of the consumer's account and, as discussed
above, and inquiries made by credit card companies or insurance
companies to make firm offers of credit even when no transaction
has been initiated by a consumer," the class action says.
American Express falsely marketing credit checks, won't remove
inquiries from credit reports, lawsuit claims
American Express marketed its cards by telling customers they would
know if they were approved without an impact on their credit score.
The plaintiff sent four credit disputes to the credit reporting
agencies, and none was successful.
American Express is accused of obtaining credit reports without
permission and obtaining consumer information under false
pretenses.
American Express is also facing a lawsuit from an Arizona woman
alleging it violated the law when it contacted her at least 10
times trying to collect debt from a woman she says she has never
heard of.
Do you use an American Express credit card? Let us know in the
comments.
The plaintiff is represented by Yitzchak Zelman of Marcus and
Zelman LLC.
The American Express class action lawsuit is Flannery v. American
Express Co., Case No. 2:23-cv-07931, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California Western Division. [GN]
AMERICAN FAMILY: Faces Class Suit Over Breach of Contract
---------------------------------------------------------
Andy Nghiem of Madison – St. Clair Record reports that an
Illinois man has filed a proposed class action lawsuit against the
American Family Insurance Company, claiming the company
undercalculates insurance payouts by calculating repair costs as
depreciation.
Plaintiff Bradley Martin filed a class action lawsuit in the
Madison County Circuit Court against American Family Mutual
Insurance Company, S.I, citing breach of contract.
According to the lawsuit, on March 27, 2021, an insurance policy
between Martin and American Family Mutual Insurance Company was in
effect for a recreational vehicle (RV) that was damaged due to
flooding. Following the damage, Martin made a claim against the
insurance policy, with American Family calculating its actual cash
value (ACV) obligation. The obligation was paid out to Martin.
Martin states that American Family chose to use the "replacement
cost less depreciation" (RCLD) methodology when calculating ACV. In
calculating RCLD, American Family subtracts depreciation from the
"real cash value" (RCV) of the damaged property, which allegedly
includes non-material costs, including labor costs to repair the
property.
Martin claims that by improperly including labor costs under
depreciation to determine ACV payments, American Family has
breached its contract by paying him and other policyholders less
than what they were entitled to receive under the terms of their
insurance contracts.
The plaintiff is seeking monetary damages for himself and the
proposed class, plus court costs, interest, attorney fees, and any
other relief the court deems proper. The plaintiff is represented
by the attorneys of Byron, Carlson, Petri & Kalb, LLC, in
Edwardsville, and T. Joseph Snodgrass of Snodgrass Law, LLC, in
Minneapolis.
Madison County Circuit Court case number 2023LA001091 [GN]
AMERICOR FUNDING: Seeks Deadline for Class Certification Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAMERON MOSER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AMERICOR FUNDING, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-10008-KMM (S.D. Fla.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order setting a deadline for
Plaintiff to move for class certification and continuing the
current discovery deadlines.
The Plaintiff filed his Class Action Complaint on February 7, 2023
alleging two causes of action for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) of 1991 and one cause of action for
violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA).
On April 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint. The Plaintiff seeks to represent three classes: the FTSA
Autodial Class, the FTSA Do Not Call Registry Class and the TCPA Do
Not Call Registry Class.
On April 19, 2023, the parties through their undersigned counsel
filed a Joint Scheduling Report.
On April 19, 2023, this Court entered a Scheduling Text Order
setting forth the discovery deadlines. Among other deadlines, the
following were set: Expert disclosures by October 5, 2023,
Discovery deadline of November 3, 2023, and Trial set for the week
of February 12, 2024.
The Scheduling Text Order did not provide a deadline for Plaintiff
to move for class certification.
The parties propose the following deadlines:
a. Class certification deadline: Feb. 12, 2024
b. Expert disclosures due 45 days after the Court's ruling on
certification.
c. Discovery deadline: 90 days after the Court’s ruling on
certification.
d. Trial: September 2024
Americor is a next-generation Finance Technology (FinTech) company
that uses a proprietary online platform designed to provide debt
relief.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 2, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46AaxYl at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi Kaufman, Esq.
Rachel Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
31 Samana Drive
Miami, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jenniffer Cabrera, Esq.
TROUTMAN AMIN, LLP
1825 NW Corporate Blvd, Suite 200
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 834-0883
E-mail: jenniffer@troutmanfirm.com
AMERITA INC: Rose Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW ROSE, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERITA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-07990-FMO-KS (C.D. Cal., Sept. 25, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, invasion of privacy, breach
of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of
confidence, and violations of the California Unfair Competition
Law, the California Customer Records Act, and the California
Consumer Privacy Act arising from the Defendant's failure to
properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals' sensitive personal data.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff's and other proposed Class
members' sensitive information, including confidential medical
information, was accessed and taken by unauthorized third parties
as a result of Defendant's inadequate data security and inadequate
or negligent training of its employees. While Defendant learned of
the breach on March 13, 2023, it waited till September 2, 2023 to
notify Plaintiff and other Class members. The data breach was a
direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and
reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to
protect Plaintiff's and other Class members' sensitive information,
says the complaint.
As a result of Defendant's failure to implement and follow
reasonable security procedures, Class members' sensitive
information is now exposed. The Plaintiff and Class members have
spent, and will continue to spend, significant amounts of time and
money trying to protect themselves from the adverse ramifications
of the data breach and dealing with actual fraud and will forever
be at a heightened risk of identity theft and fraud, adds the
complaint.
Amerita, Inc. is a specialty infusion company focused on providing
complex pharmaceutical products and clinical services to patients
outside of the hospital.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino Del Rio S., Suite 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (866) 219-3343
Facsimile: (866) 219-8344
E-mail: josh@swigartlawgroup.com
- and -
Ben Travis, Esq.
BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC
4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (619) 353-7966
E-mail: ben@bentravislaw.com
ANI PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal of Consolidated Suit Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ani Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in August 9, 2023, that on February 21, 2023,
the company and the defendants' motions to dismiss all actions were
granted with prejudice.
Plaintiffs have filed notices of appeal in the Second Circuit. On
June 12, 2023, plaintiffs-appellants filed their brief in the
Second Circuit and defendants-appellees filed their brief on July
17, 2023.
On December 3, 2020, class action complaints were filed against the
company on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect
purchasers of the drug "Bystolic." On December 23, 2020, six
individual purchasers of Bystolic, CVS, Rite Aid, Walgreen, Kroger,
Albertsons, and H-E-B, filed complaints against the Company.
On March 15, 2021, the plaintiffs in these actions filed amended
complaints. All amended complaints were substantively identical.
The plaintiffs in these actions alleged that, beginning in 2012,
Forest Laboratories, the manufacturer of Bystolic, entered into
anticompetitive agreements when settling patent litigation related
to Bystolic with seven potential manufacturers of a generic version
of Bystolic: Hetero, Torrent, Alkem/Indchemie, Glenmark, Amerigen,
Watson, and various of their corporate parents, successors,
subsidiaries, and affiliates. ANI itself was not a party to patent
litigation with Forest concerning Bystolic and did not settle
patent litigation with Forest. The plaintiffs named the Company as
a defendant based on the company's January 8, 2020 Asset Purchase
Agreement with Amerigen. Under the terms of the 2020 Asset Purchase
Agreement, Amerigen agreed to indemnify ANI for certain liabilities
relating to Bystolic, including liabilities that arose prior to
closing of the asset purchase. The complaints alleged that the 2013
patent litigation settlement agreement between Forest and Amerigen
violated federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer
protection laws by delaying the market entry of generic versions of
Bystolic. Plaintiffs alleged they paid higher prices as a result of
delayed generic competition. Plaintiffs sought damages, trebled or
otherwise multiplied under applicable law, injunctive relief,
litigation costs and attorneys’ fees. The complaints did not
specify the amount of damages sought from the Company or other
defendants and the company.
The cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York as "In re Bystolic Antitrust
Litigation," Case No. 20-cv-005735 (LJL). On April 23, 2021, the
company and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaints. On January 24, 2022, the court dismissed all claims
brought by the plaintiffs without prejudice. The court granted the
plaintiffs until February 22, 2022 to file amended complaints,
which were filed in federal court in the Southern District of New
York, on that date. The newly amended complaints contained
substantially similar claims. On April 19, 2022, the company and
other defendants filed motions to dismiss the newly amended
complaints. On May 23, 2022, the plaintiffs filed oppositions to
the motions to dismiss and, on June 24, 2022, the company and other
defendants filed replies to those oppositions.
ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries is a
diversified bio-pharmaceutical company serving patients in need by
developing, manufacturing, and marketing high quality branded and
generic prescription pharmaceuticals, including for diseases with
high unmet medical need. It is focused on delivering growth by
scaling up our Rare Disease business through the successful launch
of our lead asset, "Cortrophin Gel," strengthening its generics
business with enhanced development capability, innovation in
established brands and leveraging our manufacturing capabilities.
ARCHDIOCESE OF WASHINGTON: Faces Child Sexual Abuse Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Winston Rogers and Kellye Lynn, writing for 7News, reports that a
class-action lawsuit filed against the Archdiocese of Washington on
Oct. 2 is accusing church staff of sexually abusing three anonymous
people in an effort to receive justice for decades-old cases
silenced by Maryland's old statute of limitations, according to
court records filed by two Maryland-based law firms.
One day after Maryland's Child Victims Act of 2023 went into
effect, lifting the statute of limitations for survivors of child
sexual abuse, two law firms jointly filed a case in Prince George's
County, Md. alleging the Archdiocese engaged in "a pattern or
practice of conduct that has permitted sexual abuse against
children for decades."
Schochor, Staton, Goldberg, and Cardea, P.A. and Janet, Janet &
Suggs said their clients, who filed under the pseudonyms John Doe,
Richard Roe, and Mark Smith, were allegedly assaulted by church
staff during their youths. All victims are Maryland residents, and
all claim to have suffered various physical, emotional and
financial injuries as a result.
Additionally, documents alleged that the Archdiocese did very
little to protect the victims, often acting with "care and
solicitude toward the perpetrators."
They are seeking over $75,000 in damages.
"I was abused when I was in high school. It was Archbishop Keough
High School," Teresa Lancaster told 7News.
She shared old photos that captured her at the age when she said
the abuse happened.
From 1970 to 1972 starting at the age of sixteen, Lancaster said a
priest at her school in Baltimore violated her.
"He threatened me. The very first time I was in his office he had
all my clothes off, had me sitting on his lap, he had a gun on the
desk, and he basically told me that nobody would believe me if I
said anything," the Anne Arundel County resident recalled.
Attorney Jonathan Schochor explains many sexual abuse survivors are
like Lancaster and wait years before they pursue legal action
against their attackers.
He said that's why Maryland's Child Victims Act is so important.
"It eliminates the statute of limitations so that sexual abuse
victims may come forward, access our civil justice system, and gain
some closure," Schochor stated.
"The stories I've heard are bone-crushing and I am absolutely
committed to taking care of my clients and moving forward,"
Schochor added.
"The payments they would give to the survivors, it's a beginning,
it's a starting block to say, 'Hey we're sorry, your entire life
was altered by this occurrence, and we want to make it right," said
Lancaster.
This recent charge comes days after an unredacted report was
released on sexual abuse claims against the Archdiocese of
Baltimore, which has since filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
reorganization. Critics believe that was done to delay possible
lawsuits that would also be filed due to Maryland's new law,
however, church leaders said it's, "to equitably compensate
victim-survivors of child sexual abuse" while the local Catholic
church continues its mission and ministries.
Allegations and convictions against Catholic clergy members extend
for decades, with the recent lawsuit just one of many in the
church's ongoing struggle.
In a joint statement from the law firms in this case, The
Archdiocese of Washington had previously admitted to having 34
clergy members "credibly accused" of sexual abuse of minors.
7News reached out to the Archdiocese of Washington for comment and
a representative released the following statement:
"The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington is reviewing all
available options in response to the new Maryland law that allows
for civil suits for sexual abuse to be filed at any time,
regardless of how long ago the alleged actions occurred.
Cardinal Wilton Gregory in a letter on Sept. 29 to the people of
the Archdiocese expressed his profound sorrow for acts of abuse
that occurred within the church.
He renewed his pledge to continue archdiocesan efforts to provide a
safe environment for all, including extensive training and a
zero-tolerance policy.
We became aware today of a lawsuit filed on behalf of three
plaintiffs.
We do not comment on pending litigation."
Pope Francis issued a "zero-tolerance" statement on sex abuse
across the Catholic church, during an interview late last year with
CNN, openly chastising many in the church who've allegedly worked
to protect those who committed the abuse. [GN]
ARIZONA: Must Pay Toomey $375K in Attorneys' Fees
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Russell B Toomey, v. State
of Arizona, et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-00035-RM-MAA (D. Ariz.), the
Hon. Judge Rosemary Marquez entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiff's consent motion for approval of
consent decree:
-- State Defendants shall pay Plaintiff $375,000.00 in
attorneys'
fees.
-- The Court otherwise approves the parties’ Consent Decree.
-- The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly
and
close this case.
-- The Motion for Leave to File a Brief as Amicus Curiae is
denied.
-- The Defendant State of Arizona's Motion for Summary Judgment
is
denied as moot.
On March 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed the operative Amended Complaint
alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Court certified the following class for the Title VII claim:
"Current and future employees of the Arizona Board of Regents
who
are or will be enrolled in the self-funded Plan controlled by
the
Arizona Department of Administration, and who have or will have
medical claims for transitionrelated surgical care."
The Court certified the following class for the Equal Protection
claim:
"Current and future individuals (including Arizona State
employees
and their dependents), who are or will be enrolled in the self-
funded Plan controlled by the Arizona Department of
Administration,
and who have or will have medical claims for transition-related
surgical care."
Arizona is a landlocked state situated in the southwestern United
States, bordering Mexico in the south.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 29, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rxMjzf at no extra charge.[CC]
ATHIRA PHARMA: Court Denies Class Suit Settlement Over Equity Issue
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ufonobong Umanah of Bloomberg Law reports that Athira Pharma Inc.
and investors in a class action failed to convince a district court
to approve a preliminary settlement.
Two investors alleged they were surprised by the news that the
biopharmaceutical company's Alzheimer's treatment products were
based on research that included altered images. Former CEO Leen
Kawas, who did the research while completing graduate coursework,
was placed on leave and later resigned. The US District Court for
the Western District of Washington denied preliminary approval of
the settlement on September 27, 2023.
Judge Thomas S. Zilly ruled he couldn't disregard concerns about
conflict of interest and equitable treatment. [GN]
BANXA HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit Over App's Facial Geometry Scan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Nghiem of Cook County Record reports that A class action
lawsuit alleges that an online crypto currency platform has
violated Illinois' stringent biometrics privacy law by requiring
users to submit to a facial geometry scan to verify their identity
during the signup process.
Plaintiff Candace Wilhelm filed a class action lawsuit in Cook
County Circuit Court against Banxa Holdings, citing negligence and
carelessness in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act (BIPA).
According to the lawsuit, Banxa is an online cryptocurrency trading
platform that lets users trade, purchase, or transfer
cryptocurrency. The lawsuit claims that as part of the signup
process, Banxa requires users to submit to a facial geometry scan
in their mobile app to verify their identity. Wilhelm claims that
she signed up for the Banxa platform in 2018 and was required to
submit her facial geometry during the signup process.
The lawsuit states that BIPA requires that prior to collecting
biometric data, which includes facial geometry scans, companies
must inform employees in writing that their biometric data will be
collected and stored. It also states that employees must be
informed in writing of the specific purpose for which the biometric
data is being collected and for how long it will be stored.
Additionally, BIPA requires that companies must receive a written
release from the employee for the collection of their biometric
data.
Wilhelm alleges that Banxa Holdings invades the privacy of its
users by collecting and storing their biometric data without
informed consent. She further claims that the company never
received a release from her allowing them to collect her biometric
data, and she never authorized the company to collect her biometric
data for this use.
Companies operating such online apps have become a growing target
of class action lawsuits under the BIPA law in recent months. The
law has already spawned thousands of class action lawsuits against
companies across the country that may do business in Illinois. The
law has primarily been used to target employers, seeking relatively
easy settlements worth millions in many cases, as the courts have
interpreted the law to allow plaintiffs to bring potentially big
money claims even if they were never actually harmed by the
biometric scans in any way.
Under the law, plaintiffs can demand damages of $1,000-$5,000 per
violation. The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled the law should be
interpreted to define "individual violations" as each time a
company scans someone's biometric identifying characteristic over
the preceding five years, no matter how many times the scan may
have taken place previously. When multiplied across hundreds,
thousands or even millions of customers, users or employees, the
potential payouts can quickly climb into the millions or even
billions of dollars should such a lawsuit proceed to trial,
prompting nearly all companies to opt to settle as quickly as
possible.
Wilhelm is seeking money damages for herself and everyone in her
class action lawsuit, plus court costs, attorney fees, and any
other relief the court deems proper. She is represented in this
case by attorneys Michael L. Fradin and James L. Simon, both of
Ohio. [GN]
BATON ROUGE, LA: Faces Class Suit Over Unlawful Strip Searches
--------------------------------------------------------------
WBRZ Staff of WBRZ reports that the Baton Rouge Police Department
is now the focus of a class action lawsuit alleging that officers
habitually strip-searched individuals without justification.
The lawsuit filed on September 29, 2023 alleges that numerous
people had their rights violated by Baton Rouge police officers who
stripped them down in an effort to "humiliate, denigrate, and
intimidate" those individuals.
It comes after multiple people publicly alleged they were
unlawfully strip-searched inside of a makeshift interrogation site
known as the Brave Cave. A separate lawsuit exposed the facility
and how it was being used by BRPD's Street Crimes unit, a division
of the department which was shut down amid the fallout.
Five police officers with ties to the Street Crimes unit and the
Brave Cave are facing criminal charges as of September 29, 2023.
[GN]
BAUSCH HEALTH: Court Certifies Class Suit Over COLD-FX Advertising
------------------------------------------------------------------
CNW Group of Yahoo! Finance reports that Toronto law firm Tyr LLP
announced on September 28, 2023 that the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice has certified a class action against Bausch Health, Canada
Inc. and its affiliate Valeant Canada LP (together, the
"Defendants"). Bausch + Lomb now distributes COLD-FX(R) in Canada.
This class action alleges that the Defendants have made false,
misleading, deceptive, or unconscionable advertising claims to
consumers in respect of the following Cold-FX(R) products:
Cold-FX(R) (regular and extra strength), Cold-FX(R) Daily Support
(regular, chewable, and extra strength), Cold-FX(R) First Signs,
Cold-FX(R) First Signs Nighttime, and Cold-FX(R) Daily Defence
(regular and extra strength) (collectively, the "Cold-FX(R)
Products").
Among the advertisements at issue are statements that the
Cold-FX(R) Products are: "proven by science"; "clinically proven";
contain "clinically proven ingredients"; or have a "clinically
proven formula" to help (i) reduce the frequency, duration, and
severity of cold and flu symptoms and (ii) increase the proportion
of natural killer cells and T-helper cells to boost the immune
system. These claims largely form the basis of the allegations in
this class action that the Defendants have breached provincial
consumer protection legislation, the federal Competition Act, and
the federal Food and Drugs Act.
The certified class includes all persons in Canada who purchased
one or more of the Cold-FX(R) Products between January 1, 2017 and
September 28, 2023.
The class action seeks reimbursement (in full or in part) of the
amounts paid by Canadian consumers to purchase Cold-FX(R) Products
or a return of the profits the Defendants have gained in selling
Cold-FX(R) Products between January 1, 2017 and September 28, 2023.
The class action also seeks to prevent the Defendants from
continuing to make the allegedly unlawful Cold-FX(R) advertising
claims.
The Defendants deny that they have made any false, misleading or
deceptive statements in relation to COLD-FX(R) Products and deny
that they have breached any of the legislation referred to. No
decision on the merits of the allegations has been made by the
Court and the Defendants are defending the certified class action.
The allegations will be determined at a future trial.
Additional information about this case, including the Court's
Reasons for Decision (Certification) are available at
https://classactions.tyrllp.com/cold-fx.html.
Lead counsel prosecuting this lawsuit on behalf of the class are
Sean R. Campbell and James D. Bunting. [GN]
BEAUMONT INDEPENDENT: Murphy Seeks to Certify Employee Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREG MURPHY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. BEAUMONT
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT and SHANNON ALLEN, Case No.
1:22-cv-00135-MAC (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting his motion for certification of BISD
Nonexempt Essential Employee Class:
"All BISD employees within the district from who, on or during
the
COVID-19 school closures were deprived of earned wages for hours
worked during the pandemic."
Nonexempt employees of BISD were entitled to Premium Pay for
Disasters according to the BISD policy in effect at the time of the
closure.
The employee required to work during an emergency closing for a
disaster is to be paid at the rate of one- and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all hours worked up to 40 hours per week.
As nonexempt, essential workers, (i.e. custodians, plumbers, food
service workers, electricians and support and maintenance
personnel) at the time of the COVID-19 emergency school closure,
which began on or about March 23, 2020, Plaintiffs were entitled to
be paid Premium Pay, pursuant to BISD policy.
The closure continued for months without pay being made consistent
with the BISD policy.
The BISD Nonexempt Essential Employee Class intends to pursue a
common claim against Defendants under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for
due process and first amendment violations.
The Plaintiff moves the Court for a determination that this case
may proceed as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 to pursue claims against the Defendants.
The action arises from the alleged Defendants' violation of the
BISD policy, which authorized just compensation under both the
Texas and United States Constitutions for Premium Pay wages earned
for time worked during school closures due to the COVID-19
pandemic.
Beaumont Independent is a U.S. public school district serving
Beaumont in Southeast Texas.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46DHdQI at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon P. Monk, Esq.
THE MONK LAW FIRM
4875 Parker Drive
Beaumont, TX 77705
Telephone: (409) 724-6665
Facsimile: (409) 729-6665
E-mail: brandon@themonklawfirm.com
- and -
Laurence ("Larry") Watt, Esq.
WATTS & COMPANY, LTD
Missouri City, TX 77459
Telephone: (281) 431-1500
Facsimile: (877) 797-4055
E-mail: Wattstrial@gmail.com
BELL CANADA: Court Certifies Class Suit Over Door-to-Door Sales
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nida Zafar of Mobile Syrup reports that a class action against
telecom giant Bell on the company's sale practices will continue
forward, Quebec's Court of Appeal has ruled.
On July 4th, 2023, Quebec's Superior Court approved a filing from a
Quebec resident alleging the company took part in door-to-door
sales practice that went against the province's Consumer Protection
Act.
Resident Marie-Josee Langlois-Vinet alleged a sales representative
from the company arrived at her door to sell services in February
2019. However, she wasn't provided with a contract for the
services, which were later hashed out over the phone with a
different representative. In her suit, Langlois-Vinet argues the
move violated the act as the salesperson who came to her door
didn't have a permit to sell her the services.
Bell appealed the decision, partly arguing there wasn't enough
evidence for the class action to continue. The company also stated
Judge Lukasz Granosik made several mistakes in the July ruling
related to "unjustified causes of action" based on the act.
However, Quebec's Court of Appeal has ruled that Bell's arguments
didn't have a leg to stand on.
"Given the simple filtering role of the request for authorization
and the even more restricted role of the judge responsible for
authorizing appeals of judgments authorizing collective action, the
applicant does not convince that the judge has, on the face of its
judgment, erred in a manifest and decisive manner or committed a
simple error of law," the court's ruling states.
The class action represents Quebec residents who bought services
from Bell starting on July 23rd, 2018. [GN]
BGC GROUP: Faces Antitrust Charges from Former Partners
-------------------------------------------------------
BGC Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in August 9, 2023, that on March 9, 2023, a purported
class action complaint was filed against Cantor Fitzgerald LP
(former owner of BGC Holdings LP), BGC Holdings, and Newmark
Holdings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
(Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00265).
The collective action, which was filed by seven former limited
partners of the defendants on their own behalf and on behalf of
other similarly situated limited partners, alleges a claim for
breach of contract against all defendants on the basis that the
defendants failed to make payments due under the relevant
partnership agreements. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that
the non-compete and economic forfeiture provisions upon which the
defendants relied to deny payment are unenforceable under Delaware
law. The plaintiffs allege a second claim against Cantor and BGC
Holdings for antitrust violations under the Sherman Act on the
basis that the Cantor and BGC Holdings partnership agreements
constitute unreasonable restraints of trade.
In that regard, the plaintiffs allege that the non-compete and
economic forfeiture provisions of the Cantor and BGC Holdings
partnership agreements, as well as restrictive covenants included
in partner separation agreements, cause anticompetitive effects in
the labor market, insulate Cantor and BGC Holdings from
competition, and limit innovation. The plaintiffs seek a
determination that the case may be maintained as a class action, an
injunction prohibiting the allegedly anticompetitive conduct, and
monetary damages of at least $5.0 million.
BGC Group, Inc., holding company for and successor to BGC Partners,
Inc., its wholly owned subsidiary, and operates a global brokerage
and financial technology company servicing the global financial
markets through brands including BGC(R), Fenics(R), GFI(R), Sunrise
Brokers(TM), Poten & Partners(R) and RP Martin(R), among others.
The company's businesses specialize in the brokerage of a broad
range of products, including fixed income such as government bonds,
corporate bonds, and other debt instruments, as well as related
interest rate derivatives and credit derivatives. Additionally, the
company provides brokerage products across FX, equities, energy and
commodities, shipping, and futures and options.
BIMBO BAKERIES: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Elder
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICKI ELDER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BIMBO BAKERIES
USA, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00637-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge
David Dugan entered an order granting the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment.
By virtue of this ruling, all other pending motions are denied as
moot. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for
Defendant and against the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff Vicki Elder brings this putative class action against
Defendant Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., alleging that Defendant
deceptively labelled one of its food products.
Elder brings a claim under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA), and claims for breach of
warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust
enrichment.
Elder alleges that the label "All Butter Loaf Cake" is misleading
because the soybean oil acts as a shortening ingredient and, thus,
a butter substitute. The artificial flavors enhance the cake's
buttery taste and cover the non-buttery flavor of the soyabean
oil.
Together, the soyabean oil and artificial flavors give consumers
the impression that the cake contains more butter than it actually
does.
Elder claims that had she not been misled by the "All Butter Loaf
Cake" label, she would have purchased fewer cakes or paid less for
them.
The Defendant manufactures, labels, markets, and sells a cake
labelled "All Butter Loaf Cake" under its Entenmann's brand.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 29, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3F2mOci at no extra charge.[CC]
BINANCE HOLDINGS: Sued Over Cryptocurrency Market Manipulation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessie A Ellis of Blockchain News reports that on October 2, 2023,
plaintiff Nir Lahav filed a class-action lawsuit in the District
Court of Northern California against Binance Holdings Limited, BAM
Trading Services Inc., BAM Management US Holdings Inc., and CEO
Changpeng Zhao. The lawsuit accuses Binance and Zhao of unfair
competition and violations of Security Exchange Commission (SEC)
laws. The plaintiff alleges that Binance's actions were aimed at
monopolizing the cryptocurrency trading platform market at the
expense of competitor FTX.
The lawsuit is detailed, citing multiple instances of alleged
misconduct. It claims that Binance intentionally acted to harm FTX
by liquidating its holdings in FTX's utility token, FTT, and then
misleading the public about it. The suit also accuses Binance of
bait-and-switch tactics, stating that Zhao tweeted about Binance's
intent to acquire FTX but retracted the statement a day later,
causing market instability.
The Role of Social Media
Central to the lawsuit are tweets made by Zhao on November 6, 2022.
In these tweets, Zhao announced the liquidation of Binance's
holdings in FTT. According to the lawsuit, this tweet was
misleading because Binance had already liquidated its FTT holdings
the day before. The tweet allegedly led to a 14% decline in FTT's
price within 24 hours, causing significant market disruption.
Zhao's subsequent tweet about Binance's intent to acquire FTX, only
to retract it a day later, is also under scrutiny. The plaintiff
claims that these actions were calculated to harm FTX and led to
its "rushed and unprecedented collapse," affecting thousands of
traders and investors.
SEC's Regulatory Framework
The lawsuit delves into the SEC's role in regulating cryptocurrency
trading platforms. It argues that the SEC's broad definitions of
securities are deliberately designed to capture new financial
instruments, including cryptocurrencies. The suit cites the Howey
Test, a legal standard used to determine what constitutes a
security, as a basis for its allegations against Binance.
The plaintiff is seeking monetary damages, court costs, and
disgorgement of ill-gotten gains. The lawsuit states that there are
potentially thousands of class members affected by Binance's
actions. Both Binance and FTX are currently subject to SEC actions,
adding another layer of complexity to the case. If the allegations
are proven, it could set a precedent for how cryptocurrency
exchanges are regulated and could potentially reshape the
competitive landscape of the industry. [GN]
BOK FINANCIAL: Court Stays Securities Suit
------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that a suit filed by two bondholders
on August 26, 2016 against its subsidiary, BOKF, NA in the United
States District Court for New Jersey is currently stayed.
The putative class action alleges that BOKF, NA participated in the
fraudulent sale of securities by the principals. While the action
remains stayed with no current deadlines pending, plaintiffs
recently informed the court of their intent to request the stay be
lifted in a joint status report. BOKF, NA plans to oppose the
request to lift the stay.
BOK Financial Corp. is a commercial bank based in Tulsa OK which
operate three principal lines of business: Commercial Banking,
Consumer Banking and Wealth Management.
BROCK PIERCE: Seeks to Restrict Filing on Opposition to Class Cert
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN ROWAN,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BROCK PIERCE, an individual, Case No. 3:20-cv-01648-RAM (D.P.R.),
the Defendant files a motion to restrict filing related to
opposition to renewed motion for class certification.
On September 29, 2023, the Defendant will file his Opposition to
Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class Certification. The Defendant
Pierce intends to file more than a dozen exhibits, many of which
contain confidential information such as settlement agreements and
documents produced in the litigation that are protected under the
terms of the Stipulated Protective Order.
A copy of the the Defendant's motion dated Sept. 29, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Q1ptJN at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Ramon E. Dapena, Esq.
Ivan J. Llado, Esq.
MORELL CARTAGENA & DAPENA LLC
Ponce de León Ave. 273 Plaza 273, Suite 700
San Juan PR 00908
Telephone: (787) 723-1233
Facsimile: (787) 723-8763
E-mail: ramon.dapena@mbcdlaw.com
ivan.llado@mbcdlaw.com
- and -
Ashley L. Shively, Esq.
Kayla L. Pragid, Esq.
Lisa Kohring, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
50 California Street, Suite 2800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 743-6900
Facsimile: (415) 743-6910
E-mail: ashley.shively@hklaw.com
kayla.pragid@hklaw.com
lisa.kohring@hklaw.com
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Bright Seeks to Conditionally File Under Seal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGHAN BRIGHT, as Curator
of the ESTATE OF LEONARD FOOTE, and BARBARA J. ADAMS, as Power of
Attorney for DAVID G. ADAMS, on their own behalf and all others
similarly situated, v. BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING INC., Case No.
3:19-cv-00374 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order granting their motion for leave to conditionally file
under seal.
Brookdale offers a wide range of senior living and retirement
communities and senior care options.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 2, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3F2w68h at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christa L. Collins, Esq.
COLLINS LAW PL
433 Central Ave 4th Floor
Saint Petersburg, FL 33701
Telephone: (727) 218-1763
E-mail: christa@clcclassactionlaw.com
- and -
Ali Naini, Esq.
Kelly Bagby, Esq.
Elizabeth Aniskevich, Esq.
Stefan Shaibani, Esq.
AARP FOUNDATION
601 E Street, NW
Washington, DC 20049
Telephone: (202) 434-2103
Facsimile: (202) 434-6424
E-mail: kbagby@aarp.org
eaniskevich@aarp.org
anaini@aarp.org
sshaibani@aarp.org
- and -
Michael S. Kelley, Esq.
KENNERLY, MONTGOMERY & FINLEY, P.C.
550 Main Street, Fourth Floor
Knoxville, TN 37902
Telephone: (865) 546-7311
Facsimile: (865) 524-1773
E-mail: mkelley@kmfpc.com
- and -
Bryan Gowdy, Esq.
CREED & GOWDY, P.A.
865 May Street
Jacksonville, FL 32204
Telephone: (904) 350-0075
E-mail: bgowdy@appellate-firm.com
CALIFORNIA: D'Souza et al. Sue Over Children Custody Orders
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jason D'Souza, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Hon. Patricia Guerrero,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-08230 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 29, 2023) is a
class action arising from the Defendant's violation of the First
and Fourteenth Amendments.
Hon. Patricia Guerrero is sued in her official capacity as Council
Chair for the Judicial Council of California.
The Plaintiffs, who are fit parents, were subjected to court orders
that grant them no "actual parenting time," i.e., no "care, custody
and control" of their children. In their complaint, Plaintiffs
challenge the Judicial Council of California's policy of not
training judges -- first, that parenting is a fundamental right,
and second, that judges may not issue physical custody orders that
grant no "actual parenting time -- unless a parent is found 'unfit'
-- i.e., with clear and convincing evidence of actual harm to a
minor child, pursuant to a properly noticed fitness
proceeding.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
T. Matthew Phillips, Esq.
4894 W. Lone Mountain Rd., No. 132
Las Vegas, NV 89130
Telephone: (323) 314-6996
E-mail: TMatthewPhillips@aol.com
CALIFORNIA: Letricia Brown Files 9th Cir. Appeal
------------------------------------------------
LETRICIA LAVERN BROWN is taking an appeal from orders entered in
her lawsuit entitled Letricia Lavern Brown, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. State of
California, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01966-ODW-PVC,
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Los Angeles to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California, is
brought against the Defendants for alleged engagement in a monopoly
in violation of federal anti-trust laws allegedly resulting in the
cancellation of $30,000 per month in payments for her IFC
facility.
On May 15, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
case.
On Apr. 7, 2023, the Plaintiff filed her first amended complaint,
which the Defendants moved to dismiss.
On Sept. 12, 2023, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's first amended complaint through an Order
entered by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. The action was dismissed with
prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).
On the same day, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to
State Court, which the Court denied on Sept. 15, 2023. Judge Wright
found that is not in the interest of justice for the Court to remit
the Plaintiff's essentially fictitious, wholly insubstantial, and
obviously frivolous claims to state court, where they will be
summarily denied.
The appellate case is captioned Letricia Brown v. State of
California, et al., Case No. 23-55813, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on September 28, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Letricia Lavern Brown opening brief was due on
October 20, 2023;
-- Appellees AANE Consultants, et al., answering brief is due on
December 18, 2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant LETRICIA LAVERN BROWN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Letricia Lavern Brown, Esq.
1942 1/2 Imperial Highway, W
Los Angeles, CA 90047
Telephone: (424) 271-1691
Defendants-Appellants STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., are represented
by:
Mark Brown, Esq.
AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General
300 S. Spring Street, Suite 1702
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: (213) 269-6528
- and -
Rebecca Chmura, Esq.
COLLINS AND COLLINS, LLP
750 The City Drive, Suite 400
Orange, CA 92868
Telephone: (714) 823-4100
- and -
Tomas A. Guterres, Esq.
COLLINS + COLLINS, LLP
790 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 600
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (626) 243-1100
- and -
Carley Ryckman, Esq.
1784 Collingswood Court
Westlake Village, CA 91362
Telephone: (805) 373-1383
- and -
David P. Pruett, Esq.
CARROLL, KELLY, TROTTER, FRANZEN, MCBRIDE & PEABODY
111 W. Ocean Boulevard, 14th Floor
P.O. Box 22636
Long Beach, CA 90801
Telephone: (562) 432-5855
- and -
George Tourkow, Esq.
MCCUNE & HARBER, LLP
515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 689-2500
- and -
Lindsay N. Frazier-Krane, Esq.
Sarah Lee Overton, Esq.
CUMMINGS, MCCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO
3801 University Avenue, Suite 560
Riverside, CA 92501
Telephone: (951) 276-4420
- and -
Robert P. Sievers, Esq.
SIEVERS LAW FIRM, PC
5842 Beverly Boulevard, E.
Los Angeles, CA 90022
- and -
Nicole Roggeveen, Esq.
COLEHUBER, LLP
2855 E. Guasti Roade, Suite 402
Ontario, CA 91761
Telephone: (909) 230-4209
- and -
Jessica Stuart Pliner, Esq.
O'HAGAN MEYER, LLP
221 Caledonia Street
Sausalito, CA 94965
Telephone: (628) 626-6907
- and -
Orley Brandt Caudill, Jr., Esq.
CALLAHAN, THOMPSON, SHERMAN & CAUDILL, LLP
2601 Main Street, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92614
CASE WESTERN: Class Cert Response in Lozada Due Oct. 27
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lozada v. Case Western
Reserve University, Case No. 1:20-cv-02336 (N.D. Ohio, Filed Oct.
13, 2020), the Hon. Judge David A. Ruiz entered an order granting
joint motion for extension of time:
-- Filing of responses to motion for Oct. 27,
2023
summary judgment and motion for
class certification:
-- Filing of Replies: Nov. 10,
2023
The nature of suit diversity-breach of contract.
Case Western is a private research university in Cleveland,
Ohio.[CC]
CENTERSTATE BANK: Claim Filing in Overdraft Fees Suit Until Oct 21
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Schilke, writing for Washington Examiner, reports that
CenterState Bank customers have until Oct. 21 to file a claim and
receive a portion of a nearly $2.7 million class-action settlement
with the bank after allegations of illegal overdraft fees.
The settlement, worth $2.65 million, will benefit CenterState Bank
customers who had a checking account with the bank and were charged
certain overdraft fees on debit transactions between April 6, 2015,
and May 31, 2020, or were charged insufficient funds or overdraft
fees on ACH debits or checks between Aug. 18, 2015, and Aug. 21,
2020.
CenterState Bank, now known as SouthState Bank, is a financial
institution with over 240 branches and ATMs across Alabama,
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia.
Eligible recipients of the settlement will receive a pro-rata share
of the net settlement fund based on the amount they were charged in
illegal bank fees. Class members can receive a cash payment,
account credit, or forgiveness of uncollected fees, depending on
their situation.
CenterState Bank has not admitted wrongdoing but agreed to the
settlement to resolve the class-action lawsuit. The bank ranked
among Forbes's top 50 best banks in America.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Oct. 23. The approval
hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Nov. 30. [GN]
CENTRAL PARK: Court Conditionally Certifies FLSA Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Gregory S. Slotnick
of DuaneMorris.com report that on September 25, 2023, Judge Colleen
McMahon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York District granted conditional certification of a collective
class under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") in Ademi v.
Central Park Boathouse, LLC et al., No. 22 Civ. 8535 (S.D.N.Y.
Sept. 25, 2023). In its order, the Court found that one single
affidavit, submitted by a long-tenured named employee, provided
allegations sufficient to grant his request to conditionally
certify the collective action. Employers in the Second Circuit
(i.e., New York, Connecticut, and Vermont) should note the
extremely minimal burden workers are required to meet at the
conditional certification stage of a wage & hour lawsuit, as
granting certification based on a single declaration is at the low
end of the spectrum as certifications rulings go. The case also
serves as the latest reminder for businesses to ensure their wage &
hour practices and compliance are up to date given the
ever-changing landscape and evolving federal, state, and local
rules and regulations concerning wage & hour issues.
Case Background
Plaintiff, a former long-tenured server who worked at the Central
Park Boathouse (the "Boathouse") from approximately January 2011
through October 16, 2022, filed a complaint on behalf of himself
and all current and former front-of-the-house tipped employees
(captains, assistants, bartenders, bussers, runners, and servers)
employed at the Boathouse within the last six years. In the
complaint, the worker sought to recover unpaid wages (including
overtime) due to an invalid tip credit policy, unreimbursed costs
for maintenance of uniforms, and unpaid wages due to improper meal
credit deductions in violation of the FLSA and the New York Labor
Law ("NYLL"), as well as failure to provide proper wage statements
under the NYLL. Plaintiff also brought a claim for unlawful
retaliation against him in violation of both laws, and all claims
were filed against the Boathouse and its former owner and operator.
Id. at 1.
Plaintiff claimed that he was regularly scheduled to work seven
hours a day, five days per week, but also regularly worked two or
three double-shifts per week, totaling approximately 49 to 56 hours
worked per week. Id. at 3. Plaintiff's declaration included a list
of the first (but not last) names of six other servers also
allegedly scheduled to work similar hours and shifts, and he
claimed there were additional names of other workers as well. Id.
Plaintiff asserted that the Boathouse paid tipped
front-of-the-house employees tip-credited wages without providing
them notice that tip credits would be taken against their wages.
Id. at 4. The complaint claimed the Boathouse thus paid the tipped
employees below the New York minimum and overtime rate based on the
tip credit, and attached paystubs generated between 2016 and 2020
confirming such rates. Id. Plaintiff claimed he personally observed
and discussed the Boathouse paying below the required minimum
amounts with named and unnamed co-workers. The Complaint also
alleged the Boathouse maintained a tip credit policy despite
requiring tipped workers spend more than 20% of their total weekly
hours performing non-tipped work and required the workers to
maintain their own uniforms without proper cost reimbursement to
offset cleaning costs. Id. at 4-5. Finally, Plaintiff alleged the
restaurant improperly deducted meal credits from wages of all
tipped front-of-house employees for meals that often made coworkers
sick and often consisted of unsold chicken and seafood leftovers.
Id. at 5.
On March 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional
certification of a collective action under the FLSA, seeking the
Court also allow mailing out notice of the opportunity to join the
case to all putative opt-in plaintiffs. Id. at 2.
The Order Granting Conditional Certification
In its decision, the Court noted that in assessing whether a
plaintiff is "similarly situated" to employees the plaintiff seeks
to represent, courts look to the pleadings, affidavits, and
declarations, but often authorize notice at the conditional
certification stage based "solely on the personal observations of
one plaintiff's affidavit." Id. at 9. The Court confirmed that at
the conditional certification stage (the first of a two-step
process for certifying a collective action in the Second Circuit),
courts do not resolve factual disputes or weigh the merits of the
underlying claims when determining whether potential members of the
collective action are similarly situated. Id. A more rigorous
factual review takes place during the second stage of the
certification analysis after discovery, where a court may decertify
a conditionally certified collective action and dismiss the claims
of the opt-in plaintiffs (without prejudice). Id. at 8.
Judge McMahon specifically cited the fact that courts in the Second
Circuit have "routinely" granted conditional certification of a
FLSA collective action based on a single plaintiff's affidavit when
the employee declares that other co-workers were subjected to
similar employer practices. In applying the principle to this
matter, the Court cited to the single affidavit submitted by the
named Plaintiff that chronicled his eleven years of employment at
the Boathouse during which he claimed the Boathouse failed to
provide him and all other tipped front-of-house employees with
notice it was taking a tip credit against their wages, including
for all worked hours during which they performed non-tipped duties
for more than 20% of the time. Id. at 10-11. According to the
employee, these common practices resulted in the Boathouse
unlawfully compensating him and the other tipped workers below the
New York tipped minimum wage and overtime rates. Plaintiff also
claimed the Boathouse required him and all tipped front-of-house
employees to maintain their work uniforms without proper
reimbursement and further deducted a meal credit from their wages
for meals that did not meet New York's minimal meal requirements.
Id.
Critically, the employee declared that he had personal knowledge
from his own observations and his conversations with named and
unnamed co-workers during the course of his eleven years of
employment of the Boathouse applying the same policies (and
violations) to "all tipped front-of-house employees." Id. at 11.
Judge McMahon found that based on his declaration alone, Plaintiff
satisfied his minimal burden of showing he is "similarly situated"
to the proposed class members. The Court found that Plaintiff set
forth a factual basis for his claims of common policies violating
the FLSA, i.e., specifically, policies "depriving tipped
front-of-house workers of wages, failing to reimburse workers for
uniform maintenance, and deducting improper meal credits." Id.
The Court found unconvincing the Boathouse's arguments that the
worker did receive proper notice of the restaurant's tip credit
policy, failed to plead sufficient facts to support his
allegations, and that his declaration contained false statements.
The Court instead noted that at the first stage of conditional
certification, it "does not resolve any factual disputes" and
stated that case law is "clear" that a single plaintiff's affidavit
may be enough to meet the evidentiary burden. Id. at 11-12.
However, the Court did agree with the Boathouse that because two of
the job positions Plaintiff sought to include in his collective
action ("captains" and "assistants") did not actually exist at the
restaurant while it was owned and operated by Defendants, those
positions should not be included in the definition of the
collective action. Id. Otherwise, the Court found that the worker
met his "low burden" to show that he was similarly-situated with
the other proposed class members.
Notably, the Court limited the proposed collective action to any
persons employed at the Boathouse from October 6, 2019 through the
date the Complaint was filed (October 26, 2022), but not including
those currently employed on the date of the Decision and Order
(September 25, 2023), unless that person was also employed on
October 26, 2022. Id. at 12-13. This was in light of a new
concessionaire (and not the defendants sued in the case) reopening
the Boathouse restaurant in June 2023 after it was closed between
October 16, 2022 through that time.
As a result of its granting conditional certification, the Court
authorized notice to be sent out to a collective class consisting
of all tipped front-of-house bartenders, bussers, runners, and
servers employed at the Boathouse during the aforementioned
three-year period. In order to effectuate the notice mailing
process, the Court also ordered the Boathouse to provide plaintiff
with names and addresses of all collective class members to allow
them the opportunity to opt-in to the case. The Judge also denied
plaintiff's request to post the notice at the Boathouse, as it is
no operated under entirely new management, but granted plaintiff's
request to equitably toll the statute of limitations from the date
plaintiff filed his motion for conditional certification through
the date notice is mailed out to the potential opt-in plaintiffs.
Implications for Employers
The order in this case is the latest example of the stark minimal
burden employees must meet in order to conditionally certify a FLSA
collective action within the Second Circuit. In this case, a single
plaintiff's affidavit -- which included alleged discussions with
unnamed co-workers confirming they were subjected to common
unlawful policies -- was enough to convince a judge to
conditionally certify a proposed collective class. In order to give
themselves a chance at defeating a conditional certification motion
similar to the one filed against the Boathouse in this case,
employers and businesses in the Second Circuit are well- advised to
regularly keep themselves up to speed and aware of the
ever-evolving developments in the world of wage& hour law, state
and local rules and regulations concerning pay practices, and abide
by all necessary paperwork and record-keeping requirements in their
respective jurisdictions. [GN]
CHINA XD: Court Narrows Claims in Schmitt Suit
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA SCHMITT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CHINA XD PLASTICS COMPANY, LIMITED, FAITH DAWN LIMITED, FIATH
HORIZON, INC., XD ENGINEERING PLASTICS COMPANY LIMITED, JIE HAN,
TAYLOR ZHANG, LINYUAN ZHAI, HUIYI CHEN and GUANBOA HUANG, Case No.
1:20-cv-06028-KAM-SJB (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto
entered an order granting China XD's motion to dismiss Count One.
The Controlling Shareholders' and the Individual Defendants'
motions to dismiss Count Two are granted. The Plaintiff's claims in
Count One, under Section 14(a), and in Count Two, under Section
20(a), are dismissed with prejudice.
The Controlling Shareholders' and Individual Defendants' motion to
dismiss Count Three and Count Four are granted and Plaintiff's
claims in Count Three and Count Four, under Nevada state law, are
dismissed without prejudice.
Although the Second Circuit has advised that "the usual practice
upon granting a motion to dismiss is to allow leave to replead,"
The Plaintiff has already been granted leave to amend his Complaint
twice.
China XD is a producer of high polymer materials, which it
primarily sells to automobile manufactures in China and the United
Arab Emirates.
A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Sept. 29, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3F1ffCI at no
extra charge.[CC]
CHRIS REYKDAL: N.D. Bid for Reconsideration Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as N.D., et al., v. CHRIS
REYKDAL, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01621-LK-MLP (W.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge Lauren King entered an order granting in part and
denying in part motion for reconsideration.
The Court has thoroughly reconsidered its decision, but ultimately
reaches the same result. On May 10, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Motion
for Provisional Certification and Preliminary Injunction.
They requested that the Court certify a provisional class defined
as:
"All individuals who will be twenty-one on August 31, 2023, and
who
are at that time being provided special education services
pursuant
to an individualized education program ("IEP") implemented by
any
local educational agency ("LEA") in Washington.
Chris Reykdal is the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 29, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45bQ0Z3 at no extra charge.[CC]
CHW GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Katz Class Suit Tossed
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAM KATZ, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. CHW GROUP, INC.,
d/b/a CHOICE HOME WARRANTY, Case No. 5:22-cv-05198-PKH (W.D. Ark.),
the Hon. Judge P.K. Holmes, III entered an order denying the
Defendant's motion to dismiss or strike.
The Court said, "But none of Mr. Katz's proposed class definitions
say anything at all about whether the class members ever consented
to receive phone calls, although CHW inexplicably asserts that they
do.
CHW also advances fail-safe objections to a few other aspects of
Mr. Katz's proposed class definitions but does not provide any
judicial precedent that meaningfully addresses these other
objections.
Additionally, the Court will take this opportunity to explain the
basis for its previous ruling on Mr. Katz's motion for partial
remand, which was denied via docket text order on February 17,
2023.
Mr. Katz brings this putative class action against CHW under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), alleging that he has
received unlawful telemarketing calls and phone solicitations from
CHW. He seeks to represent four different nationwide classes of
individuals who have been subjected to the same annoyance. Mr.
Katz's operative complaint sets forth three separate causes of
action.
-- Count 1 alleges that CHW made prerecorded or artificial voice
telemarketing calls to Mr. Katz without obtaining his prior
express written consent to do so, in violation of 47 U.S.C.
section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) and various implementing
regulations.
-- Count 2 alleges that CHW made telephone solicitations to a
phone
number of Mr. Katz's that was on the national "Do Not Call"
registry, in violation of 47 U.S.C. section 227(c) and various
implementing regulations.
-- Count 3 alleges that CHW made telemarketing calls to Mr. Katz
despite not having an internal written policy pertaining to
"Do
Not Call" requests, in violation of 47 U.S.C. section 227(c)
and
various implementing regulations.
Choice is a home warranty company.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Sept. 29, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RKI1zi at no
extra charge.[CC]
CLEARESULT CONSULTING: Dauch Files Suit in W.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CLEAResult Consulting
Inc. The case is styled as Jason Dauch, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. CLEAResult Consulting Inc.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-01182 (W.D. Tex., Sept. 29, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
CLEAResult Consulting Inc. -- https://www.clearesult.com/ -- are
North America's largest provider of energy efficiency, energy
transition and decarbonization solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC - DALLAS
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
Dallas, TX 75219
Phone: (214) 744-3000
Fax: (214) 744-3015
Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
CO HCPF: Torres Sues Over Failure to Protect PII & PHI
------------------------------------------------------
Jorge A. Torres, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Colorado Department of Health Care Policy & Financing
(CO HCPF); and International Business Machines Corporation, Case
No. 1:23-cv-02309-CNS-MDB (D. Colo., Sept. 8, 2023), is brought
seeking to redress Defendants' unlawful, willful and wanton failure
to protect the personal identifiable information ("PII") and
protected health information ("PHI") of approximately 4,091,794
individuals that was exposed in a major data breach of CO HCPF's
files saved on IBM's MOVEit server in violation of their legal
obligation
On May 28, 2023, an unknown actor gained access to files CO HCPF's
files that were saved on IBM's MOVEit server. As a result,
Plaintiff and the Class Members (as further defined below) have had
their personal identifiable information ("PII") and protected
health information ("PHI") exposed (the "Data Breach"). It is
believed that the well-known Russian cybergang, CL0P ("Clop") is
the source of the attack.
In carrying out its business, CO HCPF obtains, collects, uses, and
derives a benefit from the PII and PHI of Plaintiff and the Class.
As such, CO HCPF assumed the legal and equitable duties to those
individuals to protect and safeguard that information from
unauthorized access and intrusion.
On May 31, 2023, Defendants became aware of a security
vulnerability impacting the MOVEit Secure File Transfer server that
it used. Defendants launched an investigation into the matter, and,
by June 13, 2023, had identified the breach files. The
investigation confirmed that CO HCPF's files located on IBM's
MOVEit server, containing confidential and personal information,
had been accessed without authorization on May 28, 2023. According
to CO HCPF, the PII and PHI exposed in the Breach included names,
Social Security numbers, Medicaid ID numbers, Medicare ID numbers,
dates of birth, home addresses, and other contract information,
demographic or income information, clinical medical information
(such as diagnosis/condition, lab results, medication, or other
treatment information), and health insurance information
(collectively "Personal Information").
Around August 11, 2023, CO HCPF began sending out notices to
Plaintiff and Class Members of the Data Breach. Due to Defendants'
negligence, cybercriminals obtained everything they need to commit
identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives
of thousands of individuals. For the rest of their lives, Plaintiff
and the Class Members will have to deal with the danger of identity
thieves possessing and misusing their Personal Information.
Plaintiff and Class Members will have to spend time responding to
the Breach and are at an immediate, imminent, and heightened risk
of all manners of identity theft as a direct and proximate result
of the Data Breach, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Colorado Department of Health Care Policy & Financing is a Colorado
state entity with its principal place of business located in
Denver, Colorado.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Phone: (405)235-1560
Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com
COLORADO: Settles Trans Women's Class Action Suit for $2.1M
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Pampuro of Courthouse News Service reports that the Colorado
Department of Corrections confirmed in court on September 28, 2023
it will pay a $2.1 million settlement to trans women class members
who sued the state over gender discrimination, denial of medical
treatment and sexual assault as inmates in state custody.
The consent decree filed on September 27, 2023 still needs to be
reviewed by 400 class members and approved by 2nd Judicial District
Judge Jill Dorancy, who was appointed by Democratic Gov. Jared
Polis. Roughly half of the class members remain incarcerated.
Led by Kandice Raven, seven trans women sued the state corrections
department on Nov. 22, 2019. Because the plaintiffs were born male,
the department placed them in men's prisons with little protection
from sexual assault.
Several of the transgender plaintiffs were raped while in custody
and denied access to treatment for gender dysphoria including
medication, therapy and surgery.
"This is not an unusual situation, there are literally thousands of
women being housed with men across the country," attorney Paula
Greisen, who represents the class, told the court.
"In my 33 years as a lawyer, I've never had a harder case," said
Greisen, who practices with the Denver firm King & Greisen.
"I was naive when I started this case to think there was a quick
fix, and I quickly learned the issues are novel and take a lot of
outside-the-box thinking."
Greisen called the consent decree "a wheel that had not been built
before," largely created by experts rather than lawyers.
In addition to paying a $2.1 million settlement to the class, the
department has agreed to implement two types of housing solutions:
either placement in a voluntary trans unit within men's prisons, or
trans women can apply for placement in a women's facility. Both
options provide an increased measure of privacy and access to
medical care and mental health treatment.
The consent decree is currently protected by the court as an
exhibit.
Assistant Attorney General Heather Kelly told the court reaching a
settlement meant navigating the "complexities of managing a prison
population with medical and mental healthcare needs," and covered
concerns about "strip searches, access to canteen items, safety and
security, budget constraints, a change in culture and obviously the
monetary damages."
"This is a fair and adequate resolution for this class," Kelly
said.
The monetary settlement does not include attorneys fees, which have
yet to be brought before the court.
"This is a new area," Judge Dorancy reflected as she posed
thoughtful questions about whether parolees receive new protections
under the settlement — they don't — and how trans women will be
protected from gender discrimination in women's prisons.
If approved by the court, the state would have until January 2025
to implement all of the conditions of the consent decree. [GN]
CONNECTICUT: Plaintiffs Seek More Time for Class Cert Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HARRY VEGA; MICHAEL CRUZ;
KENYA BROWN; JEFFREY PERRY; LEE GRENIER; TAVORUS FLUKER; ANTHONY
ROGERS; THOMAS MARRA; LAWRENCE TOWNSEND; TERRENCE EASTON; LAMONT
SAMUEL; IAN COOKE; JOHN BOSSE; and J. MICHAEL FARREN; BRETT
FENNESSY; EMISAEL TIRADO on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. ANGEL QUIROS, Commissioner of Correction;
ROLLIN COOK, former Commissioner of Correction, et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-00107-MEG (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an
extension of time to file their Renewed Motion for Class
Certification.
On August 22, 2023, the Court denied without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and ordered that any
renewed motion be filed by October 6, 2023.
The Plaintiffs request a 14-day extension of time, through October
20, 2023, to file their renewed motion. Defendants have no
objection to the requested extension of time.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs continue to work toward obtaining the
appropriate documentation to include with their renewed motion, but
additional time is needed to consult with Plaintiffs’ disclosed
experts. The additional 14 days will provide sufficient time for
Plaintiffs' counsel to gather evidence needed to support its
renewed motion.
The Plaintiffs request that the Court grant the requested extension
and extend the deadline for filing their Renewed Motion for Class
Certification to October 20, 2023.
The Defendants include SCOTT SEMPLE, former Commissioner of
Correction; JAMES DZURENDA, former Commissioner of Corrections; LEO
ARNONE, former Commissioner of Correction; THERESA LANTZ, former
Commissioner of Correction; JAMES ARMSTRONG, former Commissioner of
Correction; LAWRENCE MEACHUM, former Commissioner of Correction;
HENRY FALCONE, Former Warden, Garner Correctional Institution;
DENISE DILWORTH, former Warden, Garner Correctional Institution;
ANTHONY CORCELLA, former Warden, Garner Correctional Institution;
AMONDA HANNAH, Former Warden, Garner Correctional Institution;
CRAIG WASHINGTON, Warden, Garner Correctional Institution; STEVEN
LINK, Director, Department of Correction Engineering and Facilities
Management; and DAVID BATTEN, former Director, Department of
Correction Engineering and Facilities Management; RICHARD PEASE,
Environmental Engineering Services of the Department of Correction,
all in their individual and official capacities,
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 2, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZGFKqE at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David X. Sullivan, Esq.
Thomas J. Finn, Esq.
Paula Cruz Cedillo, Esq.
Justyn P. Stokely, Esq.
McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
City Place I, 36th Floor
185 Asylum Street
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 275-6700
Facsimile: (860) 724-3397
E-mail: dsullivan@mccarter.com
tfinn@mccarter.com
pcedillo@mccarter.com
jstokely@mccarter.com
- and -
Martin J. Minnella, Esq.
MINNELLA, TRAMUTA, & EDWARDS, LLC
40 Middlebury Road
Middlebury, CT 06762
Telephone: (203) 573-1411
Facsimile: (203) 757-9313
E-mail: pcrean@mtelawfirm.com
CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Settles Suit Over COVID Tuition Refunds for $3M
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David Propper of New York Post reports that Cornell University has
agreed to pay $3 million to settle a 2020 class-action lawsuit
filed by students after the Ivy League school shut down in-person
learning during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.
If a student was enrolled at the Ithaca, New York-based institution
during the spring 2020 semester, they might be eligible for a
portion of the settlement that stems from Alec Faber's initial
suit, according to a legal notice posted on the school's website
last week.
The April 2020 lawsuit accused Cornell of either refusing to
reimburse or not adequately returning money to students for
tuition, fees and other costs that they paid for when typical
operations were disrupted by the virus.
"While closing campus and transitioning to online classes was the
right thing for the Defendant to do, this decision deprived
Plaintiff and other members of the Class from recognizing the
benefits of in-person instruction, meals, access to campus
facilities, student activities, and other benefits and services for
which they had already paid fees and tuition," Faber's lawsuit
claimed.
Cornell denied breach of contract and other wrongdoing allegations
in its Sept. 21 notice.
However, the school said that in the "interests of both the
University and its students in prompt resolution of the matter, the
University and Plaintiffs have agreed that the University will pay
$3,000,000 into a settlement Fund to resolve this action."
In-person classes were canceled by mid-March 2020 and most students
were ordered to vacate the campus by the end of March.
Students were pleading for refunds tied to fees and charges and
even began a petition calling for some of their money back,
according to the lawsuit.
Lawyers for the plaintiff could not be immediately reached for
comment.
"Cornell is pleased to have reached this settlement, which both
sides believe is in the best interests of all parties," Joel M.
Malina, vice president for university relations, said in a
statement.
Students have the option to opt out of the payment or object to the
possible settlement by Nov. 9.
The school has more than 24,000 enrolled students, according to
legal papers.
A final approval hearing is scheduled for Dec. 13. [GN]
CORNWELL QUALITY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Hudson Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Hudson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. The Cornwell Quality Tools Company,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01887-PAB (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 28, 2023)
seeks to redress Defendant's alleged unlawful, willful and wanton
failure to protect the personal identifiable information of
approximately 11,884 individuals that was exposed in a major data
breach of ACEN's network in violation of its legal obligations.
On September 22, 2023, the Defendant experienced a network
disruption. Defendant launched an investigation into the disruption
and, with the help of independent cybersecurity experts, determined
that some of Defendant's files containing borrower-related
information had been accessed or acquired by the unknown actor.
Defendant concluded its investigation on August 23, 2023. According
to Defendant, the personal information exposed in the breach
included names and Social Security numbers. In late August 2023,
Defendant began notifying Plaintiff and Class Members of the data
breach.
Allegedly, due to Defendant's negligence, cybercriminals obtained
everything they need to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on
the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals. The
Defendant betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and the other Class
Members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their personal
identifiable information(PII) and thereby enabling cybercriminals
to steal such valuable and sensitive information, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and members of the class purchased tools from
Cornwell. In carrying out its business, Defendant obtains,
collects, uses, and derives a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff and
the Class.
The Cornwell Quality Tools Company manufactures tools for
automotive and aviation industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 East Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
- and -
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
CRUMBL LLC: Faces Cytryn Class Suit Over Cookies' False Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action claims Crumbl Cookies has grossly misrepresented the number
of calories in its products, allegedly "some of the most unhealthy
dessert products on the market on September 28, 2023."
The 33-page first amended complaint says the gourmet cookie seller,
reportedly the fastest-growing dessert retailer nationwide,
highlights the fact that its cookies can be enjoyed guilt-free
while failing to disclose that each cookie "contains a
significantly higher calorie content" than the company lets on.
Essentially, Crumbl has deprived consumers of the ability to make
informed choices about their calorie intake, the suit contends.
According to the lawsuit, Crumbl "carries out this deception" by
claiming publicly that the calorie content of its cookies varies
depending on serving size and by product. However, the company does
not reveal, and "in fact takes pains to deliberately conceal,"
according to the case, that a single cookie can amount to "as many
as four servings."
"Thus, a cookie that is advertised to [a] consumer as containing
190 calories 'per serving' actually contains 760 calories per
cookie," the complaint summarizes.
In fact, the suit goes on, many of Crumbl's cookies account for "as
much as a third or more" of an average consumer's daily recommended
caloric intake. Per the case, Crumbl, who reportedly sold on
average more than a million cookies per day last year, deliberately
hides this from the public.
"By showcasing [the purportedly lower calories] of its product
line, Defendant appeals to health-conscious consumers seeking
delicious treats that nonetheless align with their dietary goals,"
the lawsuit reads. "This focus has helped Defendant establish a
unique position in the market, attracting customers who value both
taste and nutritional value."
According to the case, some Crumbl cookies boast calorie counts "as
high as 900 per cookie."
The lawsuit charges that Crumbl has violated the FDA's on-menu
calorie disclosure requirements for retail food establishments with
20 or more locations. In doing so, the suit alleges, Crumbl has
created a false impression among consumers that its cookies are low
in calories when, in reality, "they contain enormous amounts of
calories, fats, cholesterol, and sugar."
In particular, Crumbl has failed to list on menus the calories for
each single, undivided cookie, even though the FDA requires a food
retailer to list the total calories for a standard menu item as it
is usually prepared and offered for sale, the suit claims.
Moreover, Crumbl has claimed in-store and online that the calorie
content of cookies is "dependent on serving size," which "varies by
product," even though, according to the filing, "[t]his is
absolutely untrue."
Further, Crumbl has intentionally used the reference amount
customarily consumed of 30 grams for a cookie, and applied this to
its cookies' total calorie counts "despite the FDA's prohibition
against this practice" and the legal requirement that food
retailers must state the calories "for a whole, single menu item,"
the case alleges. Lastly, the lawsuit claims Crumbl has failed to
follow font, size and position requirements for on-menu calorie
disclosures, burying the information next to other disclaimers that
used brighter and bigger fonts.
"The resulting financial windfall to Defendants as a result of this
fraudulent scheme has been enormous," the suit says.
The complaint accuses Crumbl of "violating consumer trust" and
showing a "disregard for ethical marketing practices."
The lawsuit looks to cover all consumers nationwide who bought
Crumbl cookies within the last four years. [GN]
CUTERA INC: Faces ECERS Suit on California
------------------------------------------
Cutera, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in August 9, 2023, that on May 24, 2023, purported
shareholder Erie County Employees' Retirement System filed a
putative class action securities fraud complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against the
company, David H. Mowry, Rohan Seth, and J. Daniel Plants,
asserting claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case styled "Erie County
Employees' Retirement System v. Cutera, Inc., et al.," Case No.
4:23-cv-02560 remains pending.
Cutera, Inc. develops, manufactures, distributes and markets
energy-based product platforms for medical practitioners, under the
following system platforms: "AviClear," "Enlighten," "Excel,"
"truSculpt," "Secret PRO," "Secret RF," and "Xeo." These platforms
enable medical practitioners to perform procedures including
treatment for acne, body contouring, skin resurfacing and
revitalization, hair and tattoo removal, removal of benign
pigmented lesions, and vascular conditions.
CVS HEALTH: Court Junks McCabe Class Action
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN McCABE, v. CVS
HEALTH CORPORATION and CVS PHARMACY, INC., Case No.
1:22-cv-03116-RPK-RML (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Rachel Kovner
entered an order:
1. Granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss; and
2. Dismissing with prejudice Amended Complaint.
Here, the plaintiff's proposed Second Amended Complaint --
submitted after the Court requested additional briefing from the
parties in connection with the motion to dismiss -- fails to cure
the deficiencies in the Amended Complaint.
The Plaintiff adds a single paragraph that states: "McCabe was
injured because, as a result of CVS's misrepresentation, at least a
portion of his Campaign Donation was not meaningfully given to the
ADA, such that he did not receive that for which he paid."
The Plaintiff Kevin McCabe donated money to the non-profit American
Diabetes Association ("ADA) through a point-of-sale solicitation at
a CVS pharmacy. According to plaintiff, that solicitation was part
of a fundraising campaign conducted pursuant to an agreement
between the ADA and defendants CVS Health Corporation and CVS
Pharmacy Inc.
CVS promised in the agreement to raise money for the ADA from
pharmacy customers, while also agreeing that if it ultimately
failed to raise at least $10 million, CVS would make up the
shortfall with a donation of its own.
In this putative class-action lawsuit, McCabe contends that CVS
committed common-law fraud, common-law breach of contract, and
violations of consumer protection laws in soliciting customers like
him for donations.
He argues that CVS’s promise to the ADA that it would make up any
shortfall in its $10 million fundraising goal meant that donations
by customers like McCabe were not gifts to the ADA at all but were
instead effectively gifts to CVS.
CVS is an American healthcare company that owns CVS Pharmacy, a
retail pharmacy chain; CVS Caremark, a pharmacy benefits manager;
and Aetna, a health insurance provider.
A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Sept. 29, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LJSRlh at no
extra charge.[CC]
CVS PHARMACY: Faces Class Suit Over Improper Medicare Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Marty Schladen of Ohio Capital Journal reports that a class-action
suit has been filed in federal court on behalf of community
pharmacies claiming that health giant CVS has used its dominance as
a drug middleman to force pharmacies to pay large, after-the-fact
fees in Medicare transactions.
The suit was filed last week in Seattle on behalf of Osterhaus
Pharmacy, which until last year did business in Maquoketa, a small
town in eastern Iowa. The lawyers representing the pharmacy say
they also represent other, "similarly situated" pharmacies.
It's the latest antitrust action against CVS and two other dominant
middlemen -- Express Scripts and OptumRx -- which are known as
pharmacy benefit managers. The Federal Trade Commission last year
opened an investigation into all three companies, and Ohio Attorney
General Dave Yost in March sued Express Scripts, alleging
violations of the state's antitrust law.
Pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs, occupy a pivotal position in
the drug-supply chain.
Each of the big three is part of a corporation that also owns a
major health insurer. CVS owns Aetna, UnitedHealth owns OptumRx and
Express Scripts and Cigna are part of the same corporation.
The PBMs represent those and other insurers when it comes to
filling prescriptions for people covered by the insurers. Among
their functions, they create lists of drugs that are covered by the
plans, create networks of pharmacies and they determine how much to
reimburse those businesses for the medicines they dispense.
The suit filed in Seattle argues that under the Medicare Part D
program -- which covers prescriptions for the elderly -- CVS is
forcing pharmacies to join its networks and agree to a system of
arbitrary clawbacks long after CVS Caremark initially reconciles
claims.
The company is able to do so because it and the other two large
PBMs are estimated to control 80% of that marketplace, the suit
says. In other words, pharmacies have to sign contracts on CVS's
terms or give up the business of millions of insured patients.
And in addition to its heft as a PBM, CVS is "vertically
integrated." It owns the largest retail pharmacy chain, a large
mail-order pharmacy operation and a top-10 insurer. The lawsuit
filed last week said CVS is able to control too many sides of
prescription transactions.
"This vertical consolidation has served CVS Caremark well," it
said. "It now controls not just the pricing of drugs, not just the
selection of the drugs covered by Part D Plans, and not just the
selection of pharmacies in each Part D network; CVS Caremark also
controls access to at least a third of the Medicare beneficiaries
enrolled in PBM-affiliated Plans. Pharmacies must accept the
increasingly anti-competitive pricing and contract terms set forth
by CVS Caremark or face exclusion from its Part D network."
For its part, CVS said the claims are false.
"We believe the allegations are without merit and intend to defend
ourselves vigorously," spokesman Phillip Blando said in an email on
October 2, 2023.
The suit alleges that some CVS fees in the Medicare Part D program
violate the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 -- which is aimed at
keeping companies from using market dominance to suppress
competition.
That body of law has strong ties to Ohio. The Sherman Act was
sponsored by an Ohio senator, John Sherman, and signed by an Ohio
(and Indiana) president, Benjamin Harrison.
The Buckeye State also has long had its own antitrust law, which
the suit filed in Seattle last week referenced as it quoted from
Yost's suit against Express Scripts.
"PBMs are modern gangsters…" the Ohio suit says. "They were
designed to protect and negotiate on behalf of employers and
consumers after Big Pharma was criticized for overpricing
medications, but instead they have absolutely destroyed
transparency, scheming in the shadows to control drug prices on all
sides of the market."
The latest suit specifically targets direct-and-indirect
remuneration, or DIR, fees charged by CVS in its Part D program.
Those are performance-based fees pharmacies have to pay if they
want to be in the CVS network. The suit says CVS's use of them has
grown dramatically and increasingly rapidly over the past 13
years.
"From 2010 to 2020, pharmacy DIR fees increased by more than
100,000% -- that is, they grew more than 1,000 times larger," the
suit said. "In 2021, DIR fees increased an additional 33% from 2020
levels to $12.6 billion."
The suit says that all network pharmacies must pay minimum DIR
fees, but they can be forced to pay much more because of factors
pharmacies can't control.
"For example, CVS Caremark penalizes an Independent Pharmacy on
adherence if a patient discontinues fulfilling her prescriptions at
the pharmacy, regardless of circumstances," the suit says. "The
cause may be that the patient spends winters in a different part of
the country and fills her prescriptions there, or the patient was
told by the physician to discontinue using a drug, or the patient
died, or the manufacturer has discontinued manufacturing the drug.
CVS Caremark could assess performance so that Independent
Pharmacies are not penalized for these events, none of which is
within pharmacy control or actually measures pharmacy performance,
but it has chosen not to do so." [GN]
DELAWARE: Light Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal to 3rd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN LIGHT is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his
lawsuit entitled John Light, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Colleen Davis, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1-22-cv-00611, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendants to challenge the constitutionality
of the Delaware Unclaimed Property statute, 12 Del. C. section
1130, et seq., under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the
United States Constitution and under Article I, Section 8 of the
Delaware Constitution of 1897.
According to the complaint, the act authorizes and requires the
State of Delaware to take and hold for public use private property
that is presumed to be abandoned under the Act without paying just
compensation to the owners thereof. The Takings Clause of the Fifth
Amendment prohibits the government from taking or using private
property for public use without just compensation to the property
owner.
On June 30, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case
for failure to state a claim and/or lack of ripeness, which the
Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Christopher J.
Burke on Sept. 27, 2023.
The appellate case is captioned John Light v. Colleen Davis, et
al., Case No. 23-2785, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit, filed on September 28, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JOHN LIGHT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Theodore A. Kittila, Esq.
James G. McMillan, III, Esq.
HALLORAN FARKAS & KITTILA
5801 Kennett Pike, Suite C/D
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 257-2025
(302) 257-2011
Defendants-Appellees THE HONORABLE COLLEEN C. DAVIS, Treasurer of
the State of Delaware, et al., are represented by:
Arthur G. Connolly, III, Esq.
CONNOLLY GALLAGHER
1201 N. Market Street, 20th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 888-6318
- and -
Lisa R. Hatfield, Esq.
Christina M. Thompson, Esq.
Max B. Walton, I, Esq.
CONNOLLY GALLAGHER
267 E. Main Street
Newark, DE 19711
Telephone: (302) 757-7317
(302) 888-6315
(302) 658-9141
DELTA AIR: Court Certifies Flight Attendants' Wage Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq., Jennifer Riley, Esq., Nick Baltaxe,
Esq., and Nathan K. Norimoto, Esq., of Duane Morris, disclosed that
in Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., No. 15-CV-00131(N.D. Cal. Sept.
22, 2023), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169540, Judge William Orrick of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
certified a class of flight attendants based in California on the
limited issue of whether Delta Airlines' wage statements were
compliant with Section 226 of the California Labor Code. This
decision further highlights the low barriers plaintiffs face in
certifying wage statement claims under California law and
emphasizes the importance for employers to review wage statements
on a regular basis for compliance with the California Labor Code.
Case Background
Following dispositive motion practice and an appeal to the Ninth
Circuit, Plaintiffs moved to certify a class of class of California
employees who worked as flight attendants for Defendant Delta Air
Lines, Inc. ("Delta Airlines or "Delta"). Id. at 1. Plaintiffs
attempted to certify a very narrow class regarding compliant wage
statements issued to flight attendants who worked from January 10,
2022, to October 7, 2022, and did not participate in Delta's
Enhanced Retirement or Voluntary Opt-Out Programs. Id. at 2.
Plaintiffs did so after the Ninth Circuit found that Delta had a
good faith defense to the wage statement claim prior to January 10,
2022, and that Delta changed its wage statements in an effort to
make them compliant on October 8, 2022. Id. at 1. This motion came
after the parties' negotiations to certify this narrowed class fell
apart when Plaintiffs refused to stipulate that Delta's
post-October 21, 2022, wage statements were compliant. Id. at 1.
Delta Airlines opposed Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Delta's opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
did not dispute the Rule 23 requirements of numerosity and
commonality. Id. at 2. However, Delta argued that the claims were
not "typical." Id. Delta relatedly argued that Plaintiffs' request
for certification would create "prejudicial" discrepancies between
Plaintiffs and putative class members that disqualifies them and
their counsel as adequate class representatives under Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id.
In addition, Delta sought relief to file a second motion for
summary judgment to secure an "advisory opinion" from the Court
that its wage statements issued after October 21, 2022, were fully
compliant with the Labor Code. Id.
The District Court's Decision
The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
held that Plaintiffs satisfied the Rule 23 requirements of
typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority of a class
action. Id. at 2-5.
First, the Court held that Plaintiffs' alleged wage statement
violations were "typical" of the putative class in light of Delta's
"good faith defense" to any wage statement violations that occurred
before the proposed class period's start date and Delta's admission
that it revised wage statements immediately after the class
period's end date. Id. at 2-3. The Court rejected Delta's argument
that Plaintiffs' proposed class period was shorter than the class
alleged in the operative pleading which prevented Plaintiffs' claim
from being typical, because Plaintiffs had provided "adequate
justification" for narrowing the class period, especially after the
Ninth Circuit's ruling. Id.
Second, the Court held that Plaintiffs and their counsel were
adequate representatives given the "sensible and logical manner"
Plaintiffs used to narrow the class definition, i.e., the class
period starts immediately after the time period of Delta's good
faith defense and the class period ends when Delta admittedly
started making revisions to its wage statements. Id. at 3. The
Court dismissed Delta's accusation of "claim splitting" as
Plaintiffs were not "jettisoning categories of damages to make this
case more certifiable to the detriment of class members." Id.
As the final step in certifying the class, the Court determined
that predominance and the superiority of resolving Plaintiffs
claims on a class-wide basis were satisfied given the amount of
class members who were "based in California and performed a
majority of their work in California." Id. at 4-5. Delta's argument
that Plaintiffs' proposed class did not account for the number of
intrastate flights outside of California and the hours worked in
non-California airports was rejected by the Court as Delta, which
apparently had "that information at its disposal," did not
introduce any evidence to support those defenses with its
opposition. Id. The Court overruled Delta's attempts to invalidate
Plaintiff's proposed class certification notice and instead, found
the notice was "short, clear, and written in plain language."
Finally, the Court denied Delta's request for leave to file a
second motion for summary judgment on the question of whether the
wage statements issued after the class period complied with the
Labor Code requirements. Id. at 5-6. The Court ordered Plaintiffs
to file an amended pleading that conforms to the certified class
and, since Delta's request implicated statements provided after the
class period, there was no "case or controversy remaining" on the
issue. Id. at 6.
Implications For Employers
California employers already face strict regulations for compliant
wage statements. Even if fully compliant, California employers can
face a litany of derivative wage statement penalties. Employers can
limit liability by arguing good faith defenses and updating their
wage statements for compliance, as Delta did. However, this case
shows that, even with those arguments and changes, Courts are
willing to certify even limited classes. As this litigation shows,
an employer's proactive audits of wage statement compliance can be
critical to reducing future wage statement-related liability in
California. [GN]
DENISE RICHARDS: Faces Class Action Over OnlyFans Account
---------------------------------------------------------
Adam Ragsdale, writing for RealityBlurb!, reports that fans believe
Denise Richards is currently facing a class action lawsuit over her
OnlyFans account.
The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills alum joined the
subscription-based service in the summer of 2022 -- soon after her
daughter joined the same platform.
At the time, it was reported that her subscribers could pay $25 a
month for her content. Many Bravolebrities have started using
OnlyFans in recent years as the platform allegedly pays well for
known stars. Larsa Pippen, from Real Housewives of Miami, once
claimed she made $10,000 a day.
According to fan account @bravosnarkside on Instagram, there
appears to be a possible class action lawsuit regarding Denise's
OnlyFans subscriptions.
An alleged ad from CD Law asked, "Have you purchased Denise
Richards OnlyFans subscription? If so, you may be entitled to
compensation."
The post went on to say, "If you have ever subscribed to Denise
Richards on OnlyFans, you may have been deceived . . . Fill out the
form below to learn more and speak with one of our attorneys."
The fan account captioned the post, "Looks like there is a class
action in the works . . . Like did people pay and she never posted
anything? (Thank you @crashidian for the tip)."
However, a look at Denise's Onlyfans page shows she has been
posting regularly.
As of now, the claims against Denise are only allegations and
nothing has been proven. On her OnlyFans bio, the actress wrote
that she's "personally answering all your comments and [questions]"
and is "very excited to interact with all of you."
The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills season 14 is expected to air
on Bravo in November. [GN]
DISH DBS: Brooks Sues Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------
DISH DBS Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 2, 2023, that on May 9, 2023, Susan
Owen-Brooks, an alleged customer, filed a putative class action
complaint against DISH Network in the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado.
She purports to represent a nationwide class of all individuals in
the United States who allegedly had private information stolen as a
result of the February 23, 2023 Cyber-security Incident (and a
North Carolina statewide subclass of the same individuals). On
behalf of the nationwide class, she alleges claims for contractual
breaches, negligence and unjust enrichment (and, on behalf of the
North Carolina subclass only, violation of the North Carolina
Deceptive Trade Practices Act), and seeks monetary damages,
injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment.
DISH DBS Corporation is a holding company and an indirect,
wholly-owned subsidiary of DISH Network Corporation. It offers
pay-TV services under the "DISH" brand and the "SLING" brand. It
also design, develop and distribute receiver systems and provide
digital broadcast operations, including satellite
uplinking/downlinking, transmission and other services to
third-party pay-TV providers.
DISH DBS: Court Dismisses Fund Mismanagement Suit
-------------------------------------------------
DISH DBS Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 2, 2023, that on March 27, 2023, the
district court judge granted the motion to dismiss the complaint.
As permitted by the court's order, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on April 10, 2023
On December 20, 2021, four former employees filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado against DISH Network, DISH Network's Board of Directors,
and DISH Network's Retirement Plan Committee alleging fiduciary
breaches arising from the management of its 401(k) Plan.
The putative class, comprised of all participants in the plan on or
after January 20, 2016, alleges that the Plan had excessive
recordkeeping and administrative expenses and that it maintained
underperforming funds.
On February 1, 2023, a Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation
that the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint be granted,
and on March 27, 2023, the district court judge granted the motion.
As permitted by the Court's order, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on April 10, 2023, which is limited to allegations
regarding the alleged underperformance of the Fidelity Freedom
Funds.
DISH DBS Corporation is a holding company and an indirect,
wholly-owned subsidiary of DISH Network Corporation. It offers
pay-TV services under the "DISH" brand and the "SLING" brand. It
also design, develop and distribute receiver systems and provide
digital broadcast operations, including satellite
uplinking/downlinking, transmission and other services to
third-party pay-TV providers.
DOLLAR GENERAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Flint Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
ALEXIS FLINT; and JAMIE WOOD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01023 (M.D. Tenn., Sept. 29, 2023)
seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Flint was employed by the Defendant as a key holder while
Plaintiff Wood was employed as a cashier.
DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION is an American chain of variety stores
headquartered in Goodlettsville, Tennessee. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Scott Pietrowski, Esq.
Lisa Considine, Esq.
Oren Faircloth, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
Email: spietrowski@sirillp.com
lconsidine@sirillp.com
ofaircloth@sirillp.com
DR. DENNIS GROSS: Gunaratna Files Suit in D. Utah
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dr. Dennis Gross
Skincare LLC. The case is styled as Mocha Gunaratna, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dr. Dennis Gross
Skincare LLC, Case No. 2:23-mc-00674-TC (D. Utah, Sept. 27, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.
Dr. Dennis Gross Skincare, LLC -- https://drdennisgross.com/ --
offers beauty products. The Company provides online portal for
cleanser, sun protection cream, facial mask, serum, and
moisturizer, as well as offers a wide range of skin care
treatments.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Celine Cohan, Esq.
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Lauren Anderson, Esq.
Tiara Avaness, Esq.
Yana A. Hart, Esq.
Zachary Chrzan, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM PC
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Phone: (213) 788-4050
The Defendant is represented by:
Jason M. Kerr, Esq.
David R. Parkinson, Esq.
Steven Garff, Esq.
PRICE PARKINSON & KERR PLLC
5742 W. Harold Gatty Dr., Ste. 101
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
Phone: (801) 517-7088
Email: jasonkerr@ppktrial.com
davidparkinson@ppktrial.com
steven.garff@ppktrial.com
EAGLE DISPOSAL: Bousquet Seeks Conditional Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jeff Bousquet, On behalf
of Himself and all others similarly situated, v. Eagle Disposal,
Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00504-WED (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order granting conditional class
certification and court facilitated notice to the following
persons:
(1) All drivers who worked for Eagle Disposal on or after July
1,
2022 who turned on their trucks at an earlier time than when
they began to be paid for the day; and (2) all drivers and
mechanics who received a bonus from Eagle Disposal on or
after
October 3, 2020.
Eagle provides waste management services. The Company offers
dumpster rentals, waste disposal, and recycling services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 3, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3F4TAK4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yingtao Ho, Esq.
THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C.
310 W Wisconsin Ave, Suite 100 MW
Milwaukee, WI 53203
Telephone: (414) 271-4500
Facsimile: (414) 271-6308
E-mail: yh@previant.com
EDWARD JONES: Anderson Suit Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD ANDERSON, RAYMOND
KEITH CORUM, JESSE AND COLLEEN WORTHINGTON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EDWARD D. JONES & CO.,
L.P., Case No. 2:18-cv-00714-DJC-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to enter an order pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, for class certification and appointment
of Plaintiffs as class representatives and appointment of Franklin
D. Azar & Associates as class counsel.
The proposed national classes and California subclasses are defined
as follows:
-- Proposed Advisory Solutions National Class and California
Subclass:
"EDJ customers who were invested in suitable mutual funds in
an
EDJ commission-based account before being switched to
fee-based
Advisory Solutions Accounts between January 1, 2014 and March
31,
2018, where the total fees charged in the fee-based account
exceeded the mutual fund operating expenses charged in the
commission-based account by 0.5% or more."
-- Proposed Guided Solutions Flex National Class and California
Subclass:
"EDJ customers who were invested in suitable mutual funds or
stocks in an EDJ commission-based account before being
switched
to fee-based Guided Solutions Flex Accounts between January 1,
2014 and March 31, 2018, where the total fees charged in the
fee-
based account exceeded the mutual fund operating expenses
charged
in the commission-based account by 0.5% or more."
Edward offers securities brokerage and investment advisory
services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 2, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48y7yBL at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Franklin D. Azar, Esq.
Michael D. Murphy, Esq.
Paul R. Wood, Esq.
Brian Hanlin, Esq.
FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
14426 East Evans Avenue
Aurora, CO 80014
Telephone: (303) 757-3300
Facsimile: (720) 213-5131
E-mail: azarf@fdazar.com
murphym@fdazar.com
woodp@fdazar.com
hanlinb@fdazar.com
- and -
John R. Garner, Esq.
GARNER & ASSOCIATES
109 North Marshall Avenue
Willows, CA 95988
Telephone: (530) 934-3324
Facsimile: (530) 934-2334
E-mail: john@garner-associates.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Alexander K. Mircheff, Esq.
Monica K. Loseman, Esq.
Srirupa "Tina" Samanta, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
E-mail: amircheff@gibsondunn.com
mloseman@gibsondunn.com
TSamanta@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Ben Suter, Esq.
KEESAL, YOUNG & LOGAN
568 Jackson Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 398-6000
Facsimile: (415) 981-0136
E-mail: ben.suter@kyl.com
EDWARD JONES: Plaintiffs Must Oppose Dismissal Bid by Nov. 10
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD ANDERSON, RAYMOND
KEITH CORUM, JESSE AND COLLEEN WORTHINGTON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EDWARD D. JONES & CO.,
L.P., Case No. 2:18-cv-00714-DJC-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Daniel J. Calabretta entered an order regarding briefing schedule
as follows:
1. The Plaintiffs' opposition to Nov. 10, 2023
Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment shall be filed by:
2. The Plaintiffs' opposition to Nov. 10, 2023
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Jurisdiction shall
be filed by:
3. The Defendant's opposition to Nov. 10, 2023
Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify
Class shall be filed by:
4. The Defendant's Daubert motions Nov. 10, 2023
to exclude the opinions and
testimony of Plaintiffs'
experts shall be filed by:
5. The Defendant's reply in support Dec. 8, 2023
of its Motion for Summary Judgment
shall be filed by:
6. The Defendant's reply in support Dec. 8, 2023
of its Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Jurisdiction shall
be filed by:
7. The Plaintiffs' reply in support Dec. 8, 2023
of its Motion to Certify Class
shall be filed by:
8. The Plaintiffs' Daubert motions Dec. 8, 2023
to exclude the opinions and
testimony of Defendant's
experts shall be filed by:
9. The Plaintiffs' oppositions to Jan. 5, 2024
Defendant's Daubert motions to
exclude the opinions and
testimony of Plaintiffs'
experts shall be filed by:
10. The Defendant's replies in support Feb. 2, 2024
of its Daubert motions to exclude
the opinions and testimony of
Plaintiffs' experts shall be
filed by:
11. The Defendant's oppositions to Feb. 2, 2024
Plaintiffs' Daubert motions to
Exclude the opinions and testimony
of Defendant's experts shall be
filed by:
12. The Plaintiffs' replies in support March 1, 2024
of its Daubert motions to exclude
the opinions and testimony of
Defendant's experts shall be filed
by:
Edward offers securities brokerage and investment advisory
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 2, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZDiv0J at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Franklin D. Azar, Esq.
Michael D. Murphy, Esq.
Paul R. Wood, Esq.
Brian Hanlin, Esq.
FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
14426 East Evans Avenue
Aurora, CO 80014
Telephone: (303) 757-3300
Facsimile: (720) 213-5131
E-mail: azarf@fdazar.com
murphym@fdazar.com
woodp@fdazar.com
hanlinb@fdazar.com
- and -
John R. Garner, Esq.
GARNER & ASSOCIATES
109 North Marshall Avenue
Willows, CA 95988
Telephone: (530) 934-3324
Facsimile: (530) 934-2334
E-mail: john@garner-associates.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Alexander K. Mircheff, Esq.
Monica K. Loseman, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
E-mail: amircheff@gibsondunn.com
mloseman@gibsondunn.com
EPIC GAMES: Settles Class Suit Over Loot Boxes for $2.75-Mil.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Otis of CTVNews.ca reports Epic Games has paid out $2.75
million in a Canadian class-action settlement over in-game
purchases in its video games.
The initial lawsuit alleged that Epic Games broke various consumer
protection laws by offering so-called "loot boxes" in the popular
videogames Rocket League and Fortnite.
A typical form of video game monetization, loot boxes allow gamers
to use real money to pay for random digital items like weapons and
outfits. The practice has come under fire, particularly from
parents who have racked up large credit card bills while their
children make several in-game purchases without permission in the
hopes of acquiring rare items.
The class-action was certified by the Supreme Court of British
Columbia. By agreeing to the settlement, Epic Games released itself
from all claims raised in the legal proceedings.
Anyone in Canada who made a loot box purchase in Fortnite from 2017
to 2019 and Rocket League from 2016 to 2019 were able to join the
class action before the August deadline. Guardians of gamers were
also eligible.
Participants in the class-action began receiving payments of up to
$25 this week. Lawyers in the class-action will receive up to 25
per cent of the settlement amount.
"The payment of the settlement amount is not an admission of
liability, wrongdoing, or fault by the defendants," a notice of
proposed settlement explains. "Any remaining funds after
distribution to eligible Class members and payment of expenses will
be donated to the Law Foundation of British Columbia and one or
more charitable organizations whose mission relates to promoting
the wellbeing of those who consume video games, as agreed to by the
Parties, and subject to the approval of the Court."
In a statement, Epic Games said it "discontinued the use of random
item loot boxes in Fortnite and Rocket League in 2019 because we
realized that while some players really enjoy being surprised by
the content of random item loot boxes, other players are
disappointed."
A spokesperson went on to say, "Players should know upfront what
they are paying for when they make in-game purchases."[GN]
ESH RESTAURANT: Paguay Sues Over Line Cooks' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
JOSE PAGUAY, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and
the Class, Plaintiff v. ESH RESTAURANT GROUP LLC, RJJ RESTAURANT
LLC d/b/a EMPIRE STEAK HOUSE d/b/a EMPIRE BURGER HOUSE, RIJJ
RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a EMPIRE STEAK HOUSE, W 46 RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a
CHAZZ PALMINTERI, RRUSTEM SINANAJ, SHEFKET SINANAJ, and XHAFER
SINANAJ, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-08434 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 25,
2023) seeks to recover from Defendants unpaid wages, including
unpaid overtime, due to time-shaving; liquidated damages; statutory
penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff Paguay was hired by Defendants on January 10, 2023 to
work as a line cook for Defendants' restaurant "Empire Steak House"
located in New York. The Plaintiff's employment was terminated on
February 18, 2023.
As a result of Defendant's wrongful policy of time-shaving
Plaintiff's hours, Plaintiff was not properly compensated for all
of his wages, including overtime premiums for all hours worked over
40 per week. The FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class Members were
similarly not properly compensated for their wages earned,
including overtime premiums for all hours worked over 40 per week,
says the suit.
ESH Restaurant Group LLC collectively controls and operates four
restaurants in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
EYEMED VISION: Court Narrows Claims in Tate Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHANDRA TATE, et al., v.
EYEMED VISION CARE, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00036-DRC (S.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge Douglas R. Cole entered an order granting in part
and denying in part EyeMed's motion to dismiss.
-- The motion is denied with respect to EyeMed's 12(b)(1) ground
seeking to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and denied with
respect to EyeMed's 12(b)(6) ground seeking to dismiss
Plaintiffs’ negligence claim.
-- The motion is granted as to Plaintiffs' remaining claims, and
the Court dismisses those claims, but without prejudice.
According to Plaintiffs, EyeMed failed to take basic security
measures to protect its members' data, such as adequate personnel
training and routine system testing.
This failure is perhaps best exemplified by EyeMed's delayed
response to the data breach that sparked this lawsuit.
The Plaintiffs Chandra Tate, Barbara Whittom, and Alexus Wynn bring
this putative class action lawsuit alleging that defendant EyeMed
negligently maintained lax security protocols and failed to protect
Plaintiffs' personally identifiable information (PII) from
cybertheft.
EyeMed is one of the largest vision benefits companies in the
country, boasting over 60 million benefit members.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 29, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3teSqsP at no extra charge.[CC]
FAPOO LLC: Cardero Suit Asserts TCPA Breach
-------------------------------------------
MAURICIO CARDERO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FAPOO LLC D/B/A HONDA OF AVENTURA,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-23660-BB (S.D. Fla., Sept. 25, 2023)
seeks to secure redress for Defendant's alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
During June of 2023, the Defendant allegedly sent or caused to be
sent multiple telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff's cellular
telephone number ending in 7473. The Defendant's text messages
constitute telemarketing because they encouraged the future
purchase or investment in property, goods, or services - in this
case, selling cars, says the suit.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life
of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies.
Fapoo LLC d/b/a Honda of Aventura is an automotive dealership
located in South Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
gberg@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (786) 289-9471
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
FAYETTE COUNTY, KY: Faces Class Suit Over New Anti-Trans Law
------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Ladd of The Lexington Times reports that a class action
lawsuit against Republican Attorney General Daniel Cameron and the
Fayette County Board of Education argues that students'
constitutional and privacy rights are violated by a new anti-trans
Kentucky law and asks the court to block its enforcement in
Lexington schools.
Senate Bill 150, enacted by the legislature earlier this year over
Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear's veto, requires local school boards
to implement policies keeping youngsters from using bathrooms,
locker rooms or showers that "are reserved for students of a
different biological sex." The law also places new restrictions on
sex education in public schools.
The September 29, 2023 lawsuit argues that the law is depriving
Fayette County LGBTQIA+ students of an education experience that is
equal to that of their peers.
"Parents and children in Kentucky have a fundamental,
constitutionally based right to receive a public education," says
the lawsuit filed on behalf of the anonymous parents of four
children. "By virtue of this fundamental, constitutional right, the
General Assembly, and the Defendants, possess no power or authority
to establish or enforce arbitrary, discriminatory, and
privacy-invasive conditions that restrict or burden the right of
every child to receive…an appropriate and quality public
education."
Who are the plaintiffs?
In addition to seeking class status, the plaintiffs are asking the
court to allow them to remain unidentified to avoid stigmatization,
discrimination and harassment, saying the age of the students —
all younger than 18 — makes them especially vulnerable.
One of the plaintiffs, a nonbinary student, 10, has "(come) home
from school in tears and in severe distress" because of a
classmate's "intentional disrespect and abusive 'misgendering,'"
the suit says. This student's "educational success has been
adversely impacted" as well, court documents say.
A Fayette schools employee also has misgendered the student, the
suit alleges.
Another family alleges that their transgender daughter, 10, was
denied access to the girl's restroom in August during a school
break "when all children were permitted to use the restroom" even
though the student used the girl's restroom "without incident" for
three years.
"School personnel instructed (this child) to use another 'special'
restroom located on the other side of the school and nowhere near
her classroom where her female friends used the restroom during
restroom breaks," the suit says. "The location of this other
restroom…consumed far more time away from class for her than if
she had simply been allowed to use the girls' restroom as she had
always been allowed to do in previous years without incident."
This student told her parents she was "so humiliated and
embarrassed by being segregated" from friends that she "will not
use the restroom at school at all and will instead 'hold it' until
she gets home."
The parents of a 17-year-old transgender boy alleges he is now not
using the bathroom at school after three years of being able to use
the male restroom. If he were to use the girl's restroom, the suit
says, it would be uncomfortable for girls because "female students
know him as a male."
This student "feels his educational opportunities and success are
disrupted when others intentionally refuse not to recognize or
treat him in accord with his transgender identity as male."
The suit asks for expedited review and for "restraining order,
temporary injunction, and/or permanent injunction" to "(prohibit)
any further discrimination within the Fayette County public schools
on the basis of sex."
District schools spokesperson Dia Davidson-Smith said in a
statement that while "there are many questions surrounding the
implementation of Senate Bill 150," the school system "is committed
to providing a safe and welcoming environment for all students,
working in partnership with families, and following the
requirements of state law." [GN]
FIVE BELOW: Bid to Dismiss Krawitz First Amended Complaint Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SPENCER KRAWITZ and
CASSANDRA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. FIVE BELOW, INC., Case No.
2:22-cv-02253-LDH-ARL (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lashann Dearcy
Hall entered an order denying Defendant's motion to dismiss
Krawitz's first amended complaint.
Even if Section 191 confers a private right of action, the
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs nonetheless lack standing because
they have not pled how being paid bi-weekly instead of once a week
caused them concrete and actual harm beyond the statutory violation
itself.
The Plaintiffs respond that they have alleged economic harm by the
loss of time and value of money owed to them. The Court agrees with
Plaintiffs. Again, the Defendant makes the same argument that "has
been rejected repeatedly by courts in this Circuit in the specific
context of claims arising under Section 191."
Spencer Krawitz and Cassandra Rodriguez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated) bring this putative class action
against Five Below, alleging untimely wage payments under New York
Labor Law ("NYLL") Section 191.
The putative class action arises from Defendant's alleged failure
to timely pay its employees. The Plaintiff Spencer Krawitz has been
employed by Defendant as an Assistant Manager since 2012. The
Plaintiff Cassandra Rodriguez worked as a Cashier Associate,
Customer Experience Manager, and Merchandising Manager at Five
Below from September 2017 to April 2022.
Five is an American chain of specialty discount stores that sells
products that are less than $5, plus a small assortment of products
from $6 to $25.
A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Sept. 29, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46gFX6o at no
extra charge.[CC]
FRANCE: Faces Class Suit Over Police Racial Profiling
-----------------------------------------------------
Layli Foroudi of Reuters reports that France's highest
administrative court will on September 22, 2023 consider its first
class action against the state, alleging racial profiling by police
- and may in the process shape future social activism.
Six human rights organisations argue that the police systematically
discriminate, especially against young Arab and Black men, when
deciding who to stop on routine patrols.
If successful, they could open the way for similar broad legal
challenges in a country where activism has traditionally taken the
form of direct protest, and where class actions only became
possible in 2014 and remain rare.
The case, supported by statements from 40 victims as well as
police, asks the Conseil d'Etat (State Council) to require concrete
reforms from the government, including limiting police powers to
check ID and mandating a record of checks.
"It is not acceptable that kids, at a young age, have to learn that
their skin colour is a problem," said Omer Mas Capitolan, president
of one of the six organisations, Community House of Development in
Solidarity.
The government and police are already under scrutiny after an
officer shot dead Nahel, a teenager of North African descent,
during a traffic stop in June, bringing long-simmering resentment
among urban immigrant communities to the boil.
The U.N. Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
decried the "continuing practice of racial profiling" and urged
France to address "structural and systemic causes of racial
discrimination" in the police.
The interior ministry did not answer a request for comment, but has
previously said that "ethnic profiling by law enforcement is
banned", and that racism in the police is not systemic.
However, France limits the use of statistics on race and ethnicity,
and experts say it can no longer turn a blind eye to accusations by
rights groups that racism colours police recruitment, training,
doctrine and practice.
Since 2016, France has paid damages to individuals in three cases
where police ID checks were found to have been discriminatory.
But the lawsuit - before a chamber reserved for cases of
"remarkable importance" - does not seek monetary compensation.
"It's looking to the future - to trace all the necessary ways to
eradicate this wrong," said Antoine Lyon-Caen, lawyer for the six
organisations, which include Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and the
Open Society Justice Initiative.
CLASS ACTIONS COULD CHANGE ACTIVISM IN FRANCE
Since 2014, France has allowed organisations to file lawsuits on
behalf of a group harmed by a policy or practice, later widening
their application beyond consumer claims. Such actions often fail,
though, and lawmakers are discussing ways to facilitate them.
In the U.S., class actions have long featured in civil rights
advocacy.
In France, however, "judicial advocacy is not a tradition, this is
a first [class action against the state], the tradition [here] is
going onto the streets," said Sophie Latraverse, a lawyer and
anti-discrimination expert.
In arguments provided to the court, Lyon-Caen cites as a model a
2013 ruling against New York city over racial profiling and
unconstitutional police stop-and-search practices.
"This U.S. judgment brings hope as it puts in place measures to
transform the police, and a monitoring mechanism," he said.
As for September 22, 2023's verdict, Gwenaele Calves, law professor
at University Cergy-Pontoise, said it would also send a wider
message on class actions in France: "'Go for it' - or - 'It's not
worth it'."
A member of the Conseil d'Etat will make a recommendation at
September 22, 2023's hearing and a judgment will follow in the
coming weeks. [GN]
FRESHWORKS INC: Investors Suit Over IPO Statements May Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Martina Barash of Bloomberg Law reports that a Freshworks Inc.
shareholder can proceed with some claims alleging the software
company made inaccurate statements before its intial public
offering that inflated its stock price, a federal court ruled in a
proposed class action.
Investor Mohan R. Sundaram adequately stated a claim for
nondisclosure of "known trends" under Item 303 of Securities and
Exchange Commission Regulation S-K, Judge Charles Breyer said on
September 28, 2023 for the US District Court for the Northern
District of California.
Claims against individual defendants can also proceed, but other
fraud theories are out, Breyer said.
Known trend liability will be up for consideration at the US. [GN]
FRITO-LAY INC: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Biometric Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Nghiem of Cook County Record reports that Frito-Lay has become
one of the latest large employers in Illinois targeted by a class
action lawsuit under the state's biometrics privacy law over the
way the company requires workers to scan their fingerprints to
track their hours worked.
Plaintiff Steward Hinton filed a class action lawsuit in the Cook
County Circuit Court against Frito-Lay Inc., citing negligence and
carelessness in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act (BIPA).
According to the lawsuit, Hinton is a former employee of Frito-Lay,
Inc. and worked for the company for two years from 2017 to 2019.
Hinton alleges that during his employment, he was allegedly
required to use a fingerprint reader system to clock in and out of
work.
The lawsuit states that BIPA requires that prior to collecting
biometric data, including fingerprints, companies must inform
employees in writing that their biometric data will be collected
and stored. It also states that employees must be informed in
writing of the specific purpose for which the biometric data is
being collected and for how long it will be stored. Additionally,
BIPA requires that companies must receive a written release from
the employee for the collection of their biometric data.
Hinton alleges the defendant invades the privacy of its employees
by collecting and storing their fingerprints without informed
consent. He further claims that the company never received a
release from him allowing them to collect his fingerprints, and he
never authorized the company to collect his fingerprints for this
use.
The lawsuit is similar to thousands of others filed against
employers of all types and sizes in the state since 2015, when the
first class actions rolled into court under the privacy law. The
growth in the number of such class actions has only accelerated
through the years, as courts have routinely ruled plaintiffs don't
need to prove they were actually harmed by the data collection to
demand settlements and judgments potentially worth many millions of
dollars, or more, depending on the size of the company.
Plaintiffs can demand damages of $1,000-$5,000 per violation under
the BIPA law. The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled the law should
be interpreted to define individual "violations" as each time a
company scans someone's biometrics, no matter how many times it may
have been done before, over the preceding five years. Thus, the
damages can be multiplied against hundreds or even thousands of
"individual violations" across an entire workforce.
As in the other cases, Hinton is seeking monetary damages for
himself and everyone in his class action lawsuit, plus court costs,
attorney fees, and any other relief the court deems proper. He is
also requesting the court issue an order requiring the Frito-Lay
company to cease the collection of biometric data without informed
written consent.
The plaintiff is represented by attorneys Ryan F. Stephan, James B.
Zouras and Anna M. Ceragioli, of the firm of Stephan Zouras, of
Chicago. [GN]
G&A OUTSOURCING: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 3, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Petrol Logic LLC et al v.
G&A Outsourcing LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02219 (D. Colo., Filed Aug.
29, 2022), the Hon. Magistrate Judge Susan Prose Brimmer entered an
order granting stipulated motion for extension of time to file
amended complaint and to continue case schedule as follows:
-- Deadline to file amended complaint: Jan. 3, 2024
-- Deadline to Join Parties and Amend Jan. 30, 2024
Pleadings:
-- Telephonic Status Conference is reset April 16,
2024
from Jan. 16, 2024 to:
-- Discovery due by: Aug. 13, 2024
-- Telephonic Scheduling Conference Reset Aug. 22, 2024
from May 30, 2024 to:
-- Proposed scheduling order due by: May 23, 2024
-- The Plaintiffs' motion for class Sept. 3, 2024
certification due:
-- Response thereto due: Oct. 15, 2024
-- Reply due: Nov. 5, 2024
The nature of suit states diversity-breach of contract.
G&A provides human resources outsourcing and administrative
services.[CC]
GARDNER TRUCKING: Stipulation to Continue Briefing Deadlines Filed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCELINO BENITEZ CASTRO,
on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the
general public, v. GARDNER TRUCKING, INC., a California
Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
4:20-cv-05473-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Parties submit a joint
stipulation to continue briefing Deadlines and hearing on
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
Event Current Proposed
Deadline Deadline
Opposition to Motion for Class Oct. 9, 2023 Dec. 1, 2023
Certification
Reply in Support of Motion for Jan. 12, 2024 Apr. 2, 2024
Class Certification
Hearing on Motion for Class Feb. 6, 2024 Apr. 23,
2024
Certification or the
first
hearing date
that the
Court
has
available
Garner is a dry truckload asset based carrier.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tknM18 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Chase, Esq.
Ian Silvers, Esq.
BISNAR CHASE
1301 Dove Street, Suite 120
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 752-2999
Facsimile: (949) 752-2777
E-mail: isilvers@bisnarchase.com
- and -
Richard C. Alpers, Esq.
ALPERS LAW GROUP, INC.
Aptos, CA 95001
Telephone: (831) 240-0490
Facsimile: (855) 870-1129
E-mail: rca@alperslawgroup.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Kristen J. Nesbit, Esq.
Shaun J. Voigt, Esq.
Ariella K. Kupetz, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP
444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 330-4500
Facsimile: (213) 330-4501
E-mail: knesbit@fisherphillips.com
svoigt@fisherphillips.com
akupetz@fisherphillips.com
- and -
Christopher C. McNatt, Jr., Esq.
James H. Hanson, Esq.
Charles Andrewscavage, Esq.
Jared S. Kramer, Esq.
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP
2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (626) 795-4700
Facsimile: (626) 795-4790
E-mail: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com
jhanson@scopelitis.com
candrewscavage@scopelitis.com
jskramer@scopelitis.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Dismisses Class Suit Over Defective Engines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood of CarComplaints.com reports that a General Motors
oil consumption class action lawsuit has been dismissed because the
two vehicle owners who sued waited too long to file their class
action.
According to the lawsuit, these vehicles suck down oil at
incredible amounts due to defective 5.3 Liter V8 Vortec 5300 LC9
engines.
2011–2014 Chevrolet Avalanche
2011–2014 Chevrolet Silverado
2011–2014 Chevrolet Suburban
2011–2014 Chevrolet Tahoe
2011–2014 GMC Sierra
2011–2014 GMC Yukon
2011–2014 GMC Yukon XL
The Vortec engines allegedly consume so much oil that it results in
low oil levels, not enough lubrication and internal damage to the
engines.
The cause is allegedly piston rings that wear down early and force
owners to constantly add engine oil.
GM allegedly knew about oil consumption issues in 2008 based on an
investigation known as "Red X." However, that oil consumption
investigation involved vehicles older than the above vehicles named
in this lawsuit.
Following the investigation, the class action lawsuit alleges GM
shielded the active fuel management valve to redirect oil spray and
began using a new positive crankcase ventilation cover.
The lawsuit alleges none of those modifications resolved the oil
consumption problems.
The GM class action also asserts technical service bulletins were
issued to dealerships regarding excessive oil consumption.
GM Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed
In an earlier motion to dismiss, certain claims were dismissed
which left three remaining claims against General Motors.
GM asserts the remaining claims are barred by the four-year and
two-year statutes of limitations for breach of implied warranty of
merchantability and fraudulent suppression.
The plaintiffs contend the statutes of limitations should be tolled
(suspended) because the automaker concealed the alleged oil
consumption problems.
But Judge Emily C. Marks didn't see things that way. In several
pages of remarks, the judge dismissed the lawsuit based on the
statutes of limitations on the purchase dates of the vehicles.
"The time elapsed between these purchase dates and the date the
Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit exceeds the limitations period for
all of their claims." — Judge Marks
The GM class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama (Western Division): Dominguez
Hurry, et al., v. General Motors LLC.
The plaintiffs are represented by DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC, and
Beasley Allen Crown Methvin Portis & Miles PC. [GN]
GOOGLE INC: Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Opposition Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Google RTB Consumer Privacy
Litigation, Case No. 4:21-cv-02155-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Google files an
administrative Motion to seal portions of its Opposition to the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification and related documents.
Google requests that the Court seal designated portions of Google's
Opposition, the Berntson and Vakharia Declarations, and select
Exhibits in support of Google's Opposition.
Google seeks to seal portions of Google's Opposition, the Berntson
Declaration and certain Exhibits in support of Google's Opposition
which discuss the highly sensitive, confidential, and proprietary
technical details regarding internal data logs and systems
associated with Google RTB, including the identifiers related to
such logs.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept. 29, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3F1slA0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael G. Rhodes, Esq.
Whitty Somvichian, Esq.
Aarti Reddy, Esq.
Kyle C. Wong, Esq.
Reece Trevor, Esq.
Anupam Dhillon, Esq.
Elizabeth Sanchez Santiago, Esq.
Robby L.R. Saldaña, Esq.
Khary J. Anderson, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4004
Telephone: (415) 693-2000
Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
E-mail: rhodesmg@cooley.com
wsomvichian@cooley.com
areddy@cooley.com
kwong@cooley.com
rtrevor@cooley.com
adhillon@cooley.com
rsaldana@cooley.com
kjanderson@cooley.com
GREAT LAKES: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in ADL
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Avanti's Dome, LLC v.
Great Lakes Insurance Company SE, Case No. 1:23-cv-01303-JES-JEH
(C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing
order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
Great Lakes offers auto, home, business, and life insurance.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tjWYOq at no extra charge.[CC]
HENKEL CORP: Ochoa-Cornman Sues Over Mislabeled Laundry Detergent
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MIQUEL OCHOA-CORNMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HENKEL CORPORATION, and DOES 1
through 10, Defendants, Case No. 23SL-CC04044 (Mo. Cir., St. Louis
Cty., Sept. 25, 2023) arises from the Defendants' false,
misleading, and deceptive marketing of their products constituting
breach of warranty, breach of implied contract, and unjust
enrichment, and, in the state of Missouri, violations of the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.
The Defendant markets and sells consumer products, including
"Persil"-branded, "Pro Clean" liquid laundry detergent, packaged in
100 fl. oz. containers, and purporting to be sufficient for 64
loads of laundry.
According to the complaint, although the claim "64 LOADS" is
obvious to the purchasing consumer, a not-so-obvious, tiny
reference point corresponds to fine-print on the rear side of the
products revealing that consumers get nowhere close to enough
product for 64 loads of laundry. That fine-print on the rear of the
product, unbeknownst to the consumer, severely undercut that false
claim. This is highly problematic for multiple reasons, including
the fact that instructions on the back, while ultimately revealing
that the front-side "64 loads" claim is false, do so in subtle and
obtuse fashion, in a manner the vast majority of consumers will not
understand when purchasing the product in general, and certainly
not as they rush through a convenience store, says the suit.
Henkel Corporation is a multinational chemical and consumer goods
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel F. Harvath, Esq.
HARVATH LAW GROUP, LLC
75 W. Lockwood, Suite #1
Webster Groves, MO 63119
Telephone: (314) 550-3717
E-mail: dharvath@harvathlawgroup.com
HENRY FORD HEALTH: Mogk Files Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
LYLAS G. MOGK, M.D., on behalf of herself and a class of all
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HENRY FORD HEALTH and
HENRY FORD MEDICAL GROUP, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-12455-JEL-DRG (E.D. Mich., Sept. 28, 2023) is brought
pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1991, Title II of the Genetic
Information Nondiscrimination Act OF 2008, and Michigan's
Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and Persons With Disabilities Civil
Rights Act to redress Defendants' unlawful discrimination in
employment because of age, disability and genetic information.
Plaintiff LYLAS G. MOGK, an 84-year old man, has been employed
since January 1, 1995 by Defendant Henry Ford Health and/or its
predecessors and is the founder and immediate past Director of the
Henry Ford Center for Vision Rehabilitation and Research as an
ophthalmologist. Dr. Mogk is also a "member" of the Henry Ford
Medical Group and is therefore subject to the "Henry Ford Medical
Group Senior and Bioscientific Staff Fitness for Duty Policy" which
was adopted by the Henry Ford Medical Group Board of Directors and
became effective on July 2, 2017.
According to the complaint, Defendants HENRY FORD HEALTH and HENRY
FORD MEDICAL GROUP limited, segregated, or classified employees of
HENRY FORD HEALTH in a way that would deprive or tend to deprive
those employees, including Plaintiff LYLAS G. MOGK and members of
the Plaintiff class, of employment opportunities or otherwise
adversely affect their status as employees, because of their ages.
The Defendants' actions limited, segregated, or classified
employees of HENRY FORD HEALTH in a way that would deprive or tend
to deprive those employees, including Plaintiff LYLAS G. MOGK and
members of the Plaintiff class, of employment opportunities or
otherwise adversely affect their status as employees, because of
their ages, says the suit.
Henry Ford Health provides health care and medical services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John R. Runyan, Esq.
NICKELHOFF & WIDICK, PLLC
333 W. Fort Street, Suite 1400
Detroit, MI 48226
Telephone: (248) 561-9737
E-mail: jrunyan@michlabor.legal
- and -
Kathleen L. Bogas, Esq.
BOGAS & KONCIUS, PC
31700 Telegraph Road, Suite 160
Bingham Farms, MI 48025-3404
Telephone: (248) 502-5000
E-mail: kbogas@kbogaslaw.com
I.C. SYSTEM: Galloway Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
MARQUITA GALLOWAY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. I.C. SYSTEM, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-02660-LKG (D. Md., Sept. 29, 2023) seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.
I.C. SYSTEM, INC. is a nationally licensed debt collection company
specializing in hospital debt collection. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas A. Pacheco, Esq.
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
Email: sharris@milberg.com
tpacheco@milberg.com
- and -
Edward H. Maginnis, Esq.
Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq.
MAGINNIS HOWARD
7706 Six Forks Road, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27615
Telephone: (919) 526-0450
Telephone: (919) 882-8763
Email: emaginnis@maginnishoward.com
kgwaltney@maginnishoward.com
INNOVATE CORP: FVI Shareholder Suit Over DBMG Payments Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Innovate Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 9, 2023, that on June 13, 2023, the Delaware
Court of Chancery granted the defendants' Motion to Dismiss a
stockholder class action and derivative complaint against Innovate
Corp. and certain of the current and former officers and directors
of its subsidiary DBM Global Inc. (DBMG), including current and
former INNOVATE officers and directors AJ Stahl, Kenneth S.
Courtis, Robert V. Leffler, Jr., Philip A. Falcone, Michael J.
Sena, and Paul Voigt.
On October 1, 2020, Fair Value Investments Incorporated (FVI) filed
"Fair Value Investments Incorporated v. Roach, et al.," C.A. No.
2020-0847-JTL (Del. Ch.). FVI alleges that the company, in its
capacity as DBMG's controlling stockholder, and DBMG's current and
former officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties to
DBMG and DBMG's minority stockholders by approving certain
transactions that allegedly provide disproportionate benefits to
the company. FVI challenges the following transactions: (i) DBMG's
payments to the company from 2016–present pursuant to a Tax
Sharing Agreement between DBMG and the company, (ii) DBMG acting as
a guarantor or providing collateral for loans taken on by the
company, (iii) DBMG's issuance of dividends to its common and
preferred stockholders in 2017–2020, (iv) DBMG's issuance of
preferred stock to the company to finance DBMG's 2018 acquisition
of GrayWolf Industrial and (v) the company's appointment of
directors to DBMG's board of directors by written consent in lieu
of holding an annual stockholder meeting.
On February 23, 2021, FVI filed an Amended Verified Stockholder
Class Action Complaint where it named two additional defendants:
the company's Chief Executive Officer, Wayne Barr, and DBMG's
General Counsel, Scott D. Sherman. The Amended Complaint includes
additional fact allegations in support of the largely similar
claims raised in the original complaint. Defendants moved to
dismiss the Amended Complaint on April 23, 2021. The Court heard
argument on the motions to dismiss on January 21, 2022. Ruling from
the bench, the Court granted Defendants' motions to dismiss, in
part. The Court dismissed all claims against all individual
defendants other than Ronald Yagoda, including all claims against
Messrs. Barr, Stahl, Courtis, Leffler, Falcone, Sena, and Voigt. As
to the two remaining defendants, INNOVATE Corp. and Yagoda, the
court dismissed all claims regarding: (i) DBMG acting as a
guarantor or providing collateral for loans by the Company, (ii)
DBMG's issuance of dividends to its common and preferred
stockholders in 2017–2020; (iii) the company's appointment of
directors to DBMG's board of directors by written consent in lieu
of holding an annual stockholder meeting; and (iv) DBMG's payments
to the company in 2016 and May 2017 pursuant to a Tax Sharing
Agreement between DBMG and the company.
On December 23, 2022, the parties entered into a Joint Stipulation
and Proposed Scheduling Order which, among other things, scheduled
the trial date for March 12-14, 2024. On March 1, 2023, FVI's
counsel filed a Motion to Withdraw and Temporarily Stay
Proceedings, which motion was granted on March 9, 2023. The court
ordered a 30-day stay of the proceedings to allow FVI to engage new
counsel, which stay expired on April 10, 2023. On May 1, 2023, the
company moved to dismiss this case with prejudice as to FVI and its
Chairman, Gary Lutin, as part of its vigorous defense thereof.
On June 13, 2023, the court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
in its entirety and the case is now closed. The dismissal is with
prejudice as to FVI and Gary Lutin.
INNOVATE Corp. and, together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is
a diversified holding company that has a portfolio of subsidiaries
in three reportable segments: Infrastructure, Life Sciences and
Spectrum.
INNOVATIVE RECOVERY: Martinez Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Innovative Recovery,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as John Martinez, and all others
similarly situated v. Innovative Recovery, Inc., Experian
Information Solutions Inc., Trans Union, LLC, Equifax Information
Services LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00898-P (N.D. Tex., Aug. 30, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Innovative Recovery -- https://www.innovativerecovery.com/ -- is a
national debt collection agency with a specialized expertise in
multifamily debt collection.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel Spencer Halvorsen, Esq.
HALVORSEN KLOTE
680 Craig Road, Suite 104
St Louis, MO 63141
Phone: (314) 451-1314
Fax: (314) 787-4323
Email: joel@hklawstl.com
- and -
Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R MILTENBERGER PLLC
1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200
Southlake, TX 76092
Phone: (817) 416-5060
Fax: (817) 416-5062
Email: chris@crmlawpractice.com
INOVA HEALTH: Court Dismisses Class Suit Over COVID Policy
----------------------------------------------------------
Virginia Lawyers Weekly reports that where former employees of a
hospital who refused to become vaccinated filed a class action
complaint, but the majority of their claims failed as a matter of
law and the dispute was not subject to adjudication on a class
basis, the lawsuit was largely dismissed.
Background
In July 2021, Inova Health announced that it would require all
hospital employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. However,
employees unable to be vaccinated for medical reasons or unwilling
to be vaccinated for religious reasons could request either a
permanent or temporary exemption from the otherwise mandatory
policy.
But, in November 2021 (and in response to continuing
pandemic-related concerns), the United States Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid issued a mandate requiring all medical care providers
and their employees to be vaccinated. In February 2022, Inova
announced that any employee who had previously been granted an
exemption from the vaccine policy needed to reapply so that their
request could be evaluated in light of the new policy.
After the implementation of the new policy, Michael Ellison, Arin
Jenkins and Andrea Graham all reapplied for religious exemptions,
asserting that various tenets of their Christian faith prevented
them from receiving the vaccine. Each of their requests were
denied. Between March 2022 and December 2022, each of the
plaintiffs either resigned or were terminated for failure to comply
with the hospital-wide vaccination policy. Each also filed their
charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and each
received a right-to-sue letter.
Plaintiffs then filed a class-action complaint. The operative
complaint divides the claims between two proposed classes, the
"Religious Discrimination Class" and the "Permanent Exemption
Class." The Religious Discrimination Class -- represented by all
plaintiffs -- alleges that Inova violated both Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Virginia Human Rights Act, or
VHRA", by, among other things, firing employees or refusing to hire
applicants based on their religious exercise.
The Permanent Exemption Class -- represented by Ellison and Jenkins
-- alleges that Inova created a binding contract when it granted
"permanent" exemptions to induce each class member to continue
working at Inova. In the alternative, the Permanent Exemption Class
argues that Inova's promise of permanent exemptions is nonetheless
enforceable because the promise created a quasi-contract that
blocks the hospital's attempt to change course. Inova has filed a
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims or strike the class
allegations.
Religious discrimination claims
Plaintiffs' principal argument is that defendants, by rejecting
requests for religious exemptions from the vaccine requirement,
violated Title VII's requirement that an employee's religious
beliefs be accommodated. The court finds that Ellison has
adequately linked his objection to a sincerely held religious
belief concerning the use of "aborted fetal cell lines" in the
development and testing of some of the vaccines. Otherwise the
court finds that the plaintiffs' objections are not rooted in
concerns that are religious in nature.
Plaintiffs also bring claims under the VHRA, claiming that
defendants violated the statute by not accommodating plaintiffs'
religious beliefs. However that statute does not require employers
to provide such accommodations.
Contract claims
Ellison, Jenkins and the putative members of their class allege
that defendants were contractually obligated to honor the
"permanent" exemptions that the employees were given under the
original vaccination policy and that defendants breached that
contract when they revoked those exemptions. Alternatively,
plaintiffs contend that, even if granting the exemptions did not
create an enforceable contract, defendants are nonetheless liable
under equitable promissory estoppel principles. Neither theory
holds up under scrutiny.
Class claims
To establish commonality, a plaintiff must show their claims depend
upon a common contention that makes class-wide resolution possible
-- i.e., the putative class must share a question whose answer will
resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each employees'
claims in one stroke. However, the court notes that, given the
personal nature of religious beliefs, plaintiffs' claims do not
lend themselves to common resolution.
Specifically, plaintiffs' failure-to-accommodate theory would
require the court to ask whether each putative class member's
abortion-based objection to the COVID-19 vaccine was based on their
own religious beliefs. Given that these critical questions must be
answered on an individualized basis, the court concludes that it is
apparent from the amended complaint that the purported class cannot
be certified.
Defendants' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion to
strike class claims granted in part, denied in part.
Ellison v. Inova Health Care Services, No. 1:23-cv-00132, Sept. 14,
2023. EDVA at Alexandria (Nachmanoff). VLW 023-3-568. 22 pp. [GN]
INOVIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Court OK's Settlement of Shareholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission in August 9, 2023, that a settlement was
approved by the court in January 2023, where, under the settlement,
the company agreed to pay $30.0 million in cash and $14.0 million
in shares of its common stock to settle all outstanding claims.
On March 12, 2020, a purported shareholder class action complaint,
"McDermid v. Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and J. Joseph Kim," was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, naming the company and its former President and
Chief Executive Officer as defendants. The lawsuit alleged that the
company made materially false and misleading statements in
violation of certain federal securities laws. The plaintiffs sought
unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an
award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’
fees. The plaintiffs' complaint was later amended to include
certain of the company's other officers as defendants.
After additional motions were filed in the case, in June 2022 the
parties negotiated an agreement in principle to settle the
shareholder class action complaint, which was approved by the court
in January 2023. Under the settlement, the company agreed to pay
$30.0 million in cash and $14.0 million in shares of its common
stock to settle all outstanding claims.
Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biotechnology company focused on
developing and commercializing DNA medicines to help treat and
protect people from diseases associated with HPV, cancer, and
infectious diseases. The company's goal is to advance its pipeline
of product candidates and deliver on the promise of DNA medicines
technology in treating and preventing a wide array of diseases.
INTERMIX HOLDCO: Seeks Extension of Time to File Class Cert Reply
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LELA VISNJEVAC, and other
similarly situated individuals, v. INTERMIX HOLDCO, LLC, and
REGENT, L.P., Case No. 1:23-cv-22459-KMM (S.D. Fla.), the
Defendants request the entry of an Order extending the deadline up
to and including to October 13, 2023, within which they may submit
their Reply in support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Complaint.
On June 30, 2023, the Plaintiff filed her Complaint. On August 31,
2023, the Defendants filed a Motion asking this Court to dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim.
The Plaintiff's response to Defendants' Motion was originally due
on September 14, 2023, but was extended to September 28, 2023.
Absent an extension of time, Defendants' Reply in support of its
Motion to Dismiss is currently due on October 5, 2023.
Intermix retails multi-brand women's apparel and accessories.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 3, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46i8Mzt at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Stefanie M. Mederos, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Wells Fargo Center, Suite 2700
333 S.E. 2nd Avenue
Miami, FL 33131-2187
Telephone: (305) 400-7500
Facsimile: (305) 603-2552
E-mail: SMederos@littler.com
- and -
Shawn Matthew Clark, Esq.
Adriana H. Foreman, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
900 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 583-9600
Facsimile: (212) 832-2719
E-mail: SMClark@littler.com
AForeman@littler.com
J&C AMBULANCE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 31, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as First, et al., v. J&C
Ambulance Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-03296 (S.D. Ohio,
Filed Aug. 31, 2022), the Hon. Judge Kimberly A. Jolson entered an
order granting motion to amend the memorandum of first pretrial
conference.
-- Class Certification Motion due by: Jan. 31, 2024
-- Discovery due by: May 31, 2024
-- Dispositive motions due by: June 28, 2024
-- Primary Expert due by: Jan. 31, 2024
-- Rebuttal Expert due by: March 29, 2024
The suit alleges violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act.
J&C is a Land Ambulance organization practicing in North Canton,
Ohio.[CC]
JERNIGAN CAPITAL: Challenges Class Cert. Ruling in Erickson Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
JERNIGAN CAPITAL, INC., et al. filed a petition for leave to appeal
a ruling in the lawsuit entitled John R. Erickson, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. Jernigan
Capital, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-9575, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed a complaint against the Defendants for their violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The action arises from the acquisition of Jernigan by affiliates of
NexPoint Advisors, L.P.
On August 3, 2020, the Company announced it had entered a merger
agreement with NexPoint, pursuant to which the Company's common
stockholders would receive $17.30 in cash per share. According to
the complaint, the proxy was materially false and misleading in
violation of Section 14(a) because the proxy failed to disclose a
highly material $300 million preferred equity transaction carried
out in connection with the merger.
On Dec. 15, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class.
On June 12, 2023, Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker entered a
report and recommendation (R&R) in connection with the motion for
class certification, which the Court adopted and granted through an
Order entered by Judge Jennifer L. Rochon on Sept. 14, 2023.
Judge Rochon held that there is no clear error in the parts of the
R&R to which the parties did not object and is satisfied that
benefit-of-the-bargain damages can be measured on a class-wide
basis in this case and satisfy Rule 23(b)(3) predominance.
Accordingly, Judge Rochon adopts the R&R in full and granted the
motion to certify class.
The appellate case is captioned Erickson v. Jernigan Capital, Inc.,
Case No. 23-1350, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, filed on September 28, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent JOHN R. ERICKSON, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Noam Noah Mandel, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
420 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10170
Telephone: (212) 791-0568
Defendant-Petitioner JERNIGAN CAPITAL, INC., et al. are represented
by:
Matthew L. DiRisio, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166
Telephone: (212) 294-4686
JEWELRY ARTISANS: Vasquez Seeks Conditional Status of FLSA Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VANESSA VAZQUEZ, v.
JEWELRY ARTISANS OF ORLANDO, INC. d/b/a Kissimmee Jewelers and
ALBERTO LOPEZ, Case No. 6:23-cv-00855-WWB-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying
case as a representative action and permitting notification to all
similarly situated individuals of the pendency of this action:
"All current and former employees, who are, were or have worked
in
excess of 40 hours per week without being properly compensated
at
a rate of time and a half."
The Complaint in the instant action alleges that Plaintiff, as well
as
other similarly situated employees, have been damaged as a result
of Defendants' failure to properly compensate Plaintiff and such
other similarly situated employees for all hours worked by them, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Kissimmee is a jewelry store.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 2, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PBetBk at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julisse Jimenez, Esq.
THE SAENZ LAW FIRM
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 482-1475
E-mail: julisse@legalopinionusa.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Barry S. Mittelberg, Esq.
BARRY S. MITTELBERG, P.A.
10100 W Sample Road, Suite 407
Coral Springs, FL 33065
Telephone: (954) 752-1213
E-mail: barry@mittelberglaw.com
KISS NUTRACEUTICALS: Gamboa Bid for Leave to Restrict Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gamboa v. Kiss
Nutraceuticals, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01141 (D. Colo., Filed May
9, 2022), the Hon. Judge William J. Martinez entered an order
denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's renewed unopposed motion
for leave to restrict.
-- The Plaintiff originally filed unopposed motion to restrict,
which sought the Level 1 restriction of Exhibit 7 to
Plaintiff's
motion for class certification.
-- The Plaintiff did not, however, actually file Exhibit 7, and
thus, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff's original
motion.
-- The Plaintiff now files its Renewed Motion and provides an
unredacted copy of Exhibit 7, a Standard Operating Procedure
produced by Defendants and designated as "Highly
Confidential."
But Plaintiff fails to provide a proposed redacted version for
public access, despite Plaintiff's claim otherwise. Nor will
the
Court hunt through Exhibit 7 to try to match up the proposed
publicly available quotations.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Kiss Nutraceuticals is a manufacturer of health and wellness
products.
[CC]
LANDMARK RECOVERY: Seeks to Certify Interlocutory Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA ISAACS, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. LANDMARK RECOVERY
OF LOUISVILLE, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00210 (M.D. Tenn.), the
Defendant moves for certification of an interlocutory appeal of the
Court's Memorandum and Order of September 18, 2023.
Since the Sixth Circuit adopted its "strong likelihood" standard in
Clark v. A&L Homecare & Training Ctr., LLC, 68 F.4th 1003 (6th Cir.
2023), district courts within this Circuit have issued divergent
opinions applying that standard.
Landmark Recovery offers drug and alcohol rehab, detox, and
individualized treatment plans.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 2, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LLC0hS at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
Tristan T. Akers, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Rd, Suite #126
Columbus, OH 43220
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
takers@mcoffmanlegal.com
- and -
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
Nicole A. Chanin, Esq.
BARRETT, JOHNSTON, MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
Philips Plaza
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
nchanin@barrettjohnston.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jonathan O. Harris, Esq.
Allison Gluvna Folk, Esq.
Ashton P. Hoffman, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
611 Commerce Street, Suite 2803
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615)-565-1665
E-mail: jonathan.harris@jacksonlewis.com
allison.folk@jacksonlewis.com
ashton.hoffman@jacksonlewis.com
LIVEPERSON INC: Straub Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filings Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Liveperson, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in August 9, 2023, that on June 23, 2023,
plaintiff in a putative stockholder class action entitled "Straub
v. LivePerson, Inc.," No. 1:23-cv-03078, was filed under the
federal securities laws against the company, its former Chief
Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, voluntarily
dismissed his case without prejudice on April 24, 2023.
The complaint alleged that in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the company made false and
misleading statements in its Form 10-Q filings and forecasts for
the first, second, and third quarters of fiscal year 2022 based on
the company's subsequent disclosures in its subsequent annual
report on Form 10-K on March 16, 2023.
LivePerson, Inc. is a global provider of AI-powered customer
conversations.
LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit Over Environmental, Health Risks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of Lumen Technologies, Inc., formerly known as
CenturyLink, Inc. (NYSE:LUMN), have been alerted to a class action
lawsuit by The Gross Law Firm, as announced on October 3, 2023. The
suit alleges that the company issued materially false and/or
misleading statements and failed to disclose significant
environmental and public health risks associated with its
operations.
The class period for the lawsuit spans from March 11, 2019, to July
14, 2023. Shareholders who purchased shares of the company during
this period are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible
appointment as lead plaintiff. The deadline for such appointment is
set for November 14, 2023.
The complaint alleges that Lumen owned and possibly still owns
thousands of miles of cables wrapped in lead, a known neurotoxin,
within the U.S. This has reportedly harmed and poses the risk of
further harming the environment, exposed company employees, and the
general public, thereby posing a significant public health risk and
environmental pollution risk.
The lawsuit further alleges that Lumen was aware of the damage and
risks presented by these lead-covered cables but did not disclose
them as a potential threat to everyday people and communities. The
company also allegedly failed to provide adequate lead training to
employees.
These actions have subjected the company to a heightened risk of
governmental and regulatory oversight and enforcement action, as
well as legal and reputational harm. As a result, the complaint
asserts that the company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.
The Gross Law Firm is a nationally recognized class action law firm
committed to protecting investor rights against deceit, fraud, and
illegal business practices. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of
investors who incurred losses due to false or misleading statements
or the omission of material information by a company leading to
artificial inflation of the company's stock.
InvestingPro data reveals that Lumen Technologies, Inc. operates
with a significant debt burden and is quickly burning through cash,
which could potentially impact its ability to manage this legal
situation. The company's market cap stands at $1,400 million, and
it has seen a significant fall in its stock price over the past
year, with a year-to-date price total return of -73.37%. This
decline is reflective of the challenges the company has been
facing, including the class action lawsuit and the alleged
environmental and public health risks.
It is noteworthy that despite these challenges, Lumen has
maintained dividend payments for 49 consecutive years, according to
InvestingPro Tips. This indicates a commitment to return value to
shareholders even amidst turbulence. However, with a P/E Ratio of
-0.13 and a revenue growth of -18.05% as per InvestingPro data,
investors may need to exercise caution.
For those interested in exploring more about investing strategies
and comprehensive real-time metrics, InvestingPro offers a wealth
of tips and data. For instance, you can find 14 additional tips
related to Lumen Technologies on their platform. To access these
and more, visit InvestingPro's subscription page. [GN]
MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Petition to Review 2022 Ruling Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel of Reuters reports that securities class action
defendants and their lawyers are very good at attracting the
attention of the U.S. Supreme Court by predicting that terrible
things will happen if the justices don't intervene.
The latest case in point: On September 29, 2023, the Supreme Court
granted a petition by Macquarie Infrastructure Corp to review a
2022 ruling in which the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed
a class of shareholders to proceed with securities fraud claims
based on, among other things, the company's alleged violation of
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's administrative
disclosure rules. (The company is now renamed Atlantic Aviation
Infrastructure Corp, but I'll call it MIC, as both sides did in
Supreme Court briefing.)
MIC's lawyers at Winston & Strawn told the Supreme Court that the
2nd Circuit stands alone in its insistence that the violation of an
SEC rule requiring the disclosure of potentially important trends
or uncertainties can be the basis of a private shareholder fraud
class action. (The rule, known as Item 303 of Regulation S-K, is
intended to provide investors with information about issues that,
in the view of corporate leaders, are reasonably likely to affect
the company's future operations or finances.)
In a direct split with the 2nd Circuit, MIC said, the 9th Circuit
explicitly held in 2014's In re NVIDIA Corporation Securities
Litigation that violations of the SEC rule cannot, by themselves,
justify shareholder class actions.
The 9th Circuit decision, in turn, relied on reasoning from a 3rd
Circuit ruling written in 2000 by then-Judge Samuel Alito, as
Winston & Strawn noted several times in its petition.
Without a resolution of the circuit split, MIC said, plaintiffs
will forum shop to bring Item 303 cases in the 2nd Circuit. And
unless the Supreme Court reins in the 2nd Circuit, argued MIC and
its supporters from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Securities
Industry and Financial Markets Association, companies will try to
avert those cases by larding up their securities filings with all
kinds of defensive disclosures about remotely conceivable risks.
Over-disclosure, said MIC and the Chamber, undermines the SEC's
rule -- and leaves investors without a meaningful way to assess
risk.
MIC also warned, with amicus backing from the Washington Legal
Foundation, that the 2nd Circuit's approach exceeds the bounds of
Supreme Court precedent on shareholders' right to sue companies for
fraud. The SEC's disclosure rule is inherently subjective and
flexible, MIC said. That's a bad fit, Winston & Strawn argued, for
private securities fraud claims under the Exchange Act, which
require plaintiffs to show intentional deception.
Or, as MCI's counsel of record, Linda Coberly of Winston & Strawn,
told me in an email, "The 2nd Circuit's decision expands private
securities liability beyond what Congress intended and may actually
impair the quality and clarity of the information investors
receive."
That was a sufficiently alarming prediction to persuade at least
four justices (presumably including Alito) to take the case, which
gives the Supreme Court a new opportunity to resolve an issue it
first agreed to hear in 2017's Leidos Inc. v. Indiana Public
Retirement System, but didn't get a chance to decide because the
underlying class action settled.
Now let's consider the flip side of MIC's predictions.
As the lead plaintiffs in the underlying shareholder class action
pointed out in their brief opposing Supreme Court review,
securities class action defendants similarly predicted disaster
when they pitched the 2017 Leidos case, warning the justices that
markets would be upended because the 2nd Circuit had exposed
companies to "potentially massive liability for omitting
information that might later be found to be a 'trend' or
'uncertainty' under Item 303."
That didn't happen, according to the opposition brief from
shareholders' counsel of record, David Frederick of Kellogg,
Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick. It's actually quite rare,
Frederick argued, for securities class action plaintiffs to assert
a claim for SEC disclosure rule violations. Even in the purported
hub of such cases, the 2nd Circuit, only 12 lawsuits a year, on
average, cite the SEC rule as the basis of a claim.
And those claims, moreover, almost never succeed. The 2nd Circuit,
according to the shareholders' brief, requires plaintiffs asserting
a claim based on Item 303 disclosure violations to show that the
omitted information meets the Supreme Court's high bar for
materiality in private securities litigation. The 2nd Circuit also,
the brief said, requires shareholders to show that the company
intended to defraud investors by violating the SEC disclosure
rule.
So it's not surprising, according to the opposition brief, that
it's been six years since any securities class action defendant
asked the Supreme Court to look anew at the difference between the
9th and 2nd Circuit approaches (which, according to shareholders,
are not nearly as divergent as MIC portrayed them to be).
In that entire six-year stretch, shareholders said, the split
between the 2nd and 9th Circuits might have changed the outcome of
precisely one case.
Shareholders pointed out that even the MIC case -- which involves
allegations that the company misled investors about the impact of
impending international maritime regulations that ended up slashing
the market for its fuel storage services -- would have gone forward
without the disclosure violation claim because plaintiffs accused
MIC of other misstatements and omissions.
Obviously, shareholders failed to convince the Supreme Court that
Item 303 claims are too piffling to occupy the justices' time. I
emailed Frederick and lead plaintiffs' counsel in the class action,
Salvatore Graziano of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, to ask
about the Supreme Court's grant of review but didn't hear back.
One consolation for shareholders is that if history is a guide, the
U.S. government will back their argument that Item 303 can be the
basis of an Exchange Act claim as long as shareholders can show the
requisite materiality and fraudulent intent. The Justice Department
and the SEC took that position in an amicus brief in the 2017
case.
And besides, according to shareholders, it will be no big deal if
they lose at the Supreme Court: By their own account, the issue
just isn't very important. [GN]
MAILROOM SHIPPING: Lawrence Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mailroom Shipping
Center LLC, et al. The case is styled as Nana Queenie Lawrence, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mailroom Shipping
Center LLC, 928 Myrtle LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06672-DLI-CLP
(E.D.N.Y., Sept. 7, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Mailroom Shipping Center -- https://www.myrtlemailroom.com/ --
offers packing, shipping, printing, and business services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel A. Johnston, Esq.
JOHNSTON LAW LLC
1103 Stewart Avenue, Suite 200
Garden City, NY 11757
Phone: (516) 388-7611
Email: DJ@BellLG.com
- and -
Jonathan Bell, Esq.
BELL LAW GROUP PLLC
116 Jackson Avenue
Syosset, NY 11791
Phone: (516) 280-3008
Fax: (516) 706-4692
Email: jb@belllg.com
MARTIN & BAYLEY: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Gamble
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gamble v. Martin & Bayley
Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01330-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge
Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
Martin & Bayley owns and operates a chain of supermarkets.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48FCH5Z at no extra charge.[CC]
MCADOO'S SEAFOOD: Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brixey v. McAdoo's Seafood
Company, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00232 (W.D. Tex., Filed Feb.
24, 2023), the Hon. Judge David A. Ezra entered an order referring
motion to certify class to U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S.
Chestney.
The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC]
MCKESSON CORP: Settles Antitrust Suit Over Alleged Drug Monopoly
----------------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that in October 2022, the parties in
a purported class action complaint filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California reached an
agreement in principle to settle.
On December 12, 2018, said suit alleged that McKesson and two of
its former officers, CEO John Hammergren and CFO James Beer,
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by reporting profits
and revenues from 2013 until early 2017 that were false and
misleading, due to an alleged undisclosed conspiracy to fix the
prices of generic drugs. Case was captioned "Evanston Police
Pension Fund v. McKesson Corporation," No. 3:18-06525.
McKesson Corporation is a diversified healthcare services provider
that partners with biopharma companies, care providers, pharmacies,
manufacturers, governments, and others to deliver insights,
products, and services to help make quality care more accessible
and affordable.
MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Faces Recapitalization Transactions Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Barret Loux of Clayton County Registry reports that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Medical Properties Trust, Inc. (MPW)
and certain officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The lawsuit alleges that MPW made
materially false and misleading statements about a recapitalization
transaction with Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc. (Prospect).
MPW is a real estate investment trust that acquires and develops
net-leased healthcare facilities. The recapitalization transaction
with Prospect involved MPW taking an equity stake in Prospect's
managed care business, PHP Holdings, LLC, in lieu of outstanding
loans and unpaid rent.
The transaction was subject to regulatory approval by the
Department of Managed Health Care of the Health and Human Services
Agency of the State of California (DMHC). However, MPW failed to
disclose the DMHC's order putting the transaction on hold to its
shareholders. The truth was revealed when the Wall Street Journal
published an article discussing the DMHC's decision and its
potential negative impact on MPW and Prospect.
MPW issued a press release responding to the article, downplaying
the DMHC's order as expected and non-controversial, and asserting
that it did not require disclosure. Despite these attempts to
reassure investors, MPW's stock price fell by 7.6% following the
publication of the article.
The class action lawsuit alleges that MPW made false and misleading
statements about the regulatory approval process and overstated the
benefits of the recapitalization transaction. The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased
or acquired MPW securities during the class period.
Pomerantz LLP, a renowned law firm specializing in corporate,
securities, and antitrust class litigation, is representing the
class in the lawsuit. [GN]
META MATERIALS: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Fraud Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eddie Pan, writing for InvestorPlace, reports that it's a good day
for Meta Materials (NASDAQ:MMAT), as the company announced that the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York had
granted its motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit filed
against it in January of 2022. The court concluded that the lawsuit
failed to evidence any false statements, material omissions, or a
strong inference of fraudulent intent from the company or any other
named defendants. As a result, the dismissal of the lawsuit casts
away all of the claims mentioned in the lawsuit.
"We appreciate the court's thorough examination of the complaint
and the Company's motion," said CEO George Palikaras. "Our priority
remains serving our shareholders and continuing our work in the
field of advanced materials and nanotechnology towards developing
solutions that make a difference in people's lives."
MMAT Stock: Class Action Lawsuit Claims Dismissed in Court
Still, the court has not yet levied judgement in favor of Meta.
This means that the plaintiff still has the option to file an
amended complaint and/or appeal the decision while seeking leave
from the court.
"If plaintiffs do not file such a motion or the court denies it,
the plaintiffs will have 30 days to file a notice of appeal from
the date the court enters a final judgment in favor of the
defendants," said Meta. [GN]
MID-CENTURY INSURANCE: Sausman Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as William B. Sausman, on behalf of himself and on
behalf of all others similarly situated as defined herein v.
Mid-Century Insurance Company, Case No. 23-A-06225-2 was removed
from the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia on Sept. 29, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-04455-LMM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of Contract.
MID-Century Insurance Company provides insurance services. The
Company offers property and casualty, life, auto, business, and
other insurance products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Jordan Lober, Esq.
LOBER & DOBSON, LLC
1197 Canton Street
Roswell, GA 30075
Phone: (770) 741-0700
Email: mjlober@lddlawyers.com
- and -
Robert Brent Irby, Esq.
IRBY LAW, LLC
2201 Arlington Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: (205) 335-9102
Fax: (205) 905-7084
Email: brent@irbylaw.net
- and -
Todd L. Lord, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF TODD L. LORD
P.O. Box 901
4 Courthouse Square
Cleveland, GA 30528
Phone: (706) 219-2239
Email: attytllord@windstream.net
- and -
William Gregory Dobson, Esq.
LOBER & DOBSON, LLC
1040 Fort Stephenson Road
Lookout Mountain, GA 30750
Phone: (478) 745-7700
Fax: (478) 745-4888
Email: wgd@lddlawyers.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Chad Allan Shultz, Esq.
Vernon Phillip Hill, IV, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
55 Ivan Allen Jr. Boulevard, NW, Ste 750
Atlanta, GA 30308
Phone: (404) 869-9054
Email: cshultz@grsm.com
phill@grsm.com
MONSANTO CO: Faces Class Suit Over Glyphosate-Based Herbicides
--------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Lu of The Guardian reports that from his mid-teens, Kelvin
McNickle began helping out in his family's vegetation management
business in Queensland. As part of the work, he regularly used the
herbicide Roundup, sometimes ending the day saturated in the
weedkiller despite using protective equipment. At 35, after 20
years of exposure to the glyphosate-based herbicide, McNickle
developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma - cancer of the lymphatic system.
Now 40, McNickle is the lead applicant in a landmark class action
against Monsanto, the chemical giant which was acquired by the
German company Bayer in 2018. It involves more than 800 Australians
with the condition, who allege their cancer is linked to their
exposure to Roundup between July 1976 and July 2022.
The judge-only trial mirrors legal challenges in other countries,
and could have significant regulatory implications in Australia if
the applicants are successful.
The first part of the case, which began on 4 September and will run
for several weeks in the federal court in Melbourne before Justice
Michael Lee, seeks to specifically establish whether glyphosate is
carcinogenic.
"If that question is answered positively to us, then there's still
more that will need to be done before we can obtain compensation
for people," says Andrew Watson, the national head of class actions
at Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, which has brought the case against
Monsanto.
If the class action group members are successful in the first part
of the trial, the court will then consider whether the chemical
company was negligent with regard to the risk posed by its
glyphosate-based formulations.
Carcinogenic risks contested
Glyphosate, one of the most widely used herbicides globally, kills
weeds by interfering with a plant pathway that produces certain
amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. It was patented by
Monsanto in the early 1970s, although the patent has now expired.
Legal challenges began overseas in 2015, after the World Health
Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans", in the
same category as eating red meat and drinking beverages hotter than
65C. Its conclusion was based on "sufficient" evidence that the
compound causes cancer in animal experiments, and "limited"
evidence of cancer in humans from real-world exposure.
The IARC's classification also noted there was "strong" evidence
that glyphosate was genotoxic - able to damage the genetic
information within cells, which can lead to mutations that result
in cancer.
But the evidence for its carcinogenicity has been highly contested
- other agencies, including the European Chemicals Agency, Canada's
Pest Management Regulatory Agency and the Australian Pesticides and
Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), have concluded that
glyphosate does not pose significant carcinogenic risks to humans.
Sign up for a weekly email featuring our best reads
Last week the European Commission proposed extending the EU
approval for glyphosate use - which is set to expire in December -
by 10 years. The proposal will be put to a vote on 13 October.
Individual member states, however, including France and Germany,
have opted for partial restrictions or total bans of the
weedkiller.
In the US, a 2020 review by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) found that glyphosate was unlikely to be a human carcinogen.
But in June last year, an appellate court ordered the EPA to
re-review the chemical, finding that officials had discounted
several important studies and that "most studies EPA examined
indicated that human exposure to glyphosate is associated with an
at least somewhat increased risk of developing NHL [non-Hodgkin
lymphoma]".
Bayer has faced numerous lawsuits in the US. It has had a string of
recent successes defending Roundup at trial, but the firm has paid
out about $10.9bn to settle or otherwise resolve cases brought
against it by 113,000 claimants.
What the scientists say
The first part of the Australian court case is hearing from
scientists testifying on behalf of both the claimants and
Monsanto.
The court has heard evidence on epidemiological studies in humans,
from which it can be difficult to establish carcinogenicity, as
such research must follow large numbers of people over long periods
of time.
One of the largest studies, the Agricultural Health Study, followed
tens of thousands of pesticide applicators in the US for 20 years
from the early 1990s, finding no apparent association between
"glyphosate and any solid tumours or lymphoid malignancies overall,
including NHL and its subtypes". However, a 2019 meta-analysis that
included the Agricultural Health Study and five other studies found
"a compelling link between exposures to [glyphosate-based
herbicides] and increased risk for NHL".
Mechanistic evidence - looking at the means by which a chemical
causes cancer in cells - is also being considered in the trial,
which Watson describes as the area "where the strongest evidence
emerges". As the IARC noted in its 2015 classification, studies
have shown that glyphosate can result in DNA damage and also induce
a process known as oxidative stress in cells, which has been linked
to the development of cancer.
In the coming weeks, experts will testify on evidence of
carcinogenicity from animal experiments - whose results are not
always applicable to humans - and also on exposure, to establish
whether glyphosate could be absorbed in sufficient quantities
through herbicide use to cause cancer.
Closing submissions for the first portion of the trial are expected
on 31 October.
Monsanto's position is that Roundup and glyphosate-based herbicides
"have been rigorously tested in hundreds of studies, that the
weight of this extensive body of science confirms that glyphosate
is safe when used as directed and is not carcinogenic".
The chemical company is arguing that there are other reasons the
litigants may have developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma, such as genetic
predisposition, random chance, and gene changes and DNA mutations
caused by other factors.
'Devastating impact on his life'
The last formal review of glyphosate by Australia's pesticides
regulator, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines
Authority (APVMA), was in 1997.
In 2016, following the IARC classification, the authority said it
"found no grounds" to formally reconsider the herbicide's status.
It noted that the IARC looked at the "intrinsic toxic potential or
'hazard' of the chemical glyphosate", but that it was beyond the
remit of the international agency to consider how "actual use and
exposure affects the final overall risk (risk = hazard x exposure)
".
"Glyphosate does not pose a carcinogenic risk to humans," the APVMA
concluded.
"It is Monsanto's view that IARC's classification is inconsistent
with the conclusions of regulatory authorities and other experts
around the world," Bayer said in a statement provided to Guardian
Australia. "According to IARC, IARC 'identifies cancer hazards even
when risks are very low at current exposure levels.' In our view
this means that IARC's classifications do not reflect real-world
levels of exposure."
In July a review of the APVMA initiated by the agriculture
minister, Murray Watt, criticised the authority for the slow pace
of its work reviewing chemicals already on the market, without
making any judgment about the effects of particular chemicals.
"It appears that the APVMA has limited capacity to progress ongoing
monitoring activities, with the most notable example being the
protracted progression of its Chemical Review Program," the review
found.
In a statement, Bayer said it "respects the independence and
expertise of the APVMA" and noted that the review concluded that
the "registration process continues to uphold the stringent
regulatory requirements which ensure the safety and efficacy of
agricultural chemical products".
"I'm not imagining that there will be a review of Roundup [by the
APVMA] now," Watson says, given the current class action before the
court. "If we are successful in our claim, then I would hope that
the regulator takes appropriate steps."
After undergoing chemotherapy and radiotherapy, McNickle went into
remission in 2019, but has subsequently had a recurrence of cancer
this year.
"His circumstances obviously had a pretty devastating impact on his
life," Watson says, describing the recurrence as a further blow.
"Kelvin's is a particularly stark case, but a lot of people of that
800 [involved in the class action] had reasonably significant
amounts of exposure."
What distinguishes the Australian court case from US trials, Watson
says, is that the outcome will be decided by a judge, whose
detailed consideration of all the evidence is likely to be "more
powerful and persuasive" than decisions handed down by juries.
"I think it will be a genuine and significant and widespread
problem for Monsanto and Bayer if we're successful in this trial."
[GN]
MOUNTAIN LAUREL: Seeks Hearing on Costello Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAYLOR COSTELLO,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
MOUNTAIN LAUREL ASSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-00035-TAV-CRW
(E.D. Tenn.), the Defendant asks the Court to hold a hearing on
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification, filed on March 10, 2023. The Defendant filed its
response in opposition to the Motion on May 12, 2023.
The Plaintiff filed her reply on June 9, 2023. In addition, the
Defendant filed motions to exclude three of the experts on which
Plaintiff predicated her motion for class certification.
Mountain is a subsidiary company of Progressive Insurance.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 2, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LMsriH at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq.
Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq.
J. Matthew Brigman, Esq.
Allison Hill White, Esq.
Julia C. Barrett, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
1180 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 572-4600
Facsimile: (404) 572-5100
E-mail: jcashdan@kslaw.com
zmcentyre@kslaw.com
mbrigman@kslaw.com
awhite@kslaw.com
jbarrett@kslaw.com
- and -
Taylor A. Williams, Esq.
PAINE, TARWATER, & BICKERS, LLP
900 South Gay Street, Suite 2200
Knoxville, TN 37902-1821
Telephone: (865) 525-0880
E-mail: taw@painetarwater.com
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Court Allows More Time to Amend Class Cert Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doe v. NH Department of
Health and Human Services, Commissioner, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-01039 (D.N.H.), the Hon. Judge Landya B. Mccafferty entered
an endorsed order granting motion to extend time to file the
Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the class certification
order.
The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act involving
Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus – General.
NH Department provides services in the areas of mental health,
developmental disability, substance abuse, and public health.[CC]
NFL ENTERPRISES: Wins Class Suit Over Sharing of Video Info
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown of Bloomberg Law reports that NFL Enterprises LLC
defeated a proposed class action alleging it shared information
with Facebook about videos watched by website visitors in violation
of the Video Privacy Protection Act.
Plaintiffs Jim Alex, Mark Bowers, Boyce Brown, and others failed to
show that they were "consumers" within the meaning of the VPPA when
they watched videos on NFL team websites, Judge Andrew L. Carter of
the US District Court for the Southern District of New York said on
September 27, 2023.
Carter dismissed the lawsuit without leave to amend.
A similar lawsuit alleging NFL Enterprises shared the
video-watching information of users of its smartphone app. [GN]
NITROGEN LLC: Halasz Sues Over Improper Payment of Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Halasz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Extreme Nitrogen, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-05703 (E.D. La., Sept. 29, 2023) alleges claims against the
Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
the Portal-to-Portal Act.
Plaintiff Halasz seeks damages for Defendant's failure to pay
Plaintiff time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours
worked over 40 during each seven-day workweek while working for
Defendant. He was employed by the Defendant as an oxygen pump
operator from February 26, 2021 to January 15, 2022. He routinely
worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek for Defendant. His weekly
work schedule typically encompassed 80-100 hours of work for
Defendant. However, Defendant did not pay Plaintiff time and
one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40
during each and every workweek, says the Plaintiff.
Extreme Nitrogen, LLC is a nitrogen provider based in Harvey, LA.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq.
Adam R. Credeur, Esq.
Natalie M. DeJean, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W. DEJEAN
417 W. University Avenue (70506)
P.O. Box 4325
Lafayette, LA 70502
Telephone: (337) 235-5294
Facsimile: (337) 235-1095
E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com
adam@kwdejean.com
natalie@kwdejean.com
- and -
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
WAGE AND HOUR FIRM
5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75254
Telephone: (214) 489-7653
Facsimile: (469) 319-0317
E-mail: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com
marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com
NORTHEAST WORK: Obermeier Must File Class Cert Bid by May 16, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Obermeier v. Northeast
Work & Safety Boats, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00046 (D. Conn.,
Filed Jan. 11, 2023), the Hon. Judge Sarala V. Nagala entered an
order on motion for extension of time as follows:
-- The deadline for Plaintiff to move May 16, 2024
for Rule 23 class certification,
and for the Defendants to move to
decertify the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) collective, is:
-- Fact discovery shall be completed by: March 31,
2024
-- Parties shall designate experts and April 30,
2024
disclose expert reports on any issues
on which they bear the burden of proof
by:
-- Depositions of all such experts shall May 31, 2024
be completed by:
-- Parties shall designate experts and June 30, 2024
disclose expert reports on any issues
on which they do not bear the burden
of proof by:
-- Depositions of all such experts shall July 31, 2024
be completed by:
-- Dispositive motions and any motions to Aug. 31, 2024
preclude an expert are due by:
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Northeast Work provides rescue, inspection work boats and work
platforms and barges.[CC]
ON24 INC: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filings
--------------------------------------------------------------
ON24, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in August 9, 2023, that the company, its Chief Executive
Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, certain current and former
members of its Board of Directors and the underwriters that
participated in the company's IPO are named as defendants in a
consolidated putative class action, captioned "In re ON24, Inc.
Securities Litigation," 4:21-cv-08578-YGR (filed in November 2021),
that is currently pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California.
The consolidated complaint purports to assert claims under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all persons
and entities that purchased, or otherwise acquired, the company's
common stock issued in connection with the company's IPO. The
complaint alleges that the company's registration statement and
prospectus contained untrue statements of material fact and/or
omitted material facts about ON24's growth and customer base.
Plaintiff seeks, among other things, an award of damages and
attorneys’ fees and costs.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in May 2022,
which the court granted with leave to amend on July 7, 2023.
Plaintiff's amended complaint was due August 11, 2023.
ON24, Inc. and its subsidiaries provides a cloud-based platform for
digital engagement for interactive webinar experiences, virtual
event experiences and multimedia content experiences. The company
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.
ONITY INC: Boggs Seeks More Time to File Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORDAN BOGGS, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. ONITY, INC., Case No.
6:21-cv-00842-MK (D. Or.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an
order extending the deadline in which he is required to file class
certification.
Discovery in this case is still in progress. The Plaintiff's
counsel has been required to track down potential class members
across the county to obtain information concerning plaintiff's
motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff is still working on obtaining discovery from
third-party potential class members in order to file a motion for
class certification.
Additional time is needed to conduct class discovery. The Plaintiff
respectfully requests a 120 day extension from the current deadline
of October 2, 2023.
The new deadline for the plaintiff's motion for class certification
would be January 30, 2024.
Fact discovery in this case is currently set to be completed by
April 24, 2024, so there will still be ample time to conduct
individual claim discovery to the extent that is not accomplished
during class discovery.
Onity supports the hospitality, commercial, education and military
segments with a full spectrum of electronic locking, access control
and mobile key solutions.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 2, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rDGy2V at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Burgess, Esq.
Carl Post, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL SNYDER
1000 S.W. Broadway, Suite 2400
Portland, OR 97205
Telephone: (503) 241-3617
Facsimile: (503) 241-2249
E-mail: johnburgess@lawofficeofdanielsnyder.com
carlpost@lawofficeofdanielsnyder.com
PACIFIC CCI: Faces Ruiz Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
JAHAIRA RUIZ, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved
Employees, Plaintiff v. PACIFIC CCI, INC, a Delaware Corporation;
THE HOXTON (DOWNTOWN LA) LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company;
ENNISMORE INTERNATIONAL USA, INC, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV23104 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Sept. 25, 2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged
unlawful labor policies and practices in violation of the
California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to provide employment
records, failure to pay overtime and double time, failure to
provide rest and meal periods, failure to pay minimum wage, failure
to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage
statements, failure to pay reporting time wages, failure to pay
split shift wages, failure to pay all wages earned on time, failure
to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation, failure to
reimburse necessary, business-related expenses, and failure to
provide notice of paid sick time and accrual.
Representative Plaintiff was hired by Defendants with the job title
of Public Area Attendant from September 1, 2022 until March 1, 2023
and was tasked with cleaning the public areas of the hotel,
emptying the trash, and helping hotel guests with towel requests.
Pacific CCI, Inc. operates as a hospitality company with services
in housekeeping, engineering, and laundry, among other
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
Raffi Tapanian, Esq.
HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 696-2306
Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
PASCHALL TRUCK: Bid for Order on Discovery Tossed
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GALE CARTER and FORBES
HAYS, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v.
PASCHALL TRUCK LINES, INC.; ELEMENT FLEET MANAGEMENT CORP.; and
JOHN DOES 1–20, Case No. 5:18-cv-00041-BJB-LLK (W.D. Ky.), the
Hon. Judge Lanny King entered an order denying the Defendant's
motion for Order Re Opt-In Plaintiff Discovery w/o Prejudice.
Because the Court evaluates discovery requests for conditionally
certified FLSA Class cases under the factors it explained in Ross,
and because neither Defendant's motion nor Plaintiff's Brief in
Opposition adequately advise the Court on these factors.
However, the representative testimony in Monroe was challenged for
sufficiency at trial, not to certify an FSLA Class before trial.
Before the Court is Defendant Paschall Truck Motion for Order
Regarding Opt-In Plaintiff Discovery. While the parties agree that
some Opt-In Plaintiff discovery is warranted, they dispute both how
many Opt-In Plaintiffs may be subjected to discovery and how they
should be selected.
The Plaintiffs contend that they and others similarly situated were
misclassified by PTL resulting in violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").
Paschall is an employee-owned, truckload, dry-van freight carrier,
primarily consisting of company-owned tractors and trailers.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Sept. 29, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PIL6gz at no
extra charge.[CC]
PEACHY CORP: Website Not Blind-Inaccessible, Martinez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
SILVIA MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PEACHY CORP., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-07217 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 28, 2023) is a civil rights action
against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain,
and operate Defendant's website, www.peachystudio.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when she
attempted on September 2, 2023 and again on September 14, 2023 to
access Defendant's website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to
shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied
the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and
services.
The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Peachy Corp. offers skincare products through its website.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
PHARMACARE US: Class Cert Bid Hearing Set for Oct. 25
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONTIQUENO CORBETT and ROB
DOBBS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. PHARMACARE U.S., INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00137-JES-AHG (S.D.
Cal.), Hon. Judge James E. Simmons, Jr. entered an order granting
joint motion for continuance of hearing on motion for class
certification to October 25, 2023.
PharmaCare US is a Wellness and Fitness Services, Health &
Nutrition Products, and Nutricueticals company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 2, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45pa1vy at no extra charge.[CC]
PHE INC: Faces Doe Suit Over Disclosure of Personal, Private Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. PHE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-08021 (C.D.
Cal., Sept. 25, 2023) arises from the Defendant's disclosure of
communications regarding Plaintiff's private and protected sexual
information along with her IP addresses without her consent
including but not limited to sexual preferences, sexual
orientation, sexual practices, sexual fetishes, sex toy
preferences, lubricant preferences, and search terms in violation
of the California Invasion of Privacy Act.
According to the complaint, Defendant caused Google to learn the
contents of Plaintiff's private and protected sexual information
along with Plaintiff's IP address between [her] and Defendants
without consent. When Plaintiff used Defendant's website,
www.adameve.com, information that revealed her private and
protected sexual information and IP address was provided to Google
without notifying her and without her consent.
The Plaintiff is a consumer of the website which sells adult
products.
PHE, Inc. is the owner of Adam & Eve/the website which is an adult
product marketer in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mike Arias, Esq.
Arnold C. Wang, Esq.
M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq.
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS, LLP
6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Telephone: (310) 844-9696
Facsimile: (310) 861-0168
- and -
Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON P.C.
975 E. Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48207
Telephone: (313) 392-0015
Facsimile: (313) 392-0025
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Settles Suit Over Oil Spill Incident
---------------------------------------------------------
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. disclosed in its Form 10-Q
report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in August 2, 2023, that a class
action settlement was formally approved by the trial court on
September 20, 2022, and the company made the $230 million
settlement payment on October 27, 2022.
Nine class action lawsuits were filed against Plains, however,
after various claims were either dismissed or consolidated, two
proceedings remained pending in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California. In May 2015, Plains
experienced a crude oil release from its Las Flores to Gaviota
Pipeline in Santa Barbara County, California. A portion of the
released crude oil reached the Pacific Ocean at Refugio State Beach
through a drainage culvert.
Plaintiffs claimed two different classes of claimants were damaged
by the release namely, commercial fishermen who landed fish in
certain specified fishing blocks in the waters off the coast of
Southern California or persons or businesses who resold commercial
seafood caught in those areas and owners and lessees of residential
beachfront properties, or properties with a private easement to a
beach, where plaintiffs claim oil from the spill washed up.
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. operates directly and indirectly
through its primary operating subsidiaries. Its business model
integrates large-scale supply aggregation capabilities with the
ownership and operation of critical midstream infrastructure
systems that connect major producing regions to key demand centers
and export terminals.
PLUG POWER INC: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Ongoing in NY Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plug Power Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in August 9, 2023, that case "In re Plug Power, Inc.
Securities Litigation," No. 1:21-cv-2004, is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Several actions were filed in the U.S. District Courts for the
Southern District of New York and for the Central District of
California asserting claims under the federal securities laws
against the company and two of its senior officers, Mr. Marsh and
Mr. Middleton. On July 22, 2021, the court consolidated those
actions. On October 6, 2021, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint asserting claims on behalf of a putative class
composed of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's securities between November 9, 2020 and March 16, 2021.
The amended complaint asserted a claim against all defendants for
alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b5 promulgated thereunder and a claim under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Mr. Marsh and Mr.
Middleton as alleged controlling persons. It alleged that
defendants made "materially false" statements concerning (1)
adjusted EBITDA (2) fuel delivery and research and development
expenses (3) costs related to provision for loss contracts (4)
gross losses and (5) the effectiveness of internal controls and
procedures, and that these alleged misstatements caused losses and
damages for members of the alleged class.
On December 6, 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint. In an opinion and order entered on September 29,
2022, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint in its entirety but permitted the lead plaintiff to
further amend the complaint. On November 21, 2022, the lead
plaintiff filed a second amended complaint purporting to assert
claims under the same provisions against the same defendants on
behalf of the same alleged class of purchasers of the company's
securities. It additionally alleged that various public statements
during the alleged class period were false or misleading because
they allegedly failed to disclose the status of discussions and
considerations relating to warrants to purchase the company's
common stock that were granted to a customer in connection with a
commercial agreement. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint in its entirety on January 12, 2023.
Plug Power Inc. is into hydrogen and fuel cell solutions and
develops commercially-viable hydrogen and fuel cell product
solutions.
PORTLAND, OR: Faces Class Suit Over New Anti-Homeless Camping
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courtney Vaugh of Portland Mercury reports that the city of
Portland faces a legal challenge over its new ordinance prohibiting
unhoused people from living or resting in most public spaces.
A class-action lawsuit filed on September 29 by Oregon Law Center,
asserts the city's restrictions on homeless camping are
unconstitutional, cruel, and impossible to comply with.
A city ordinance approved in June imposed new rules requiring
people living outside to pick up their tents, sleeping bags, and
other belongings, and remove them each day from 8 a.m to 8 p.m.
Those who don't comply face a written warning, then a potential
$100 fine or up to 30 days in jail.
The ordinance has yet to be enforced. City officials said they're
allowing extra time to train police on enforcing the new rules, and
allowing time for education and outreach to those who would be
impacted.
Attorneys say it's unreasonable to expect someone living outside to
pack up all of their belongings each day and try to find somewhere
to go for 12 hours.
"As our Complaint shows, this ordinance is cruel and unreasonable,"
Ed Johnson, director of litigation for the Oregon Law Center,
stated. "It is a huge step in the wrong direction. We need to solve
homelessness. Instead of focusing on proven solutions like more
affordable supportive housing, rent assistance tenant protections
and other services, this ordinance makes it a crime to be homeless.
It criminalizes the people that have already been left out and
punishes them with jail and fines for simply trying to survive."
Under the new ordinance, campsites are prohibited on public
property, walkways, and all areas within 250 feet of schools or
childcare centers, construction zones, environmental overlays, and
existing Safe Rest Village or safe park sites. The city created
fliers and a color-coded online map showing which areas are off
limits, but stopped short of posting signage.
Oregon Law Center's complaint notes the ordinance provides "an
incomprehensible list" of where people can't camp, but provides no
guidance on where a person would go for basic acts of survival,
like sleeping, resting, or staying warm and dry at night.
When the Portland City Council approved the ordinance in June,
Mayor Ted Wheeler noted the ordinance would focus on education and
outreach during its initial rollout. He said the goal is "to
connect people with services, not to impose punishment."
James Duncan is one of five plaintiffs named in the lawsuit.
Duncan, 40, has disabilities, including epilepsy stemming from a
traumatic brain injury, anxiety, and PTSD. He's been homeless for
most of the last four years. Duncan said he collects cans and
bottles for money to afford food and medicine since he and his wife
split up and he lost his job.
"I do not understand where I can sleep under the new ordinance,"
Duncan wrote in a declaration included in the lawsuit. "I don't
think that I'm allowed to sleep in the MAX, and, even if I could,
there's no service from midnight to 4 a.m. I sleep during the day
because it's safer and there are more people around, and since I've
been robbed and beaten up in the past, I'm afraid to sleep at
night."
Duncan said if he gets arrested for violating the new ordinance, it
would be virtually impossible for him to function in jail with
PTSD.
Another plaintiff, Karen Engelhardt, said she grew up in Vancouver,
Washington, and graduated from Evergreen High School, before
attending community college in Vancouver and later, Chico,
California.
Engelhardt, 46, sells ink drawings outside Powell's Books in
Portland for money, but has no other income. She said she's been
homeless off and on for the last decade. She's on waitlists for
housing, but in the meantime, she worries what the new rules will
mean for her, and doesn't know where she could sleep without
breaking the law.
"I don't know where I could put my belongings between 8 a.m. and 8
p.m. every day," Engelhardt wrote. "I know there is a storage
container under the Steel Bridge, but it's not open until 8 p.m. at
night on any day. If I go to jail, I'll have no way to make a
living or stay in touch with Home Forward and other possible
housing leads."
Like Engelhardt, critics say people living outside likely won't be
able to tell which areas are off limits, and the ordinance could
lead to heavy police profiling of unhoused residents.
Others say the city's new policy will only deepen disparities for
Portland's most vulnerable residents.
"As the saying goes, 'when America catches a cold, Black folks get
pneumonia,'" Nkenge Harmon Johnson, president and CEO of the Urban
League of Portland, wrote in a declaration accompanying the
lawsuit. "The housing crisis in our region has impacted Black
communities harder than others."
In the legal declaration, Harmon Johnson said the Urban League is
"deeply saddened" by the city's ordinance and expects it to cause
harm to those already struggling without housing, especially Black
people.
"We restate our long-held stance on this issue that the banning and
criminalization of homelessness will only prolong the City of
Portland's homelessness problem, not solve it."
Oregon lawmakers passed legislation in 2021 that dictates any local
law regulating resting or keeping warm and dry outdoors on public
property must be "objectively reasonable" regarding time, place and
manner restrictions. The legislation went into effect this year.
Attorneys with the Oregon Law Center requested a temporary
restraining order on September 29, 2023 and were hoping for a
preliminary injunction to put Portland's ordinance on pause until
it undergoes legal review by the courts.
That request was denied by a judge, records show.
In its request for a restraining order, the Oregon Law Center notes
the state law around homelessness restrictions "was passed to
protect people living outside from fines and jail." [GN]
PORTLAND, OR: Homeless People File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
KBND reports that a group of people experiencing homelessness are
filing a class action lawsuit against the City of Portland. The
suit claims camping restrictions put in place by the Portland City
Council in June violate Oregon's Constitution. Those suing the city
say the rules mean people who are homeless face fines and jail time
for trying to sleep and stay warm. So far, the city has not
enforced the restrictions, but plan to begin doing so in the coming
weeks. [GN]
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Taylor Sues Over Nasal Decongestants' False Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOY TAYLOR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-04909 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 25, 2023) is a class action brought
on behalf of all persons who have purchased over-the-counter
products manufactured by Defendant containing phenylephrine and
sold in the United States pursuant to the California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law.
The Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendant seeking redress
for Defendant's business practices designed to mislead the public
in connection with its promotion, marketing, advertising,
packaging, labeling, distribution, and/or sale of the products
which Defendant, during the relevant time period, promoted as
containing phenylephrine and as being effective as a nasal
decongestant, when, in fact, it is not effective as a nasal
decongestant.
The Defendant intended to mislead and in fact misled reasonable
consumers -- including Plaintiff and the Class -- through its
concealment of the PE's lack of efficacy as a nasal decongestant.
The Defendant did so with the intent to generate and increase sales
of the product, thereby increasing Defendant's relative share of
the OTC nasal decongestant market, says the suit.
Procter & Gamble Company is an American multinational consumer
goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roland Tellis, Esq.
Mark P. Pifko, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
15910 Ventura Blvd. #1600
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 839-2325
E-mail: rtellis@baronbudd.com
mpifko@baronbudd.com
- and -
Russell W. Budd, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 521-3605
Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
E-mail: rbudd@baronbudd.com
- and -
Peter J. Mougey, Esq.
Jeff R. Gaddy, Esq.
LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, RAFFERTY, PROCTOR,
BUCHANAN, O'BRIEN, BARR & MOUGEY, P.A.
316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600
Pensacola, FL 32503
Telephone: (850) 435-7068
Facsimile: (850) 436-6068
E-mail: pmouget@levinlaw.com
jgaddy@levinlaw.com
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Travis Sues Over Ineffective Nasal Decongestants
------------------------------------------------------------------
TIFFANY TRAVIS, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY; KENVUE, INC.;
MCNEIL CONSUMER HEALTHCARE; RECKITT & BENCKISER LLC; and
GLAXOSMITHKLINE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00607-MWM (S.D.
Ohio, Sept. 25, 2023) rises from the putative Class members'
purchase of alleged ineffective over-the-counter medications that
were manufactured, promoted, marketed, distributed and sold by the
Defendant as providing nasal decongestant effects when the active
ingredient in those medications, phenylephrine (PE) has failed to
demonstrate any pharmacological benefit to treat that symptom.
According to the complaint, PE's ineffectiveness when used orally
to treat nasal congestion has long been known in the pharmaceutical
industry, but in pursuit of profit to treat the large cold and flu
market in the United States, the Defendants chose to mislead
consumers instead of following the science. The Plaintiff seeks to
hold the Defendants responsible for their years long fraudulent
marketing practices that have duped patients throughout the United
States into believing that they could receive relief from nasal
congestion by consuming Defendants' products, says the suit.
Procter & Gamble Company is an American multinational consumer
goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alyson S. Beridon, Esq.
HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI
& WALL, PLLC
600 Vine St., Suite 2720
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 381-2224
Facsimile: (615) 994-8625
E-mail: alyson@hsglawgroup.com
- and -
Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq.
Joey Leniski, Esq.
HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI
& WALL, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 300
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 800-6225
Facsimile: (615) 994-8625
E-mail: ben@hsglawgroup.com
joey@hsglawgroup.com
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Biston Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Claims
Bureau, LLC. The case is styled as Avrohom Biston, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Professional Claims
Bureau, LLC, Case No. 7:23-cv-07824-CS (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 1, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Professional Claims Bureau -- https://www.pcbinc.org/ -- is a debt
collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Tucker Files Suit in E.D. Louisiana
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progress Software
Corporation. The case is styled as Reina Tucker, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Progress Software
Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-04980-JTM-MBN (E.D. La., Aug. 30,
2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
Progress Software Corporation -- https://www.progress.com/ -- is an
American public company that offers software for creating and
deploying business applications.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Reagan Charleston Thomas, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS, AND OVERHOLTZ
Email 17 E. Main Street #200
Email Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (985) 778-8134
Email: rthomas@awkolaw.com
QUEBEC: Nunavik Child Welfare Class Suit Awaits Court Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lochead of Nunatsiaq News reports that a judge has reserved
her decision on whether a class-action lawsuit alleging
discriminatory and unlawful underfunding of child welfare services
in Quebec will go forward.
Justice Marie-Christine Hivon heard arguments on whether the suit
would be authorized as class action in Superior Court of Quebec on
September 25, 2023 and September 26, 2023.
"[It] went well," said William Colish, who is part of the legal
team presenting the suit.
Sotos Class Actions filed the suit with two other law firms, Kugler
Kandestin LLP and Coupal Chauvelot s.a. in Montreal.
The lawsuit was put forward by two petitioners who went through the
child welfare system in Nunavik. Both the Canadian and Quebec
governments are named in the lawsuit.
By allegedly failing to provide child welfare, health services and
social service to Inuit at a level that any other child receives,
both governments have breached the members' constitutional right to
equality, the lawsuit alleges.
All Inuit Nunavik youth impacted by child welfare services since
1975 are eligible to join. All off-reserve First Nations and Metis
youth through Quebec who have been removed from their homes dating
back to 1992 can also join.
"The problem is well known, it's been well documented," Colish said
of the allegations.
"And yet, nothing substantive has changed over the years."
Colish said the legal team for the suit brought forward multiple
arguments that come down to one basic point on the legal
arrangement between the federal and provincial governments on
providing family services.
That point is: "The service in the youth protection system that is
being provided is simply not up to the demand and hasn't been
financed in a way that is to the needs of the family and children
in Nunavik [particularly] and for off-reserve children and for
Metis," he said.
During the public hearing of the authorization of the suit, online
viewers voiced their displeasure at a lack of translation services
for the part of the proceeding that was in French.
It is lawful to speak French during the proceeding because of the
Official Languages Act, Colish said. He added that during this
stage of a class-action lawsuit, translation services typically are
not provided.
"But it is possible that later on in the proceedings that
translation services are something that could be [provided]," he
said.
"Especially given that a good segment of the class [in the suit]
may not understand French."
It is difficult to predict when the judge will make a decision on
whether the hearings proceed, Colish said.
Lawyers for the Quebec and federal governments did not respond to a
request for comment for this story. [GN]
RESONETICS LLC: All Pre-Class Cert Discovery Due March 1, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER REYES, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. RESONETICS, LLC, et
al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01552-RBM-BGS (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Bernard G. Skomal entered a scheduling order regulating discovery
and class certification motion filing deadline:
1. Any motion to join other parties, Nov. 16, 2023.
to amend the pleadings, or to
file additional pleadings must be
filed on or before:
2. All pre-class certification discovery March 1, 2024
shall be completed by all parties by:
3. A motion for class certification April 1, 2024.
must be filed no later than:
Resonetics provides laser technology services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 2, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45jskBY at no extra charge.[CC]
RIOT PLATFORMS: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing in D.N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Riot Platforms, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in August 9, 2023, that it is facing a
consolidated securities action in the United District Court for the
District of New Jersey.
On February 17, 2018, Creighton Takata filed an action asserting
putative class action claims on behalf of the company's
stockholders in "Takata v. Riot Blockchain Inc., et al.," Case No.
3: 18-cv-02293. The complaint asserts violations of federal
securities laws under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of stockholders that
purchased stock from November 13, 2017 through February 15, 2018.
The complaint alleges that the company and certain of its officers
and directors made, caused to be made, or failed to correct false
and/or misleading statements in press releases and public filings
regarding its business plan in connection with its cryptocurrency
business. The complaint requests damages in unspecified amounts,
costs and fees of bringing the action, and other unspecified
relief.
On November 6, 2018, the court in the Takata action issued an order
consolidating Takata into a single putative class action. The court
also appointed Dr. Golovac as Lead Plaintiff and Motely Rice as
Lead Counsel of the consolidated class action.
Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on January 15, 2019.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss on March 18, 2019. In lieu of
opposing defendants' motions to dismiss, Lead Plaintiff filed
another amended complaint on May 9, 2019. Defendants filed multiple
motions to dismiss the amended complaint starting on September 3,
2019. On April 30, 2020, the court granted the motions to dismiss,
which resulted in the dismissal of all claims without prejudice.
On December 24, 2020, Lead Plaintiff filed another amended
complaint. Defendants filed multiple motions to dismiss the amended
complaint starting on February 8, 2021, which were fully briefed.
On February 28, 2022, the court issued an order instructing the
parties to submit supplemental briefing by March 14, 2022 on
particular issues raised in the motions to dismiss. On May 27,
2022, Lead Plaintiff filed the third amended consolidated
complaint. Defendants submitted motions to dismiss on July 18,
2022. Briefing on the motions to dismiss was completed in October
2022.
Riot is a vertically integrated Bitcoin mining company principally
engaged in enhancing capabilities to mine Bitcoin in support of the
Bitcoin blockchain. It also provides comprehensive and critical
infrastructure for its own Bitcoin Mining, as well as provides such
infrastructure for institutional-scale hosted clients to mine
Bitcoin at its Bitcoin mining facility in Rockdale, Texas.
RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Ct. Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Cosenza
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cosenza v. Rivian
Automotive, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01297-JBM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the
Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
Rivian is an American electric vehicle manufacturer and automotive
technology and outdoor recreation company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 2, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45gA7R1 at no extra charge.[CC]
ROADMASTER DRIVERS: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by Nov. 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADLEY MEEHAN and CESAR
E. CIRVERA SANTAMARIA, on behalf of themselves and those similar
situated, v. ROADMASTER DRIVERS SCHOOL, INC., Case No.
5:22-cv-04299-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John M. Gallagher
entered a second amended scheduling order as follows:
1. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file Nov. 1, 2023
a motion for class certification
shall be:
2. The Defendants' deadline to respond Nov. 29, 2023
shall be:
3. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file Dec. 20, 2023
a reply brief in further support of
the motion shall be:
Roadmaster is a professional, hands on truck driving school.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 29, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46py52a at no extra charge.[CC]
RTX CORP: New England Teamsters Fund Sues Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
NEW ENGLAND TEAMSTERS PENSION FUND, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RTX CORPORATION f/k/a
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, GREGORY HAYES, NEIL MITCHILL,
and ANTHONY F. O'BRIEN, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01274 (D.
Conn., Sept. 28, 2023) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff
and all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded RTX securities between February 8, 2021 and
September 8, 2023, inclusive, seeking to recover compensable
damages caused by Defendant's violations of the federal securities
laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the statements written in the 2022
Annual Report the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 7, 2023 were materially false and/or
misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose
adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the GTF engines had
been affected from at least 2015-2020 by quality control issues;
(2) these quality control issues would require RTX to recall and
reinspect many of its GTF airplanes, affecting customers and
harming its business; and as a result, Defendants' statements about
its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
On this news, RTX's share price fell $6.58 per share, or 7.9%, to
close at $76.90 on September 11, 2023.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common
shares, Plaintiff and the other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the suit asserts.
RTX Corp. is an American multinational aerospace and defense
conglomerate headquartered in Arlington, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
Johnathan Seredynski, Esq.
SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
One Landmark Square, Floor 15
Stamford, CT 06901
Telephone: (203) 425-4491
E-mail: isloss@sgtlaw.com
jseredynski@sgtlaw.com
- and -
Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
Francis P. McConville, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
E-mail: ebelfi@labaton.com
fmcconville@labaton.com
SAMARASCENTS LLC: General Pretrial Management Entered in Sookul
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANJAY SOOKUL, v.
SAMARASCENTS, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07235-JMF-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general
pretrial management.
-- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related
to
scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or
for
judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary
judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23)
must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's
Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's
website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.
-- Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must
be
initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set
by
the Court.
-- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting
discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for
such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil
Rule
37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. It
is
the Court's practice to decide discovery disputes at the Rule
37.2
conference, based on the parties' letters, unless a party
requests
or the Court requires more formal briefing. Absent
extraordinary
circumstances, discovery applications made later than 30 days
prior to the close of discovery may be denied as untimely.
Samarascents is a mother daughter owned home fragrance company that
makes candles, wax melts and room and linen sprays.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rCCPTd at no extra charge.[CC]
SAVE RITE: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Campbell
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOVAN CAMPBELL, v. SAVE
RITE MEDICAL.COM, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03675-JMF-BCM (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general
pretrial management.
-- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related
to
scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or
for
judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary
judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23)
must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this
Court's
Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's
website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.
-- The Court notes that all discovery must be completed by
December
21, 2023.
-- Judge Moses will conduct a status conference on November 30,
2023
at 10:00 a.m. No later than November 22, 2023, the parties
shall
submit a joint status letter outlining the progress of
discovery
to date, as well as any settlement efforts. If no discovery
controversies exist at that time, the parties may request that
the conference be held telephonically.
Save Rite is a distributor of medical and surgical products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Q3FSgI at no extra charge.[CC]
SEAWORLD PARKS: Court Partly OK's Bid to Extend Discovery Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRISTIAN LOPEZ, v.
SEAWORLD PARKS & ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00429-L-AHG
(S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Allison Goddard entered an order
(1) Granting in part joint motion to extend discovery deadline;
(2) Granting joint motion to Extend deadline to notify Court of
discovery dispute, and
(3) Issuing first amended Scheduling order.
The parties also seek an order from the Court extending their
deadline to raise a discovery dispute by approximately 30 days.
a. All depositions must be taken on or before December 22,
2023.
b. By December 22, 2023, the parties must have finalized their
responses to written discovery requests that have already
been
served.
c. By November 1, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., the parties must jointly
submit via email (to efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov) a Joint
Status Report that outlines what depositions they will need
to
take before December 22, with confirmed dates for each
deposition.
d. Except for motions in limine, all pretrial motions must be
filed
no later than May 7, 2024.
e. A Mandatory Settlement Conference shall be conducted on July
19,
2024 at 9:30 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard.
SeaWorld is an American theme park and entertainment company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 29, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LMngPH at no extra charge.[CC]
SELECT ENERGY: Oct .18 Preliminary Pretrial Conference Vacated
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANN McMANAWAY, v. SELECT
ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01405-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge Chelsey M. Vascura entered an order vacating the
October 18, 2023, preliminary pretrial conference.
The case is a "collective action" under the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. The Plaintiff brought this
action individually and on behalf of similarly-situated employees
and alleges that Defendant failed to pay her and similarly-situated
employees for all hours worked.
Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that she was required to report
working 12.5 hours per day, even if she worked more than 12.5 hours
on a given workday. The Defendant denies Plaintiff's allegations
and claims.
In particular, the Defendant contends that Plaintiff and the
individuals she seeks to represent were properly paid for all hours
worked.
Select provides engineering water solutions to the oil and gas
industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 29, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PEjitM at no extra charge.[CC]
SERVICE CORP: Settlement in Taylor Suit Gets Court OK
-----------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International disclosed in its Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Fort
Lauderdale Division has approved the settlement of the case
captioned "Nancy Taylor, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Service Corporation International and others," Case No.
20-cv-60709
This case was filed in April 2020 as a Florida class action
alleging that the allocation of prices among certain of its
cremation service contracts and cremation merchandise contracts,
and the related preneed trust funding, and the failure to disclose
commissions paid and sales practices associated with the sale of
third-party travel protection plans, violate the Florida Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act and constitute unjust enrichment.
Plaintiff sought refunds; general, actual, compensatory and
exemplary damages; civil penalties, interest, and attorney fees.
Service Corporation International (SCI) is a holding company and
all operations are conducted by its subsidiaries. It is a provider
of deathcare products and services, with a network of funeral
service locations and cemeteries operating in the United States and
Canada.
SIMILASAN CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Eye Drops' Marketing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action alleges Similasan has illegally marketed its eye drops as
homeopathic drugs capable of curing a range of ophthalmic
conditions.
The 23-page case out of Colorado says that although Similasan touts
that its eye drops can relieve eye aches, burning, redness, strain,
itching, watering, blurred vision and dryness, the company has not
received approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to
market the products as homeopathic drugs or shown that the products
are generally recognized as safe and effective.
As such, the Similasan eye drops at issue are adulterated,
unapproved drugs under federal law and cannot be sold to the
public, the lawsuit says.
"Put simply," the case asserts, "the Products should have never
been marketed as homeopathic drugs."
Similasan was one of several companies that received a warning
letter from the FDA regarding their manufacture and marketing of
"unapproved ophthalmic drugs" in violation of federal law. Per the
complaint, the FDA found that the active ingredients in Similasan
eye drops are not generally recognized as safe and effective,
rendering the products "new drugs" that require FDA approval before
they can be sold.
Had the Similasan eye drops gone through the FDA approval process,
they may not have been approved as formulated, especially since
some of the products contain silver sulfate as a preservative, the
case states.
"The FDA has significant concerns regarding the safety of silver
sulfate for use as an ophthalmic preservative. Long term use of
medicinal compounds containing silver may cause argyria, which is a
blueish-gray discoloration of the skin and eyes that is
irreversible. Additionally, granular deposits of silver in the
conjunctiva and cornea may cause decreased night vision.
Accordingly, the FDA is concerned that Defendant's use of silver
sulfate as a preservative in ophthalmic products is inconsistent
with [FDA regulations], under which ophthalmic preservatives should
be 'suitable and harmless.'"
According to the suit, Similasan's labeling of its eye drops
purports that the products contain only "natural active
ingredients," and the company promises that the drops are different
from traditional over-the-counter eye drops that use "chemicals to
mask symptoms." Further, Similasan says that the active ingredients
in the eye drops "stimulate the body's natural defenses, so you can
feel better without harsh chemicals," the filing relays.
By labeling and marketing the eye drops as containing only
homeopathic ingredients, Similasan warrants that the products were
made in line with Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMPs), the
case says.
However, the FDA has found that Similasan's eye drops are produced
by a contract manufacturer who has demonstrated "significant
violations" of current good manufacturing practices, the suit
claims. The case stresses that the safety and manufacturing methods
for the Similasan eye drops are of particular concern given that
the products are meant to be administered into the eyes, and as
such "pose a greater risk of harm to users."
"State consumer protection statutes and warranty law do not allow
Defendant to materially misrepresent its Products as homeopathic
drugs when they cannot legally be sold as such," the lawsuit
charges. "Defendant also should not have marketed and distributed a
product that was not produced under the minimum required
manufacturing and safety standards."
The Similasan eye drops at issue in the lawsuit include:
Similasan Dry Eye Relief;
Similasan Complete Eye Relief;
Similasan Allergy Eye Relief;
Similasan Kids Allergy Eye Relief;
Similasan Red Eye Relief;
Similasan Pink Eye Relief;
Similasan Kids Pink Eye Relief;
Similasan Aging Eye Relief;
Similasan Computer Eye Relief;
Similasan Stye Eye Relief;
Similasan Pink Eye Nighttime Gel; and
Similasan Dry Eye Nighttime Gel.
The case argues that a reasonable consumer would not have bought
the Similasan eye drops had they known they were not approved drugs
and fell short of minimum safety and manufacturing standards.
The lawsuit looks to cover all consumers in the United States who,
during the fullest period allowed by law, bought any of the
Similasan eye drops listed on this page for personal use and not
for resale. [GN]
SONESTA INTERNATIONAL: Travelers United Suit Removed to D.D.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TRAVELERS UNITED, INC., Plaintiff v. SONESTA
INTERNATIONAL HOTELS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
2023-CAB-005254, was removed from the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia to the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia on September 25, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Columbia assigned Case No.
1:23-cv-02841 to the proceeding.
In this complaint, Travelers asserts one claim under the District
of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act alleging Sonesta
falsely advertised its hotel room rates through added fees.
Travelers brings its claim on behalf of proposed classes of
District of Columbia and Nationwide consumers.
Sonesta International Hotels Corporation is an American hotel
company.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
David Horniak, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
500 8th Street, NW
Washington D.C. 20004
Telephone: (202) 799-4000
Facsimile: (202) 799-5000
E-mail: david.horniak@us.dlapiper.com
- and -
Andrew J. Hoffman II, Esq.
Angela C. Agrusa, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
2000 Avenue of the Stars
Suite 400 North Tower
Los Angeles, CA 90067-4704
Telephone: (310) 595-3000
Facsimile: (310) 595-3300
E-mail: andrew.hoffman@us.dlapiper.com
angela.agrusa@us.dlapiper.com
SOVEREIGN LENDING: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Suit for $500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown of Bloomberg Law reports that Sovereign Lending
Group Inc. will pay $500,000 to settle a proposed class action
alleging it made telemarketing calls to consumers in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, under a deal given initial
approval by a federal court.
Eugene Mannacio alleged that Sovereign made mortgage-marketing
calls to his number without obtaining his consent and despite his
having registered it on the national Do Not Call list.
Judge TIffany M. Cartwright of the US District Court for the
Western District of Washington granted the plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement on October 2, 2023. [GN]
STARBUCKS CORP: Court OK's PAGA Settlement in Connelly Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KERRY CONNELLY, v.
STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-00746-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Stanley A. Boone entered an order granting plaintiff's
motion for approval of PAGA Settlement with reduction in Attorneys'
fee award and directing clerk of court to Enter judgment and close
case.
The Court finds the settlement and its terms meets the statutory
requirements set forth by PAGA; and are fundamentally fair,
reasonable, and adequate in view of PAGA's public policy goals.
The Court finds Plaintiff has fairly and adequately protected the
interests of the State, and Plaintiff's Counsel are qualified to
serve
as counsel for the Plaintiff in her individual and representative
capacity. The Court finds the requested attorneys' fees shall be
reduced to 25% of the total settlement fund, or $63,000, and that
the difference shall be added to the PAGA penalty fund.
Within seven days after receipt of the Settlement Amount, the
Administrator shall distribute the Settlement Amount as follows:
a. $63,000.00 as Attorneys' Fees to Plaintiff’s Counsel;
b. $4,794.16 as Costs to Plaintiff's Counsel;
c. $16,000.00 as Administration Costs to the Administrator;
d. $10,000.00 as a General Release Payment to Plaintiff;
e. $118,654.38 as PAGA Penalties to the Labor and Workforce
Development Agency; and
f. $39,551.46 as PAGA Penalties to Aggrieved Employees in equal
shares.
The Connelly maintains this representative action against Starbucks
Corporation, for alleged failures to provide herself and other
employees with complete and accurate itemized wage statements in
compliance with California Labor Code section 226(a), and for
penalties pursuant to California Labor Code section 2698 et seq.
(PAGA).
Starbucks is an American multinational chain of coffeehouses and
roastery reserves.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 29, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tpxFuc at no extra charge.[CC]
STEWARD PARTNERS: Jacob Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
COLTON JACOB and VINCENT CONNOR FUCHS, on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STEWARD PARTNERS GLOBAL
ADVISORY, LLC, and STEWARD INVESTMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 1:23-cv-01179 (W.D. Tex., Sept. 28, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendants to recover unpaid minimum wages and
other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, Mr. Jacob, Mr. Fuchs and other
registered representatives associated with Steward are improperly
and intentionally classified as exempt from the FLSA rules
regarding minimum wages, in direct violation of the FLSA. The
Defendants knowingly, willfully, or in reckless disregard carried
out this illegal pattern or practice of failing to pay the putative
Class Members an average hourly minimum wage amount, says the
suit.
The Plaintiffs accepted Defendant Steward Partners' offer to
transition to their platform as financial professionals, along with
others from Praetorian Private Wealth who were previously employed
by Wells Fargo Securities on October 1, 2020.
Steward Partners Global Advisory, LLC is a registered investment
advisor with its principal place of business in Washington,
DC.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert E. Linkin, Esq.
Ursula Smith, Esq.
MUNCK WILSON MANDALA, LLP
807 Las Cimas Pkwy, Suite 300
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (737) 201-1600
Facsimile: (747) 201-1601
E-mail: rlinkin@munckwilson.com
usmith@munckwilson.com
STRATA SKIN: Labor Suit in California Settled
---------------------------------------------
Strata Skin Sciences, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2023, that a mediation was
held on February 23, 2023, and the matter was settled on terms
agreeable to the company.
The settlement, which requires the company to pay $0.1 million, is
subject to the right of individual class members to reject the
settlement and proceed on their own.
On April 1, 2022, a proposed representative class action under
California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) was filed in
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego against the
Company and an employment agency which provided the company with
temporary employees. The complaint alleges various violations of
the California Labor Code, including California's wage and hour
laws, relating to certain of our current and former non-exempt
employees. The complaint seeks class status and payments for
allegedly unpaid compensation and attorney's fees. On or about May
16, 2022, the plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint adding a
PAGA claim to the action.
On or about June 2, 2022, the plaintiff filed an Application to
Dismiss Class and Individual Claim without prejudice, in an attempt
to pursue a PAGA only complaint. On or about June 30, 2022, the
parties entered into a stipulation to allow the plaintiff to file a
Second Amended Complaint to clarify the PAGA claim and to stay the
pending action to allow an attempt at through mediation.
STRATA Skin Sciences, Inc. is a medical technology company in
dermatology dedicated to developing, commercializing and marketing
innovative products for the treatment of dermatologic conditions.
Its products include the XTRAC(R) and Pharos(R) excimer lasers and
VTRAC(R) lamp systems utilized in the treatment of psoriasis,
vitiligo and various other skin conditions.
STURM RUGER & CO: Faces Jones Data Breach Suit in Connecticut
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, that in August 3, 2022, that the company was
named in a purported class action lawsuit arising out of a data
breach at Freestyle Solutions, Inc., the vendor who hosted the
company's ShopRuger.com website at the time of the breach. The case
captioned "Jones v. Sturm, Ruger & Co." was filed in the U.S.
District Court for Connecticut on October 4, 2022.
On January 20, 2023, five plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint
naming the company and Freestyle Software, Inc. as defendants. The
complaint alleges causes of action for negligence, breach of
implied warranties, and unjust enrichment. The company filed a
Motion to Dismiss on a variety of grounds. And the matter has been
fully briefed.
Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. is principally engaged in the design,
manufacture, and sale of firearms to domestic customers and
manufactures investment castings made from steel alloys and metal
injection molding parts for internal use in its firearms and for
sale to unaffiliated, third-party customers.
SUPERIOR AIR-GROUND: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hill Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBEN HILL, individually and on the behalf of similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff v. SUPERIOR AIR-GROUND AMBULANCE SERVICE OF
INDIANA INC. and DAVID B. HILL III, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 2:23-cv-00333 (N.D. Ind., Sept. 29, 2023) is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Indiana Minimum Wage Law for
Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages and minimum wage for all
hours worked to Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons.
Plaintiff Hill was employed by Defendants as an emergency medical
services driver, a non-exempt employee, from on or about January 8,
2023 until she was wrongfully terminated on or about August 15,
2023. She routinely worked over 40 hours or more in a work week.
However, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff time and one-half
her regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
within a work week, the Plaintiff says.
Located in Highland, Indiana, Superior Air-Ground Ambulance Service
of Indiana Inc. provides emergency medical services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Badwan, Esq.
Chad W. Eisenback, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Telephone: (630) 575-8180
Facsimile: (630) 575 – 8188
E-mail: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
ceisenback@sulaimanlaw.com
TESLA INC: Faces Class Suit Over Racial Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------
Jack Ewing of The New York Times reports that a federal agency on
September 28, 2023 filed a lawsuit that accuses Tesla of
discrimination against Black employees who it said were bombarded
with racial epithets, given worse work assignments than white
workers and fired when they complained.
Tesla managers were aware of the discrimination and verbal abuse,
the lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
argues, but failed to do enough to stop it. The agency said it had
sued after trying unsuccessfully to work out a plan with Tesla to
address the discrimination.
The lawsuit is the latest to accuse Tesla of pervasive racism at
its factory in Fremont, Calif., near San Francisco. This year, a
jury awarded about $3.2 million to a Black man who had accused the
carmaker of ignoring racial abuse he faced while working as a
contractor at the factory.
A group of about 240 Black men and women who have worked at Tesla
since 2016 have asked a judge to grant them class action status to
pursue claims of racial discrimination, which included being
routinely addressed as "slave," "you people" and much worse.
California's Department of Fair Employment and Housing, which is
now called the Civil Rights Department, the state's agency
responsible for enforcing anti-discrimination laws, has also sued
Tesla, claiming among other things that Black workers are "severely
underrepresented" in management positions.
"It is telling that every government agency and workers' advocate
who looks at this situation has the same reaction," Bryan Schwartz,
an Oakland lawyer who represents plaintiffs in the class action
suit, said in an email. "Tesla's racist harassment of and
discrimination against Black workers is horrific, and unlawful, and
must be addressed on a systemic, class-wide basis."
Lawyers for Tesla did not respond to requests for comment.
In a 2022 statement in response to the California agency's lawsuit,
Tesla said it "strongly opposes" all forms of discrimination. The
company described that case as "a narrative spun" by the state
agency and plaintiffs' law firms.
The suit by the E.E.O.C. accuses Tesla of violating federal law by
"engaging and continuing to engage in discrimination against Black
employees at the Fremont factory by subjecting them to severe or
pervasive racial harassment and by creating a hostile work
environment because of their race."
"The racial misconduct was frequent, ongoing, inappropriate,
unwelcome and occurred across all shifts, departments and
positions," the lawsuit says.
Black employees were addressed with a racial epithet on a daily
basis, according to the lawsuit, which was filed by the
commission's San Francisco District Office. Racist graffiti,
including swastikas and references to the Ku Klux Klan, was
scrawled on desks and in bathrooms, elevators and even cars rolling
off the assembly line, the complaint said.
Tesla managers witnessed the behavior and failed to stop it,
according to the suit. Employees who complained were punished with
unpleasant work assignments or fired, the lawsuit said.
One Black employee said he had been disciplined for playing music
after complaining about the misconduct. Elon Musk, Tesla's chief
executive, has said Tesla employees are encouraged to play music on
the assembly line and described the company as a "fun" place to
work.
The commission's lawsuit asks the federal court in Oakland to order
Tesla to stop discriminating and retaliating against Black workers,
and to compensate employees who have been mistreated. The suit also
seeks punitive damages. [GN]
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that
plaintiffs in a dismissed case against the company with regards to
the marketing of branded opioids filed an appeal in February 2022.
On April 19, 2021, a bench trial in California (The People of the
State of California, acting by and through Santa Clara County
Counsel James R. Williams, et. al. v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et. al.)
commenced against Teva and other defendants. On December 14, 2021,
the court issued its final judgment in favor of the defendants on
all claims.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited is a global pharmaceutical
company into generics, innovative medicines and biopharmaceuticals,
with worldwide operations and headquarters in Israel and a
significant presence in the United States, Europe and many other
markets around the world. Our key strengths include our
world-leading generic medicines expertise and portfolio, focused
innovative medicines portfolio and global infrastructure and
scale.
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Asthma Inhaler
-------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that in May
2023, certain plaintiffs filed putative class action complaints in
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against Teva and a number of its affiliates, alleging that Teva
engaged in anticompetitive conduct to suppress generic competition
to its branded "QVAR" asthma inhalers in violation of state and
federal antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws. Teva
plans to move to dismiss these claims.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited is a global pharmaceutical
company into generics, innovative medicines and biopharmaceuticals,
with worldwide operations and headquarters in Israel and a
significant presence in the United States, Europe and many other
markets around the world. Our key strengths include our
world-leading generic medicines expertise and portfolio, focused
innovative medicines portfolio and global infrastructure and
scale.
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Colchicine Tablets
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that it is
currently facing a putative class action suit filed in August 2021
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against Takeda and several generic manufacturers,
including Watson and Teva, alleging violations of the antitrust
laws in connection with their settlement of patent litigation
involving colchicine tablets, entered into in January 2016.
Plaintiff claims that the settlement was part of a conspiracy among
Takeda and the generic manufacturers to unlawfully restrict output
of colchicine by delaying generic entry.
On November 23, 2022, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification without prejudice and on March 1, 2023, the Court
denied plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification. On April
10, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend its complaint
to add 18 previously absent class members as plaintiffs, which the
Court granted. On May 24, 2023, the Court denied defendants’
motion for summary judgment, and plaintiffs' motion for partial
summary judgment.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited is a global pharmaceutical
company into generics, innovative medicines and biopharmaceuticals,
with worldwide operations and headquarters in Israel and a
significant presence in the United States, Europe and many other
markets around the world. The key strengths include the
world-leading generic medicines expertise and portfolio, focused
innovative medicines portfolio and global infrastructure and
scale.
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Opioid-Related Suits in Canadian Courts
------------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that Teva,
certain of its subsidiaries and other defendants, are defending
claims and putative class action lawsuits in Canada related to the
manufacture, sale, marketing and distribution of opioid
medications.
The lawsuits include a claim by the Province of British Columbia on
behalf of itself and a putative class of other federal and
provincial governments, and claims of municipalities, First
Nations, and persons who used opioids on behalf of themselves and
putative classes. These cases are in early stages with the
preliminary motions brought by the Province of British Columbia
expected to be heard in late 2023.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited is a global pharmaceutical
company into generics, innovative medicines and biopharmaceuticals,
with worldwide operations and headquarters in Israel and a
significant presence in the United States, Europe and many other
markets around the world. Our key strengths include our
world-leading generic medicines expertise and portfolio, focused
innovative medicines portfolio and global infrastructure and
scale.
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Settles Opioid-Related Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that on
November 3, 2022, Teva reached an agreement with the Attorney
General of New York that settled the state's and its subdivisions'
opioid-related claims.
On June 29, 2021, a jury trial in New York with regards to case "In
re Opioid Litigation," Index No. 400000/2017, commenced against
Teva and other defendants, focused on the marketing and
distribution of opioids. The case was bifurcated between liability
and damages. On December 30, 2021, the jury returned a liability
verdict in favor of plaintiffs (the County of Suffolk, the County
of Nassau and the State of New York) on the plaintiffs' public
nuisance claim.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited is a global pharmaceutical
company into generics, innovative medicines and biopharmaceuticals,
with worldwide operations and headquarters in Israel and a
significant presence in the United States, Europe and many other
markets around the world. Our key strengths include our
world-leading generic medicines expertise and portfolio, focused
innovative medicines portfolio and global infrastructure and
scale.
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Settles Opioid-Related Suits in Various States
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that in June
2023, Teva finalized and fully resolved its nationwide settlement
agreement with the states and 99% of litigating subdivisions.
Under the financial terms of the nationwide settlement agreement
with the states and subdivisions, Teva will pay up to $4.25 billion
(including the already settled cases), spread over 13 years. This
total includes the supply of up to $1.2 billion of Teva's generic
version of "Narcan" (naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray), valued at
wholesale acquisition cost, over 10 years or cash at 20% of the
wholesale acquisition cost ($240 million) in lieu of product.
Since May 2014, more than 3,500 complaints have been filed with
respect to opioid sales and distribution against various Teva
affiliates, along with several other pharmaceutical companies, by a
number of cities, counties, states, other governmental agencies,
tribes and private plaintiffs (including various putative class
actions of individuals) in both state and federal courts. Most of
the federal cases have been consolidated into a multidistrict
litigation in the Northern District of Ohio (MDL Opioid Proceeding)
and many of the cases filed in state court have been removed to
federal court and consolidated into the MDL Opioid Proceeding.
In June 2023, Teva reached a separate settlement with the remaining
state, Nevada. Under the terms of the Nevada settlement, Teva will
pay Nevada $193 million over 20 years, including all fees and
costs.
Teva has now settled with all 50 U.S. states and the Tribes. Teva's
estimated cash payments in 2023 for all opioids settlements are
$457 million, out of which $124 million were paid as of June 30,
2023. These payments are subject to changes based on various
factors including, but not limited to, timing of payments, most
favored nations clauses associated with prior settlements, the
states' elections to take Teva's generic version of Narcan, etc.
Additional payments will be paid between 2024 and 2043.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited is a global pharmaceutical
company into generics, innovative medicines and biopharmaceuticals,
with worldwide operations and headquarters in Israel and a
significant presence in the United States, Europe and many other
markets around the world. Our key strengths include our
world-leading generic medicines expertise and portfolio, focused
innovative medicines portfolio and global infrastructure and
scale.
THOMAS THOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Schotter Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK SCHOTTER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THOMAS THOR LLC d/b/a THOMAS THOR
ASSOCIATES, Case No. 5:23-cv-01909 (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 29, 2023) is
an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and
the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week.
Plaintiff Schotter was employed by the Defendant as a testing
control center manager.
THOMAS THOR LLC d/b/a THOMAS THOR ASSOCIATES provides recruitment,
leadership search and workforce consulting services to support the
energy transition. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
-and-
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
-and-
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
TINDER INC: Faces Class Suit Over Photo Verification System
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony G. Attrino of NJ.com reports that a New Jersey woman has
filed a class action suit against Tinder, claiming the dating app's
photo verification system doesn't work and has allowed potential
scammers to steal her images and use them as "verified" on fake
accounts.
The 38-year-old woman from Elmwood Park states in court papers she
signed up for Tinder in 2018 and was permanently banned for unknown
reasons the following year.
"(She) was confused about why she was banned because she had barely
used her account since signing up," states the suit, filed Sept.
27, in Superior Court of Bergen County. The lawsuit was first
reported by the New Jersey Law Journal.
The woman received a direct message Dec. 1, 2022, from a friend on
Instagram who warned her that someone named "Gloria" was using her
pictures on Tinder.
The woman "became horrified when she noticed that the 'Gloria'
profile had been 'verified' by (Tinder)."
A spokesperson for Tinder did not respond on October 2, 2023 to a
request for comment on the suit.
The lawsuit claims that Tinder promotes its photo verification
system and requires users to take a video selfie as a safety
measure.
The photo is verified "if the person in your video selfie passes
both the Liveness check and 3D Face Authentication step," Tinder
states in instructions for verification, according to the lawsuit.
But the person who created the "Gloria" account was somehow able to
bypass the verification process, even with photos stolen from the
user who sued, according to the complaint.
Tinder's "photo verification process does nothing to verify the
user's identity – it lacks the capability to detect whether a
selfie was actually taken by the user at the time they seek
verification," the suit alleges.
"It simply compares the stolen public photos against other stolen
public photos," the suit alleges.
Tinder further gives users the false impression that verified users
"who are mostly likely scammers, have been confirmed as real and
authentic," according to the suit.
The reason for the fake accounts, according to the suit, is so that
scammers can "catfish" real users, striking up conversations,
moving the conversations to other platforms and digging for
personal information.
"This is to gain information which may be exploited by convincing
the target to voluntarily send the scammer money, disclose their
sensitive personal information, or click on a link containing
malware," the suit says.
The lawsuit claims the woman's photos continue to be used on fake
accounts. In addition, as recently as March, the woman found
another falsely verified Tinder account using a friend's photo.
She claims she's suffered "substantial damage to her reputation
caused by scammers" posing as her online and blames Tinder for
"false advertising and deceptive business practices."
The woman has filed the suit on behalf of all New Jersey Tinder
users under New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act.
One of the attorneys who filed the suit, Todd Friedman, of
California, reached a $24 million settlement with Tinder after
accusing the dating app of age discrimination, according to the New
Jersey Law Journal.
The suit was based on fees for a premium membership that cost $10
more for people age 30 and up. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court's approval of that
settlement by a 2-1 margin in 2021, the law journal reported. [GN]
TORONTO, ON: Must Face Lawsuit Over Inflated Commissions
--------------------------------------------------------
Shantaé Campbell, writing for Financial Post, reports that a
Federal Court judge on Sept. 25 allowed a class-action lawsuit
alleging home sellers in the Toronto area have been forced to pay
artificially inflated commissions for years. The lawsuit alleges
major brokers and real estate organizations in Toronto implemented
rules that essentially stifled competition for buyer brokerage
services, leading to higher prices. But what exactly is buyer
brokerage and what is its role in the potentially landmark lawsuit?
The Financial Post's Shantaé Campbell explains.
What does 'buyer brokerage' mean?
Buyer brokerage refers to a real estate agreement where a broker
represents the buyer in a property transaction, in contrast to the
traditional setup in which brokers primarily represented sellers.
The shift toward buyer representation began in the 1990s in Canada,
leading to the development of buyer agency agreements, allowing
buyers to have exclusive representation in the homebuying process.
This transformation prompted the creation of specific legislations
and regulations by provincial governments and real estate
regulatory bodies in Canada, such as the Real Estate Council of
Ontario (RECO), the Canadian Real Estate Association (CREA) and the
Toronto Regional Real Estate Board (TRREB).
These rules and protocols serve to formalize and oversee buyer
brokerage relationships by instituting a framework governing
duties, responsibilities, disclosure, consent and confidentiality.
Where do commissions come in?
Nationwide, commission structures for real estate agents and
brokerages typically involve a percentage-based commission derived
from a home's sale price, but the rates vary.
In Toronto, the prevalent rate is five per cent on the entire sale
amount and it is customary for the seller to pay the commission on
a property sale, which is subsequently divided between the
representatives of the seller and the buyer.
For example, if a home sells for $1 million with a commission of
five per cent, the total commission amounts to $50,000. This sum,
paid by the seller, is generally shared equally between the
seller's and buyer's agents, each receiving $25,000. However, the
precise division can fluctuate, being contingent on the agreement
established between the seller and their agent.
Why are commissions split this way?
According to CREA, the organization does not mandate a specific
commission split or dictate how commission should be allocated
between the listing and buyers' realtors.
Rule 11.2.1.3 in CREA's by-laws and rules states: "The listing
realtor member agrees to pay to the co-operating (i.e. buyer's)
realtor member compensation for the cooperative selling of the
property. An offer of compensation of zero is not acceptable."
In an email, RECO said commission rates are not fixed. "Commission
rates are not set or approved by the Real Estate Council of
Ontario, government authorities, real estate associations or real
estate boards," it said.
While five per cent is considered the "standard" commission in
Ontario, the origins of that figure are unclear.
The splitting of commission between the buyer's and seller's agents
is nonetheless a well-established practice in real estate designed
to promote cooperation, balance and fairness within the industry.
The idea is that a shared commission incentivizes buyer agents to
introduce more potential buyers to the home, leading to a faster
and possibly more profitable sale.
Furthermore, the commission model serves to reduce potential
conflicts of interest by eliminating the buyer's direct financial
obligation to their agent, preventing undue pressure on buyers and
ensuring accessibility to agent services.
Why is this a problem?
The lawsuit lodged by plaintiff Mark Sunderland against defendants
TRREB, CREA and various real estate brokerages contends that an
arrangement known as the 'buyer brokerage commission rule' has been
in effect since at least March 2010.
Sunderland's lawsuit posits that this arrangement has impeded
market competition, compelling sellers to incur costs they would
not otherwise bear in the absence of such an agreement.
Furthermore, it contends that this setup precludes the negotiation
of price and quality of the service.
In a study sponsored by Kalloghlian Myers LLP -- the legal firm
that submitted Sunderland's lawsuit -- expert witness Dr. Panle Jia
Barwick, a specialist in the economic structure of real estate
commissions, argues that the "buyer brokerage commission rule"
incentivizes buyer brokerages to direct buyers away from properties
where sellers offer below-average commissions.
Barwick says that even without formal policies mandating uniform
rates, brokers, reliant on peer co-operation to draw buyers to
properties, can help uphold a standard commission rate locally,
especially for buyers' brokers.
Michael G. Osborne, an attorney who specializes in antitrust and
competition law at Cozen O'Connor in Toronto, says that from a
competition point of view, there is a potential issue pertaining to
the mechanism wherein brokerages must become members of CREA and
TRREB to operate. Essentially, though Broker A and Broker B have no
direct written agreement between them, by aligning with an
association's rules they can be seen by the Competition Bureau to
be operating under an indirect "hub and spoke" agreement.
However, this issue has not yet been litigated in Canada and isn't
addressed in the most-recent decision.
How much is at stake in the lawsuit?
Kalloghlian Myers LLP is seeking compensation for anyone who has
sold a home since 2010, though they have not yet put an overall
dollar value on what they are seeking.
If every transaction covered by TRREB is affected, the sums
involved could be substantial.
According to annual sales and average price figures on TRREB's
website, more than $880 billion in residential real estate changed
hands between 2010 and 2022. Five per cent commission on those
sales would amount to $44 billion, with as much as half going to
buyer brokerages.
Can home sellers participate in the lawsuit?
In a class-action lawsuit, individuals who are similarly affected
are generally automatically included, meaning there's usually no
need to actively "get in on" the lawsuit. If the ruling is in
favour of the class, affected individuals will be notified about
their entitlements. The duration of such lawsuits can vary widely,
depending on the complexities involved and the legal pathways
taken.
The next step will likely involve an appeal from the defendants
against the decision to proceed with the lawsuit, followed by a
motion for class-action certification. The defendants have 30 days
to appeal the verdict. Absent an appeal, the court will determine
whether the case qualifies for class action certification.
Succeeding here would lead to a trial to determine whether the
brokerage agreement constituted an illicit conspiracy.
Should compensation be awarded, the distribution could take several
years. [GN]
TRANSAM TRUCKING: Roberts Bid for Conditional Status Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIRK ROBERTS, FARAJI
ARTURO COUNCIL, TERRENCE COLVIN-WILLIAMS, REGINALD BRADLEY, DAVID
COLEMAN and CARL MCROBERTS, JR., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. TRANSAM TRUCKING, INC., OLATHE NOBLE
EQUIPMENT LEASING, INC., and JACOBSON HOLDINGS, INC., Case No.
2:21-cv-02073-JWB-GEB (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge John Broomes
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification.
-- The Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify the
Orientation
and Lease Driver Collectives is granted.
-- The Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify the Company
Driver Collective is denied.
-- The Plaintiffs' motion to certify is granted in part and
denied
in part.
-- The Plaintiffs' motion to certify the TIL class is granted
with
respect to Plaintiffs' claims regarding improper chargebacks
for
certain products and the fuel surcharges. It is denied in all
other respects.
-- The Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment is granted
in
part and denied in part.
-- The Defendants' motion is granted as to the following: the
KCPA
claim; the TIL claim against JHI and ONE; the TIL claim
against
TransAm as to certain alleged violations; the FLSA minimum
wage
claim as to company drivers is granted as to all Plaintiffs
except Hubbard, Neal, and Coleman; and Bradley's TIL claim.
-- The Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is
denied.
-- The Defendants' motion to strike is denied and Plaintiffs'
motion
to file a sur-reply is denied as moot.
The Plaintiffs' motion to certify the Florida class is denied:
The Plaintiffs move to certify a class for their claim of
failure to pay minimum wages during orientation in
violation
of Section 448.110 of the Florida Statutes. The proposed
class includes all individuals who attended TransAm’s
orientation program in Tampa, Florida at any time since
February 10, 2016.
The motion to certify the subclasses for this claim is denied as
moot:
The Plaintiffs seek to certify two subclasses with respect
to
their KCPA claim. However, the court granted Defendants'
motion for summary judgment on this claim. Therefore,
Plaintiffs seek to certify a class with respect to their
claim under the KWPA. The putative class includes "all
individuals who have worked for TransAm pursuant to an
independent contractor agreement while subject to an
equipment lease agreement with ONE Leasing at any time
since
February 10, 2018."
The court finds that Plaintiffs' TIL claims as to the escrow funds
and physical damage insurance are not appropriate for certification
as individual issues predominate. The court grants Plaintiffs'
motion to certify the TIL claim as to the unlawful chargebacks for
deductions that are different than those contained in the lease and
the negative fuel surcharge.
TransAm is an interstate and intrastate for-hire motor carrier
under authority from the Department of Transportation.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 29, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3te23rv at no extra charge.[CC]
TRESOR: Faces Class Action Suit Over Workers' Exploitation
----------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Serebrin of Peak reports that an international aviation
catering company and a Quebec recruitment firm allegedly lured
foreign workers to Canada under false pretences and exploited them,
according to a proposed class-action lawsuit.
The Immigrant Workers Centre in Montreal is seeking authorization
to launch the suit against Laval, Que.-based placement firm Tresor
and inflight catering company Newrest, along with several
affiliated companies.
The workers centre is acting on behalf of more than 400 people
since 2021 who it says were falsely promised they would be given
work permits and legitimate jobs in Canada by Tresor -- but were
instead encouraged to work illegally.
"The defendants treated the members of the class like objects:
controllable, disposable, replaceable and exploitable. These
experiences were profoundly degrading and dehumanizing for the
members of the class and undermined their dignity, their
psychological security and their self-esteem," says the request for
authorization filed by lawyers with Montreal law firm Trudel
Johnston & Lesperance.
"In particular, the express or implicit threats of deportation and
criminalization wielded by the defendants terrorized the members of
the class. Their irregular status -- a situation orchestrated by
the defendants despite the efforts of members to obtain legal
permits -- remains a profound source of stress and anxiety," the
application says.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs allege that Tresor recruited workers
from Spanish-speaking countries, encouraging some to come to Canada
as visitors. Others were already in Canada on visitor visas, the
lawyers say.
"The members of the group were fraudulently encouraged to work
during a 'probationary period,' a period during which the members
had, in fact, no valid work permit. Tresor assured the group
members that it was completely normal for them to start working in
the meantime because the regulatory process for obtaining a permit
had begun," the proposed lawsuit says.
But few of the workers would ever be given permits, the lawsuit
alleges.
Benoit Scowen, with the Immigrant Workers Centre, said a small
number of the plaintiffs received permits after working for the
companies for several months. Others, he said, worked for nearly a
year without ever receiving a permit.
"What workers understood was that in order to obtain this work
permit, they had to keep working on their visitor status and that
they did not have the option to stop working and wait for their
work permit to arrive," he said in a phone interview, adding that
many believed that if they were fired, they would be deported.
Most of the workers recruited by Tresor were placed at Newrest
production facilities, where they prepared meals for flights
leaving from the Montreal-Trudeau International Airport. The
proposed suit alleges that Newrest was fully aware the workers did
not have permits and that the vast majority would never get them.
"The defendants jointly took advantage of the vulnerability of the
members of the class and the legal precarity that they created to
enrich themselves. All the members of the class were defrauded, had
their fundamental rights violated and suffered serious prejudice,"
the application reads.
The workers, who were paid by Tresor, often received less than
minimum wage, were not properly paid overtime hours and were not
given workplace and health insurance, the suit says.
The suit also alleges that workers were not properly trained or
equipped for the physical work they were required to do and that
they were forced to labour in unclean and dangerous conditions.
Guillermo Montiel, the president of Tresor, said he hasn't seen the
court filing but is "stunned" by the allegations.
“We're an agency that has operated completely legally since 2013.
We have never offered a job to someone who doesn't have permits,"
said Montiel, who is named in the suit.
Newrest did not respond to a request for comment on October 3,
2023.
The lawsuit, which has not yet been approved by a judge -- a
required step for all class actions -- is seeking unspecified
damages from the companies.
Scowen said his organization's legal clinic has been helping a
growing number of workers who are facing similar situations since
the federal government began in 2020 to allow people on visitor
visas to transition to work permits without having to leave the
country.
Foreign workers on closed work permits -- which are tied to a
single employer -- can apply for a one-year open permit if they
suffer abuse. But people who don't have permits at all have little
recourse when their employers mistreat them, Scowen said.
"This practice basically creates a new class of migrant workers who
don't have easy access to that existing protection mechanism, and
this makes it a lot easier for employers to demand more of them, to
further exploit them, to underpay them, to abuse them
psychologically or physically," he said. [GN]
UNION SECURITY: Seeks More Time to File Reply Brief in Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTOINETTE
LEWIS-ABDULHAADI, v. UNION SECURITY INSURANCE CO., SUN LIFE
ASSURANCE CO. OF CANADA, and MERAKEY USA, Case No. 2:21-cv-03805-WB
(E.D. Pa.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting
an additional one-week extension to October 13, 2023, to file their
reply brief regarding the standing issue in order to accommodate a
further mediation session scheduled for October 4, 2023.
Pursuant to an order dated June 20, 2023, the Court required the
parties to file separate briefs on the issue of standing. The
Defendants filed their principal brief on July 28, 2023.
The Plaintiff filed her response brief on August 18, 2023
Defendants' reply brief was originally due September 1, 2023.
On August 24, 2023, Plaintiff and the Defendants convened for a
mediation session.
Union Security is a national provider of Medicare Supplement
insurance solutions.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 3, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LMYcs3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Mark E. Schmidtke, Esq.
Ann-Martha Andrews, Esq.
Byrne J. Decker, Esq.
Robert C. Perryman, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
56 S. Washington St., Suite 302
Valparaiso, IN 46383
Telephone: (219) 242-8668
E-mail: mark.schmidtke@ogletree.com
ann.andrews@ogletreedeakins.com
byrne.decker@ogletree.com
Robert.Perryman@ogletreedeakins.com
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Files Bid to Appeal Ruling in R.B. ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH filed a petition for leave to appeal a
ruling in the lawsuit entitled R.B., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. United Behavioral
Health, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00553, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of New York.
On May 12, 2021, the Plaintiff filed this Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) action against United
Behavioral Health challenging its practice of excluding from
coverage all mental health and substance abuse treatment services
rendered at residential treatment centers where any component of
the center's programming is considered "unproven, experimental, or
investigational."
On Jan. 9, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class,
which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge David N.
Hurd on Sept. 14, 2023. The Plaintiff's claim was certified as a
class action on behalf of a class defined as: All persons covered
under ERISA-governed health care plans, administered or insured by
United Behavioral Health, whose requests for coverage for mental
health and substance abuse treatment services received at a
licensed residential treatment center were denied in total based on
its determination that a component of such services is considered
experimental, investigational, or unproven. The Plaintiff was
appointed a class representative and Jordan Lewis, P.A. and Milberg
Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC, were appointed as co-class
counsel.
The appellate case is captioned United Behavioral Health v. R.B.,
Case No. 23-1346, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, filed on September 28, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent R.B., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, is represented by:
Jordan Matthew Lewis, Esq.
JORDAN LEWIS, P.A.
4473 N.E. 11th Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334
Telephone: (954) 616-8995
Defendant-Petitioner UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH is represented by:
Miguel A. Estrada, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 955-8257
UNITED COAL: Settlement in Chapman Suit Gets Initial Nod
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAUN CHAPMAN, on Behalf
of Himself and All Others Similarly-Situated, v. UNITED COAL
COMPANY, LLC, WELLMORE COAL COMPANY, LLC, and WELLMORE ENERGY
COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00137-CEA-CRW (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon.
Judge Charles E. Atchley, Jr. entered an order granting preliminary
approval of Rule 23 class action settlement:
-- Preliminary Certification of the Rule 23 Class:
For the purposes of settlement only, the Court preliminarily
finds that the proposed Rule 23 Class, as defined in the
Settlement Agreement between the parties, meets the
requirements
of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
-- The Court preliminarily certifies for settlement purposes
only,
the following proposed Rule 23 Class:
"All former and current nonexempt hourly workers employed by
United Coal Company, LLC, Wellmore Coal Company, LLC and
Wellmore
Energy Company, LLC, or any of the Defendants, who worked
underground at the Wellmore coal mine and who were paid for
such
work on one or more dates between September 7, 2016 and March
28,
2023, excluding (a) the persons, other than Shaun Chapman, who
filed a consent to join this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
section
216(b) prior to March 28, 2023, (b) any person who entered
into
an arbitration agreement with Defendants prior to September 7,
2021 and (c) any person who was hired by Defendants after
September 7, 2021, and who entered into an arbitration
agreement
with Defendants in connection with such hiring."
-- The Court conditionally approves the Named Plaintiff, Shaun
Chapman, as the Class Representative.
-- The Court conditionally appoints as Class Counsel for the Rule
23
Class Mark N. Foster of Law Office of Mark N. Foster, PLLC and
John R. Kleinschmidt, III of Law Offices of John R.
Kleinschmidt,
III, PLLC.
-- Preliminary Approval of the Agreement:
The proposed settlement set forth in the Agreement appears,
upon
preliminary review, to be fair, reasonable, and adequate.
United is a producer of high grade metallurgical coals.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tc5ZZO at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED SERVICES: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment vs MSP Recovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS,
SERIES LLC, MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS SERIES 44, LLC, MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC,
and SERIES PMPI, a designated series of MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC,
v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, and USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY Case No.
1:20-cv-21530-DPG (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Darrin P. Gayles
entered an order as follows:
1. The Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted.
2. The Plaintiffs MSPA and Series PMPI are dismissed.
3. The Court will enter a separate judgment.
4. This case is closed and all pending motions are DENIED as
moot.
The Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ claim for the D.C.2
Exemplar is time-barred. In MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Tower Hill Prime
Ins., the Eleventh Circuit held that the four-year statute of
limitations period set forth at 28 U.S.C. section 1658(a) applied
to the MSP Act's private cause of action provision.
United Services is an American financial services company providing
insurance and banking products exclusively to members of the
military, veterans, and their families
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 29, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/465dTCV at no extra charge.[CC]
UNIVERSAL NAVIGATION: Risley Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
NESSA RISLEY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Nessa Risley, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Universal
Navigation Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-2780, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful promotion, offer, and
sale of unregistered securities on their "Uniswap Protocol," a
crypto-asset exchange, in the form of crypto "tokens."
According to the complaint, Uniswap has no barriers to entry for
users looking to trade -- or "swap" -- crypto tokens on the
exchange. Uniswap requires no verification of an individual's
identity, nor does it conduct any "know-your-customer" process.
This combination has led to rampant fraud on the Exchange, says the
suit.
On Sept. 27, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which
the Defendants moved to dismiss on Dec. 21, 2022.
On Aug. 29, 2023, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the amended complaint through an Order entered by Judge
Katherine Polk Failla. In particular, the Court dismisses the
Plaintiffs' federal claims with prejudice and their state-law
claims without prejudice to their refiling in state court. Because
the Court dismissed the action, it declined to certify the class.
The Clerk of Court was instructed to terminate all pending motions,
adjourn all remaining deadlines, and close the case.
The appellate case is captioned Risley v. Universal Navigation
Inc., Case No. 23-1340, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, filed on September 28, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants NESSA RISLEY, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
James R. Serritella, Esq.
KIM & SERRITELLA LLP
110 West 40th Street, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 960-8345
Defendants-Appellees UNIVERSAL NAVIGATION INC., DBA UNISWAP LABS,
et al., are represented by:
Maeve O'Connor, Esq.
DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP
66 Hudson Boulevard
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 909-6000
- and -
Alexander Drylewski, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
One Manhattan West
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 735-2129
- and -
Susan E. Engel, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
555 11th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 637-2200
- and -
Benjamin Naftalis, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
1271 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 906-1200
- and -
Jason P. Gottlieb, Esq.
MORRISON COHEN LLP
909 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 735-8600
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Class in COVID Suit Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re University of Southern California
Tuition and Fees COVID-19 Refund Litigation, Case No.
2:20-cv-04066-DMG-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee
entered an order as follows:
1. Grants USC's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to
Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim;
2. Denies USC's motion to exclude Dr. Singer;
3. Denies Plaintiffs' motion to exclude Hansen;
4. Denies Plaintiffs' motion to exclude Dr. Wilcox; and
5. Grants Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class as to their
quasi-
contract and UCL claims, and certifies the following Class:
"All students who paid or were obligated to pay tuition,
fees,
or other costs to The University of Southern California for
the
Spring 2020 academic term."
The Court appoints Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, and
appoints Berger Montague PC, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLC, and
the Katriel Law Firm as Class Counsel.
USC is a private, nonprofit university located in Los Angeles,
California. USC offers some fully-online graduate programs, but
does not offer an online undergraduate program.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 29, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45enMNw at no extra charge.[CC]
USD FUNDING: Dimitrov Allowed Leave to Conduct Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIMITROV v. USD FUNDING
LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00430 (W.D.N.C., Filed July 18, 2023), the
Hon. Judge Susan C Rodriguez entered an order granting unopposed
motion for leave to conduct class certification and damages
discovery.
Default has been entered. The Plaintiff is granted leave to conduct
discovery.
The nature of suit states Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
USD Funding specializes in funding small to medium sized
businesses.[CC]
VANGUARD HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, MacKinney Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS MACKINNEY, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. VANGUARD HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC. d/b/a Abrazo Health,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-02058-SPL (D. Ariz., Sept. 29, 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 MacKinney was employed by the Defendant as a patient care
worker.
VANGUARD HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC. d/b/a Abrazo Health is
headquartered in the United States. The Company's line of business
includes providing general medical and surgical hospital services.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel R. Randall, Esq.
4742 North 24th Street, Suite 300
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 328-0262
Facsimile: (602) 926-1479
Email: srandall@randallslaw.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
EmailL rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
VO HOLDINGS: General Pretrial Management Entered in Castro Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FELIX CASTRO, v. VO
HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07077-JMF-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial
management.
-- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related
to
scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or
for
judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary
judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23)
must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's
Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's
website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.
-- Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must
be
initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set
by
the Court.
-- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting
discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for
such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil
Rule
37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices.
-- It is the Court's practice to decide discovery disputes at the
Rule 37.2 conference, based on the parties' letters, unless a
party requests or the Court requires more formal briefing.
Absent
extraordinary circumstances, discovery applications made later
than 30 days prior to the close of discovery may be denied as
untimely.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46i8R6f at no extra charge.[CC]
WALMART INC: Holmes Sues Over False Marketing of Equate Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamieka Holmes, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. Walmart, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
5:23-cv-05165-TLB (W.D. Ark., Sept. 29, 2023) alleges claims
against the Defendants for fraud, false marketing, false
advertising, breach of contract, breach of warranty, and breaches
of state law consumer protection statutes in connection with the
marketing and sale of "Equate" branded products containing
phenylephrine.
Allegedly, the Defendant has continued its marketing and sale of
these products despite their ineffectiveness to combat sinus
issues, such as congestion.
Headquartered in Bentonville, AR, Walmart is a multinational retail
corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount
department stores, and grocery stores in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob Dylan White, Esq.
TAYLOR KING LAW
410 N. Thompson St., Suite B
Springdale, AR 72764
Telephone: (479) 935-1761
Facsimile: (479) 334-5069
E-mail: jacobwhite@taylorkinglaw.com
- and -
Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq.
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
E-mail: roy.willey@poulinwilley.com
paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
blake.abbott@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulinwilley.com
WEST VIRGINIA: Magistrate Hears Testimony in Jail Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Rubin, writing for WCHS, reports that a federal magistrate
said he "couldn't wrap his head around" hours of testimony that
numerous current and former state corrections officials simply
didn't think to preserve certain evidence in an ongoing
class-action lawsuit regarding conditions at the Southern Regional
Jail in Raleigh County.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn listened to more than four
hours of testimony in the evidentiary hearing on Oct. 2 that
alleges inhumane and unconstitutional conditions for thousands of
current and former inmates at the facility that saw 13 deaths in
2022.
Brad Douglas, current executive officer for the West Virginia
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, was the first witness
to testify.
Beckley attorney Stephen New grilled Douglas for more than hour
about steps that were and weren't taken by the DCR and the West
Virginia Department of Homeland Security following more than a
dozen evidence preservation letters that were sent from New's law
firm in the summer of 2022 on the heels of the suit being filed in
Sept. 2022.
Douglas contended he had no excuse for emails, cell phones, and
other pieces of evidence that weren't preserved. "I didn't think
about it," he said, even though he testified he was aware of the
anticipated litigation.
Douglas also testified a new policy directive had been enacted in
light of the issues with evidence preservation in the lawsuit. "It
was poor practice and poor procedure and we're trying to fix it,"
he said. Douglas said the evidence preservation letters didn't
trigger them to do anything if someone was separating from the
state, calling it a "critical failure of communication."
Betsy Jividen, the former DCR commission; Michael Francis, the
former superintendent for SRJ; and Larry Warden, the former chief
correctional officer at SRJ — all either retired or stepped down
from their positions in the months before the suit was filed.
As a result of their departures from the state, their emails and
Google drives were "deprovisioned," according to testimony. As part
of that process, they lost access to their state accounts and all
information and contents of the accounts were permanently deleted
and not able to be retrieved after 30 days.
Douglas and other witnesses testified they were unaware that the
deprovisioning process for people no longer employed with the state
would result in destruction of the information.
"There was a lot going on, I'd been commissioner for four days,"
Douglas said of his appointment to interim DCR commissioner when
Jividen resigned in Aug. 2022. "Our heads were spinning. I should
have known and just didn't think of it."
Douglas said there was no record of anyone requesting the
destruction of any documents.
However, New said his office has not been provided with inmate
grievances and and internal investigations that are required by DCR
policy to be kept for five years.
At several points, Aboulhosn interjected during testimony.
"This is serious stuff here. I'm trying to wrap my head around how
we are sitting here with all of these policies and procedures to
preserve records," he said. "It comes down to, 'have they been
destroyed?'"
"Deprovisioned," Michael Mullins, an attorney representing Jividen,
Douglas and former DHS Cabinet Secretary Jeff Sandy, replied.
"Meaning destroyed," Aboulhosn said. "My head is about to explode
trying to understand how in the world this happened. I'm stunned
we're even having this conversation."
Mullins, in cross-examination, worked to drive home his assertion
that there was no intent by anyone within the state to deprive New
or any of his clients with the ability to review the information.
"Absolutely not," Douglas testified.
Mullins said his office, Steptoe & Johnson, had spent more than
1,000 hours sorting through evidence in the discovery process and
had provided more than 100,00 emails.
Douglas also testified that recently cell phones were found in an
office at SRJ that they believe could belong to Francis and Warden
but they aren't able to access them because they don't have the
security codes. Francis later testified he couldn't recall what his
was.
Following Douglas' testimony, Aboulhosn suggested he didn't need to
hear from any more witnesses but said he would and contended the
matter was a priority.
"What the court just heard is damning. I'm not sure you need to
beat this horse deader than it is," Aboulhosn said. "I don't know
how you rise above this."
Another witness, Phil Sword, the general counsel for DHS, testified
New was at fault for the loss of hours of video from the jail
because New didn't provide four 18-TB hard drives to the state that
would have been needed to copy the video, as he said in an email he
would.
"Is that really your testimony?" Aboulhosn asked. "The fact that
the plaintiff suggested they would pay? Do you believe that
absolves DHS from preserving?"
Sword said it would have been "impossible" for the state to keep
the large amount of video.
"It's not impossible!" Aboulhosn said. "I don't buy that, sir. I
can't believe that's really your testimony."
Aboulhosn said he couldn't fathom that the state, that he noted had
a $1.8 billion surplus according to reports, couldn't purchase a
hard drive to preserve the evidence. He said it was "stunning" to
him to be hearing the testimony.
"I'm stunned!" he shouted three times. "I just cannot believe what
I'm hearing," he said before he reminded the attorneys that he had
previously fined the state $1,000 a day in a previous lawsuit
involving DCR where six motions to compel were filed before
evidence was turned over. "You just created the litigation hold a
week ago!"
Jividen testified she "assumed" whenever she left her position that
her emails and other evidence would be preserved.
"I'm still flabbergasted that emails were destroyed," she said. "I
didn't understand that deprovisioning meant destroying."
Francis said the same during his testimony. "I said, 'Look buddy,
I'm getting ready to leave. You don't get ride of anything,'" he
said. "I'm in shock that emails of mine have been destroyed."
Danielle Cox, Chief Information Security Officer for the West
Virginia Office of Technology, testified that she never received
any correspondence from anyone to preserve anything until Aug.
2023.
She said that it would have been possible, with something as simple
as an email to her or a staff member, to preserve the emails and
still have them deprovisioned.
"That easy?" Aboulhosn asked. "That's pretty remarkable that it's
that easy."
The defendants' only witness, Marvin Plumley, an assistant
commissioner with DCR, said he has now been "further educated" that
the information would eventually disappear.
"DCR has taken steps to prevent this from happening again," Plumley
said. "I thought once you sent it, it existed forever."
After the hearing, New said he would be seeking sanctions against
the state. Aboulhosn said he had 10 days to file a response to the
Oct. 2 hearing, while defendants had an additional week to respond
to New's filing before he would issue an opinion. [GN]
WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Former Employee Files Labor Suit in CA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wintrust Financial Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended August 9, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2023, that on May 24, 2022, a
former Wintrust Mortgage employee filed a California Private
Attorney General Act (PAGA) suit, not individually, but as
representative of all Wintrust Mortgage's California hourly
employees, against Wintrust Mortgage in the Superior Court of San
Diego County, California.
Plaintiff alleges Wintrust Mortgage failed to provide accurate sick
leave accrual and pay, overtime wages, accurately itemized wage
statements, meal breaks and meal premiums, timely payment of earned
wages, payment of all earned wages and payment of all vested
vacation hours.
Plaintiff also has an arbitration agreement with a collective and
class action waiver and on January 19, 2023, Wintrust Mortgage
moved to compel arbitration. The court entered and continued the
motion until September 8, 2023.
Wintrust is a financial holding company based in Illinois.
WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Wintrust Financial Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended August 9, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2023, that on May 25, 2022, a
Wintrust Mortgage customer filed a putative class action and
asserted individual claims against Wintrust Mortgage and Wintrust
Financial Corporation in the District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.
Plaintiff alleges that Wintrust Mortgage discriminated against
black/African American borrowers and brings class claims under the
Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Sections 1981 and 1982 under Chapter
42 of the United States Code; and the Fair Housing Act of 1968.
Plaintiff also asserts individual claims under theories of
promissory estoppel, fraudulent inducement, and breach of contract.
On September 23, 2022, Wintrust filed a motion to dismiss the
entire suit. The motion has been fully briefed and the matter is
awaiting a decision by the court.
Wintrust is a financial holding company based in Illinois.
WYNN RESORTS: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing in D. Nev.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wynn Resorts, Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in August 9, 2023, that a putative securities
class action filed against the company and certain current and
former officers of the company in the United States District Court,
Southern District of New York (which was subsequently transferred
to the United States District Court, District of Nevada) by John V.
Ferris and Joann M. Ferris on behalf of all persons who purchased
the Company's common stock between February 28, 2014 and January
25, 2018 is currently ongoing.
The complaint, filed on February 20, 2018, alleges, among other
things, certain violations of federal securities laws and seeks to
recover unspecified damages as well as attorneys' fees, costs and
related expenses for the plaintiffs. On April 15, 2019, the company
filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted on May 27, 2020,
with leave to amend. On July 1, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint.
On August 14, 2020, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On July 28, 2021, the court granted in part, and
denied in part, the company's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, dismissing certain of plaintiffs' claims, including all
claims against current CEO Craig Billings and the individual
directors, and allowing other claims to proceed against the Company
and several of the company's former executive officers, including
Matthew Maddox, Stephen A. Wynn, Kimmarie Sinatra, and Steven
Cootey.
On March 2, 2023, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and appointed lead counsel. The parties are now
proceeding with discovery.
Wynn Resorts, Limited, a Nevada corporation (together with its
subsidiaries), is a designer, developer, and operator of integrated
resorts featuring luxury hotel rooms, high-end retail space, an
array of dining and entertainment options, meeting and convention
facilities, and gaming.
[*] AFB Veterans Join Forever Chemicals Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Watertown Radio reports that military veterans who served on this
base near Rapid City and at Joe Foss Field Air National Guard
Station in Sioux Falls are part of new national class-action
lawsuits seeking damages due to exposure to toxic chemicals in
firefighting foam.
The lawsuits center on cancers, hormonal problems and
gastrointestinal illnesses believed to have been caused by exposure
to so-called forever chemicals present in firefighting foam that
was used for more than 60 years to put out petroleum fires at U.S.
airports and military installations.
The chemicals are now known to have caused contamination of
groundwater wells and drinking water systems across the country.
Civilians who lived or worked at or near military facilities have
also gotten sick and are part of the ongoing cases. [GN]
[*] Cook County, IL Sees Influx of GIPA Class Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Warner Torrez and Melanie J. Chico, writing for Claims
Journal, reports that this year, the Cook County docket has seen an
influx of class action claims seeking redress under an older
Illinois privacy statute, the Genetic Information Privacy Act
(GIPA), no doubt due to the statute's extreme statutory damage
provisions. GIPA, enacted in 1998, provides a private right of
action and permits recovery for actual damages or for statutory
damages of $2,500 per negligent violation and $15,000 per
intentional or reckless violation of the statute. The potential for
massive awards has clearly caught the eye of the plaintiff's bar.
Indeed, despite sporadic filings over the past decade, nearly 30
cases have been brought under GIPA in 2023 in Cook County alone,
the majority of which have been filed in the last two months.
GIPA contemplates even greater damage awards than another
oft-litigated Illinois privacy statute, the Biometric Information
Privacy Act (BIPA), which allows statutory damages of up to $1,000
for each negligent violation, and up to $5,000 for each intentional
or reckless violation.[1] The stated goal of GIPA is to "facilitate
voluntary and confidential nondiscriminatory use of genetic
information" and encourage the exchange of records to improve
patient health care and care coordination. 735 ILCS 513/5(4) and
(5). As a means to this end, the statute proscribes the transfer
and disclosure of genetic information without explicit written
consent. Additionally, and significantly, the statute prohibits
insurers from using genetic testing for non-therapeutic or
underwriting purposes and prohibits employers from soliciting or
requiring genetic testing as a condition of employment and/or using
genetic testing to affect terms of employment.
The term "genetic testing" in the statute is extracted from HIPAA
and includes: the individual's genetic tests; genetic tests of
family members; the manifestation of a disease or disorder in
family members; and requests for or receipts of genetic services by
the individual or the individual's family member.
Chico
The lawsuits filed in the past year follow the same general format
and allege that certain employers requested family medical
histories as a part of hiring processes in which physicals are
required. One plaintiff's firm compares these hiring practices to
the dystopia portrayed in the 1997 film "Gattaca," in which
individuals are classified as "valids" or "in-valids" depending on
their individual genetic profiles. In the film, these genetic
profiles determine what type of employment each individual can
pursue. These lawsuits ask the courts to view family histories
taken as part of an employer-mandated physical as propelling
society toward this dystopian future.
As dramatic as this claim may be, the potential for annihilating
damages could make these cases equally dramatic for employers in
Illinois.
Takeaways:
Class action filings seeking damages under GIPA have increased
drastically in the past year. Employers should evaluate whether
they are collecting genetic information of employees, including
through physicals required for certain positions. Take caution:
disregarding the provisions of GIPA could subject employers to
fines of up to $15,000 per violation of the statute.
Footnote: [1] BIPA specifically excludes "biological materials
regulated under" GIPA. See 740 ILCS 14/10. [GN]
*********
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 ***