Class Certified on Failure To Notify Employees of Impending Hospital Closure

View David Wright's Complete Bio at robinsonbradshaw.comFailure to give the requisite 60-days’ notice to a group of employees under the WARN Act seems like it implicates a quintessential common question for adjudication under Rule 23. But in Hutson v. CAH Acquisition Company 10, LLC, 1:15CV742 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 15, 2016), Defendant gamely tried to suggest that there were factual issues that must be resolved as to each plaintiff. Admittedly, the case was a bit more complicated than the typical WARN Act case – the closing of the employer’s facility was postponed, and there apparently was confusion about just what the employer explained to employees about the postponement. But Judge Osteen did not pause long in certifying the class, observing that “whether the [new] notice was timely and sufficient under the WARN Act or whether notice was in effect given at all, are questions of law and fact common to the class.” Judge Osteen similarly rejected defendant’s typicality argument, holding that the claims at issue all “arise out of the exact same conduct, and rest on the exact same legal theories as those of the proposed class.” The prospect of adjudicating 130 individual claims under the WARN Act – for the same closure event – seems daunting, and Judge Osteen’s decision on class certification was right down the middle of the fairway on this one.

Email this to someoneShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPrint this page

Recent Filings – August Digest

View Amanda Pickens’ Complete Bio at RBH.com Not every class action court filing in North and South Carolina becomes a full-length post on our blog. Here is a recap of August’s filings:

Kirkpatrick v. Cardinal Ally, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-01088 (M.D.N.C. August 28, 2016) (collective action and class action asserted under FLSA and state wage and hour laws alleging defendant managed healthcare organization misclassified care coordinators as exempt employees).

Ailsworth v. Harbor Inn Richland, Inc., et. al., No. 3:16-cv-02946 (D.S.C. August 26, 2016) (purported collective action and class action brought under FLSA and state wage and hour laws for an improper tip pool).

Allen v. SSC Lexington Operating Co. LLC, No. 1:16-cv-01080 (M.D.N.C. August 24, 2016) (purported collective action and class action brought under FLSA and state wage and hour laws alleging defendant nursing home operator failed to pay staff members for work performed off-the-clock).

Bennett v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-00281 (W.D.N.C. August 19, 2016) (California putative class action transferred to the W.D.N.C. alleging defendant hardwood flooring and laminate retailer sold defective flooring under its “Dream Home” brand).

Gibson, et. al. v. Confie Ins. Grp. Holdings, Inc., et. al., No. 2:16-cv-02872 (D.S.C. August 18, 2016) (putative class action brought by customers purchasing roadside assistance car insurance policies against insurance companies alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act, RICO, and other state laws).

Turner v. BFI Waste Servs., LLC et. al., No. 2:16-cv-02864 (D.S.C. August 17, 2016) (in addition to Brown, this is the second purported collective action and class action brought under FLSA and state wage and hour laws alleging defendant Republic Services failed to pay overtime to waste disposal drivers).

Rosbottom v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., No. 0:16-cv-02832 (D.S.C. August 15, 2016) (consumer class action brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act against Experian for reporting South Carolina tax liens that allegedly have been expunged or satisfied).

Adams, et. al. v. Sitel Operating Corp., No. 1:16-cv-01051 (M.D.N.C. August 12, 2016) (collective action and class action brought under FLSA and state wage and hour laws alleging defendant failed to pay call center employees for all pre-shift and post-shift work).

Fitzhenry v. Woodforest Nat’l Bank, N.A., No. 3:16-cv-02809 (D.S.C. August 11, 2016) (alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act based on autodialed collection calls sent without plaintiffs’ consent).

Brown v. Republic Servs. of South Carolina, LLC, No. 2:16-cv-02804 (D.S.C. August 11, 2016) (purported collective action and class action arising under FLSA and state wage and hour laws alleging defendant failed to pay overtime to waste disposal drivers).

Clark, et. al. v. Duke Univ., et. al., No. 1:16-cv-01044 (M.D.N.C. August 10, 2016) (putative class action brought under ERISA alleging defendants breached their fiduciary duties by mismanaging the Duke University Faculty and Staff Retirement Plan).

Chavez v. T&B Mgmt., LLC, et. al., No. 1:16-cv-1019 (M.D.N.C. August 1, 2016) (collective and class action brought under FLSA and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act by restaurant servers for failure to pay minimum wage for non-tip-generating work such as maintenance, cleaning, and rolling silverware).

Email this to someoneShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPrint this page

Recent Filings – July Digest

View Amanda Pickens’ Complete Bio at RBH.com Not every class action court filing in North and South Carolina becomes a full-length post on our blog. Here is a recap of July’s filings:

Ford, et. al. v. Ford Motor Co., No. 1:16-cv-00239 (W.D.N.C. July 14, 2016) (putative consumer class action alleging the Ford Explorer has a manufacturing defect which allows exhaust emissions to leak into passenger cabins).

Swinger v. Breg, Inc., et. al., No. 1:16-cv-00955 (M.D.N.C. July 14, 2016) (collective action and class action brought under FLSA and state wage and hour laws for unpaid wages and overtime arising from defendants’ alleged misclassification of employees).

Hatch, et. al. v. DeMayo, et. al., No. 1:16-cv-00925 (D.S.C. July 8, 2016) (putative class action brought under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act alleging that defendant law firms obtained protected personal information from DMV records and accident reports to market their legal services in violation of the Act).

Lomax v. Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc., et. al., No. 1:16-cv-00923 (M.D.N.C. July 8, 2016) (in addition to Graham, this is the second putative class action filed on behalf of shareholders of Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc., against the company and its officers and directors alleging violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act arising out of a proposed merger of its operations with a private Dutch company JAB Holdings, B.V. through its Delaware and North Carolina entities).

Velasquez v. Salsa and Beer Restaurant, Inc., et. al., No. 5:16-cv-00655 (E.D.N.C. July 6, 2016) (collective and class action brought under FLSA and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act by restaurant servers for an improper “tip credit” and the restaurant’s failure to pay overtime).

Heydrick v. J.L Hawes Inc., et. al., No. 2:16-cv-02413 (D.S.C. July 1, 2016) (collective and class action brought under FLSA and state wage and hour laws for an improper “tip credit”).

Email this to someoneShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPrint this page

Securities Class Actions Continue To Rise

View Adam Doerr's Complete Bio at robinsonbradshaw.com Earlier this year, we reported that Multiple Studies Show Increase in Securities Class Actions. Cornerstone Research, one of the groups covered in our earlier report, recently issued its 2016 Midyear Assessment. This new analysis, which covers cases filed in January through June of this year, is consistent with several of the trends we reported previously, including the increasing number of securities class actions, the rise in the number of cases against smaller companies, and the increase in the number of Fourth Circuit cases.

Of particular interest is the significant increase in the number of merger & acquisition cases filed in federal courts. In the first half of 2016, there were 24 filings involving M&A transactions – a 167% increase from the second half of 2015. Given the size of this increase, it seems likely that this is related to significant changes in Delaware’s handling of merger objection litigation following the Trulia decision, and we will continue to monitor how this shift impacts merger litigation in federal courts in the Carolinas and the North Carolina Business Court.

Email this to someoneShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPrint this page

Recent Filings – June Digest

View Amanda Pickens’ Complete Bio at RBH.com Not every class action court filing in North and South Carolina becomes a full-length post on our blog. Here is a recap of June’s filings:

Campbell v. First Nat’l Collection Bureau, Inc., et. al., No. 1:16-cv-02342 (D.S.C. June 29, 2016) (putative class action brought on behalf of consumers residing in South Carolina alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act).

Girard v. Fantasy Far East, Inc., et. al., No.2:16-cv-02209 (D.S.C. June 24, 2016) (purported collective and class action brought under FLSA and state wage and hour laws for an improper “tip pool”).

Higgins v. James Doran Co., Inc., et. al., No. 2:16-cv-02149 (D.S.C. June 23, 2016) (asserting collective and class action claims under FLSA and state wage and hour laws brought by maintenance workers alleging that defendant real estate development companies failed to pay maintenance workers for all work time, including time spent while “on call”).

Rich v. Columbia Miyabi, Inc., et. al., No. 2:16-cv-02148 (D.S.C. June 23, 2016) (purported collective and class action brought under FLSA and state wage and hour laws for an improper “tip pool”).

Stone v. Charleston Miyabi, Inc., et. al., No. 2:16-cv-02129 (D.S.C. June 22, 2016) (collective and class action brought under FLSA and state wage and hour laws for an improper “tip pool”).

Cole, et. al. v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc., et. al., No. 1:16-cv-00687 (M.D.N.C. June 21, 2016) (putative class action seeking both damages and injunctive relief against defendant cigarette manufacturer alleging that defendant misled consumers by labeling and advertising their cigarettes as “natural,” “additive free,” and “organic”).

Weckesser v. Knight Enterprises, S.E., LLC, No. 2:16-cv-0253 (D.S.C. June 20, 2016) (this is the second of two purported collective and class actions brought under the FLSA and state wage and hour laws alleging that defendant misclassified cable installation technicians as independent contractors and failed to pay overtime and minimum wage).

Bass v. 817 Corp., et. al., No. 2:16-cv-1964 (June 15, 2016 D.S.C.) (purported collective and class action for an improper “tip credit”).

Graham v. Bentsen, et. al., No. 1:16-cv-00612 (M.D.N.C. June 13, 2016) (putative class action on behalf of shareholders of Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc., against the company and its officers and directors alleging violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act arising out of a proposed merger of its operations with a private Dutch company JAB Holdings, B.V. through its Delaware and North Carolina entities).

Ravey v. TransEnterix, Inc., et. al., No. 1:16-cv-00599 (M.D.N.C. June 9, 2016) (In addition to Bankley, this is the second putative class action filed by shareholders of TransEnterix, Inc., a publicly traded biotech company, alleging 10b-5 and 20(a) claims against TransEnterix, Inc. and two high-ranking executives. The PSLRA deadline to seek appointment as lead plaintiff expires August 1.).

Zajac v. Ice House on Bohicket, LLC, et. al., No. 2:16-cv-01869 (D.S.C. June 9, 2016) (this is the second of two purported collective and class actions asserted against Red Wing brought under the FLSA and state wage and hour laws for an improper “tip credit”).

Zajac v. Red Wing, LLC, et. al., No. 2:16-cv-01856 (D.S.C. June 8, 2016) (purported collective and class action under the FLSA and state wage and hour laws for an improper “tip credit”).

Turzak v. ASB Enter. Inc., No. 2:16-cv-01810 (D.S.C. June 3, 2016) (purported collective and class action under the FLSA and state wage and hour laws alleging that defendant family restaurant failed to pay servers overtime and minimum wage and implemented an improper “tip credit”).

Bankley v. TransEnterix, Inc., et. al., No. 5:16-cv-00313 (E.D.N.C. June 2, 2016) (putative class action on behalf of shareholders of TransEnterix, Inc., a publicly traded biotech company, asserting securities violations for providing allegedly false and/or misleading information about the company’s business in its press releases, shareholder conference calls, and securities filings).

Email this to someoneShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPrint this page