Current and former New York Life Insurance workers asked a federal court Monday to approve a $19 million deal in a proposed class action alleging the insurance giant unlawfully kept underperforming proprietary investment options in two employee retirement plans.

Plan participants leading the Employee Retirement Income Security Act suit said in a motion for preliminary approval that the settlement is in line with pacts previously approved in similar suits and avoids the costs and risks associated with continuing the complex litigation. The filing comes just over a month after workers and New York Life told the court they had agreed to resolve the suit and needed time to hammer out details.

According to Monday’s motion, the $19 million settlement totals approximately 20% to 25% of the alleged losses that workers claimed were due to the company’s mismanagement of two New York Life retirement plans. Plan participants said they intend to ask that up to 33% of the settlement go toward attorney fees as well as $10,000 in service awards to each of the 10 named plaintiffs.

. . .

The proposed class is represented by Kai Richter, Jacob T. Schutz, Eleanor Frisch, Michelle C. Yau, Daniel R. Sutter, Caroline E. Bressman and Michael Eisenkraft of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

Grubhub’s business is “suffused with deception,” Los Angeles County said in a lawsuit filed Wednesday, claiming the food delivery service has long misled customers about prices and driver benefits and imposed “abusive” policies on restaurants.

The county accused Grubhub of false and deceptive advertising, misrepresentation and unfair business practices that harm consumers, delivery drivers and restaurants, according to the complaint filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The county pointed to search results that consumers see when they browse the app. Those results are based in part on undisclosed restaurant advertising payments rather than neutral factors, such as how close a restaurant is, the county said. Consumers are also misled about the prices of their orders and the benefits delivery drivers receive, it claimed.

For instance, Grubhub says consumers can place delivery orders online free, but then it charges them fees on those orders at checkout, Los Angeles County said. The company also misrepresents its “driver benefits fee,” deceptively implying that the fee provides healthcare benefits to drivers and that drivers no longer need to be tipped, according to the suit.

The suit also says Grubhub subjects restaurants to “an undisclosed and abusive policy” under which Grubhub resolves customer complaints by issuing refunds – using restaurant money – without first getting the restaurant’s permission, the county said.

. . .

California is represented by Jon Scott Kuhn, Andrea Ross, Cesar J. Del Peral and Ida Anbarian of the Los Angeles County Office of County Counsel and Brian E. Bowcut and Peter Ketcham-Colwill of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

L.A. County is suing Grubhub, alleging that the company violated state laws that prohibit false advertising.

The price of the turkey on rye half-sandwich from Langer’s Delicatessen-Restaurant in Los Angeles, purchased through the delivery app Grubhub, starts around $17.

But at checkout, the costs mount. With additional fees and sales tax, the cost of a sandwich delivery can hit over $26.00. Plus tip.

L.A. County says it amounts to an illegal “bait-and-switch.”

In a lawsuit filed Wednesday against Grubhub, county lawyers argue the food delivery company has repeatedly flouted a state law barring false advertising by promoting meals at a cheaper price than what customers see at the checkout page.

“Grubhub has built this vast marketplace through practices that mislead consumers and restaurants and put the squeeze on the company’s delivery drivers,” the lawsuit says. “Multiple aspects of Grubhub’s business — and every transaction for food delivery — are suffused with deception.”

A Grubhub spokesperson said in a statement the company plans to “aggressively defend” itself in court.

“We’ve sought to engage in a constructive dialogue with the Los Angeles County Counsel’s office to explain our business and identify any areas for improvement,” a company spokesperson wrote. “We are disappointed they have moved forward with this lawsuit because our practices have always complied with applicable law, and in any event, many of the allegations are incorrect or have been discontinued.”

The lawsuit refers to a Grubhub webpage with a banner that says customers can “order online for free” at Los Angeles restaurants near them. In reality, the lawsuit says, they cannot.

Grubhub said it is working on removing the language “from all existing materials.”

“This lawsuit sends a clear message: Los Angeles County will not tolerate businesses that deceive consumers, take advantage of restaurants, and exploit the drivers who work hard to provide a valued service,” said Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, the board chair, in a statement.

It’s the latest government action aimed at preventing companies from hitting consumers with surprise charges. A new state law goes into effect this summer prohibiting last-minute “junk fees” across a long list of businesses, including delivery apps. Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who co-sponsored the measure, has promised “the price Californians see will be the price they pay.”

The attorney general’s office has said that once the law goes into effect, delivery apps cannot tack on miscellaneous fees at the end of the transaction.

The county’s lawsuit argues the status quo hurts not only Grubhub’s customers, but also the drivers and restaurants who serve them.

The UFC is potentially being sued by over a thousand fighters.

The ongoing UFC Antitrust lawsuit has been elevated to class-action, after a court ruling from Judge Boulware on August 9.

The UFC Antitrust Lawsuit Explained Simply

Back in December 2014, a group of MMA fighters — some still active — joined together to file a class-action lawsuit against the UFC and its parent company Zuffa LLC. These representatives, like Cung Le, Nate Quarry, Jon Fitch, and others, believe that the UFC used “improper strategies” to control the market for MMA fighter services.

In essence, they’re alleging the UFC paid them a lot less than they should have, and that the UFC has formed a monopsony on the professional MMA market, which hurts all MMA fighters as a result.

This group of fighters is trying to represent around 1,200 other current and former UFC fighters.

After fighting in court for more than six years, in December 2020, the court said it’s planning to officially recognize this group as a “class” of fighters and shared its written opinion about it. If the class is officially recognized, the fighters leading the lawsuit and their lawyers will represent the whole group of ~1,200 fighters.

“One of their goals is to recover money for all 1,200 fighters. Another goal is to force the UFC to change the way it does business.” (via UFCclassaction.com)

Well, the court has now recognised the “class” to represent, which is the “bout class”, or fighters “who competed in one or more live professional UFC-promoted bouts taking place or broadcast in the United States from December 16, 2010 to June 30, 2017.”

After five-and-a-half long years, the judge overseeing the antitrust lawsuit against the UFC finally released his order granting class certification status to the plaintiff fighters seeking up to $1.6 billion in damages.

Last Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Richard Boulware of Las Vegas, NV certified a “bout class” of over 1,200 fighters who fought for the promotion between December 16, 2010 and June 30, 2017 with claims the UFC anticompetitively foreclosed rival MMA promoters and suppressed fighter pay through the use of long-term exclusive contracts, coercive conduct, and the elimination or acquisition of competitors. Boulware also declined to certify an “identity class,” which claimed the same UFC conduct had anticompetitively reduced licensing rights compensation, resulting in the removal of former middleweight title challenger Nate Quarry from the case.

Boulware’s order was the first real sign of life the case had seen in nearly three years since a December 2020 hearing in which the judge told participants they would have his order “on Monday.”

Well after what turned out to be a very long weekend, the judge’s official reasoning for granting class certification was finally published. This is important since UFC attorneys have two weeks to dissect all 80 pages, find any issues to raise on appeal with the Ninth Circuit, and file their Rule 23(f) petition. This should put their deadline at Wednesday, August 23.

Judge Boulware’s Rebukes

In reviewing Boulware’s order, it’s apparent that while he may have become proficient on the business side of the sport, he’s still a novice when it comes to the MMA fight game. When describing the sport of MMA, he neglected to mention chokes – by far the most common method of submission – in the list performance factors that can lead to a tapout. But on the business and legal side of his order, he didn’t pull any punches, so much so that it felt at times as if we were reading the plaintiffs’ complaint or one of their expert witness reports.

Boulware methodically went through each element of the Daubert and class certification standards plaintiffs had to overcome to show that their expert testimony was “relevant and reliable” and their evidence “capable” of resolving common issues related to the plaintiffs’ claims. He was meticulous as he described his reasoning for finding the plaintiffs had satisfied their burden with the elements required for class certification: Numerosity, Commonality, Typicality, Adequacy, and then also Predominance.

In describing the mechanisms by which the UFC purportedly acquired and maintained monopsony power in the fighter labor market, Boulware agreed with plaintiffs that the relevant market is “for Elite Professional MMA Fighter services” in the United States, or possibly North America. He concluded the UFC had dominant market shares in this market, ranging from 71-99% depending on the time frame and how they were measured.

The UFC has consistently argued its business acumen is one of the key elements leading to its success and high market shares, but Boulware wasn’t remotely persuaded. He seemed to show disdain and almost appeared to make fun of this “nebulous factor” and “less cogent alternative explanation” for how the UFC’s market power was obtained.

In explaining how the UFC’s power was allegedly maintained, Boulware described “ruthless” and “brutal coercive tactics” such as putting a fighter “in a prelim against a really tough guy for his last fight” if he turned down a contract renewal offer.

He noted former UFC matchmaker Joe Silva’s testimony, “I always renegotiate before the last fight,” and former welterweight title challenger and named plaintiff Jon Fitch’s that “they do that to everybody. We’re going to hold your bout agreement until you sign your extension. We won’t allow you to become a free agent.”

But the most damning excerpt from the record may have come from the UFC’s former Vice President of Business, Legal and Government Affairs, Michael Merch, when he wrote, “if a fighter is successful under a 4 fight deal, we typically negotiate a new agreement after the 3rd fight so he never will see the end of his contract and, assuming the fighter is successful, or at least competitive, that is the process that will continue thereafter.”

As a result, Boulware found the UFC had made its fighters’ exclusive contracts “effectively perpetual.”

“Record evidence indicates both that these tactics were intentionally and consistently used by management to maintain contractual control of fighters and to send a message to fighters that they were essentially stuck with UFC for the life of their careers,” Boulware wrote. “The structure of these deals, particularly the fact that the fighter was only paid when they fought, meant that these tactics were a credible threat to every fighter under contract with [the UFC].”

One puzzling part of Boulware’s analysis is that it was mostly observational from testimony and emails. Hard data has also been made public in the case showing the UFC doesn’t systematically bench fighters who refuse to renegotiate on the last fight of their contract, and Boulware made no mention of it. The reason is unclear but it may have something to do with the standard used for class certification.

While Boulware’s findings were harsh, he also repeatedly emphasized his determinations were made by a preponderance of the evidence “at the class certification stage,” where “factual and merits-based” UFC counterarguments were not considered.

The plaintiffs seemingly earned a strategic victory in an antitrust lawsuit against the UFC in 2020. Nearly three years later, that win has been made official.

Federal judge Richard F. Boulware granted the plaintiffs class certification on Wednesday, according to a document from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The lawsuit against the UFC, which was first filed in 2014, will now be a class action suit, meaning almost 1,200 fighters can sue the UFC as a collective for alleged unfair business practices.

The class period encompasses any fighter who competed in the UFC from Dec. 16, 2010, to June 30, 2017. The UFC plans to appeal the decision, the promotion told ESPN in a statement from its lead counsel, William A. Isaacson.

Boulware said he would be granting class certification in a status conference call in December 2020, but he did not file an official approval of the plaintiffs’ motion until Wednesday.

. . .

The plaintiffs are seeking between $800 million and $1.6 billion in damages from the UFC. Boulware did not grant certification for the “identity class” part of the suit, where fighters claimed the UFC suppressed licensing fees associated with identity rights.

Meat processing giant JBS USA Food Co. and a presumed class of meat plant workers have settled claims of wage-fixing in a lawsuit originally filed against nearly a dozen meat producers, according to a joint notice filed Monday.

The notice did not include the terms of the settlement, which it said would come in a motion for preliminary approval of the deal, and marks yet another company agreeing to resolve the dispute before a trial. The meat plant workers sued a slew of meat processors in November 2022, alleging that they shared compensation studies and data and worked together to ensure uniform pay policies across the industry in violation of federal antitrust laws.

Perdue and workers reached a settlement in December 2022, and the workers struck a $10 million settlement with Seaboard Foods LLC in August.

. . .

The proposed class is represented by Shana E. Scarlett, Rio S. Pierce, Steve W. Berman and Abigail D. Pershing of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, George F. Farah, Rebecca Chang and Matthew K. Handley of Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, and Brent W. Johnson, Benjamin D. Brown, Daniel Silverman and Alison Deich of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

A civil rights organization claims two Washington, D.C., apartment complex owners discriminate against Black people by unlawfully creating boundaries for applicants with eviction or criminal backgrounds or who qualify for Section 8.

Civil rights organization Equal Rights Center said the owners of upscale apartment complexes Latrobe Apartment Homes and Vaughan Place created unlawful barriers for people who have criminal records more than seven years old and evictions more than three years old. The complexes also refused to accept applicants receiving housing vouchers, 95% of whom are Black residents, even though the complexes can, according to the complaint filed Thursday in Washington, D.C. superior court.

Brian Corman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, counsel for ERC, told Law360 on Wednesday that this case emphasizes the importance of vouchers and the legal protections for voucher holders.

“Vouchers remove a lot of the barriers that would otherwise restrict low-income families from the ability to obtain housing outside of areas of poverty,” Corman said. “When there is voucher discrimination, voucher holders, a lot of the time, have to accept subpar housing in segregated neighborhoods or risk losing their voucher.”

Under Section 8, voucher holders are free to choose any housing in the rental market if it doesn’t exceed the monthly rent set by the D.C. Housing Authority. In February 2023, Latrobe Apartment Homes had one-bedroom units starting at $2,359 and Vaughn had one-bedroom units for $2,195 and the authority’s maximum rent was $2,467.

. . .

ERC is represented by Brian Corman, Madhuri Belkale of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll and Joanna K. Wasik of Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.

A group of Flint residents, businesses and property owners have reached a settlement agreement worth $25 million with an engineering firm that consulted city officials after the 2014 Flint Water Crisis, according to a Thursday court filing.

Veolia North America, a Boston-based engineering firm, reached a $25 million settlement with a group of class action claimants in Flint. The class action lawsuit was originally launched in 2016, after plaintiffs said Veolia and another engineering firm that worked in Flint after the onset of the water crisis, Lockwood, Andrews and Newnam (LAN), failed to identify corroding pipes and acted too slowly to address the water contamination. The exact details of the settlement have not been made available yet.

The settlement agreement also includes payment of $1,500 for each minor claimant represented in the lawsuit, up to $1.5 million, according to attorneys.

. . .

The settlement is in addition to a $626.25 million settlement reached between Flint residents and the state of Michigan, and others, in 2021. Ted Leopold, one of the plaintiffs’ court-appointed attorneys and co-lead trial counsel and partner at law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll, said payments from that settlement still haven’t been issued, citing procedural issues.

“The administrators are trying to expedite it as quickly as they can,” Leopold said Thursday. “We hope that this particular (payment) will move as expeditiously as possible.”

Leopold hopes the settlement agreement can bring at least a bit of relief to the Flint residents affected by the drinking water crisis.

“It was such a horrific episode,” he said. “Certainly, there’s some community history and decisions that were made by the state of Michigan and others that I think run very deep and personal. I like to say that litigation and closure can bring peace of mind and justice, hopefully we’ve got some semblance of that here. But there’s a long history there.”

An 11th Circuit opinion ruling that a nanny was entitled to overtime pay offers a rare deep dive into the contours of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s live-in domestic worker overtime exemption and shows the challenges of enforcing wage protections for household workers, attorneys say.

Under the FLSA, a worker “who is employed in domestic service in a household and who resides in such household” is not entitled to overtime pay. What it means to “reside” in a household while employed as a housekeeper and nanny was the central question before the 11th Circuit.

These questions do not often make their way to court, let alone become the focus of an appellate decision, because the dollar amounts at issue make costly litigation unattractive and domestic workers may fear speaking up.

. . .

It also offers an analytical framework for how to wrestle with the question of what it means to reside in a household — an area that doesn’t have a lot of case law, said D. Michael Hancock, of counsel for worker-side firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and former assistant administrator of the DOL’s WHD.

The discussion about how she didn’t have a key to the house or her own dedicated, private space, for example, contributed to the “common sense conclusion” that she was not part of the household, Hancock said.

“When people think about what your residence is, part of that is I can come and go as I please. I have a key. I have access,” he said. “They took a fairly practical approach … where they asked the question ‘let’s look at how this person’s day-to-day, week-to-week life unfolds.'”

. . .

States and cities across the country, like Virginia and Philadelphia, have passed domestic worker bills of rights to ensure domestic workers have pay protections and rights to things like employment contracts and time off.

These efforts reflect a broader public appreciation for these critical workers and this opinion reinforces that, Hancock said.

“Just because they’re labeled a babysitter or just because they’re labeled a companion, doesn’t mean that they’re not entitled to be treated fairly and to be treated to the full protections of minimum wage and overtime,” he said. “Just because you’re a household and because you’re a family doesn’t provide you with an exemption from the FLSA writ large.”