Plaintiffs in Minted Hacking Class Action Request Preliminary $5M Settlement Approval

Atkinson and Renvall, plaintiffs in the Minted hacking class action file a motion for preliminary settlement approval.

Details of the Case: Melissa Atkinson and Katie Renvall et al. v. Minted, Inc.

Court: U.S. District Court Northern District of California

Case No.: 3:20-cv-03869-VC

Melissa Atkinson and Katie Renvall et al. v. Minted, Inc. : The Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs in the case are Melissa Atkinson and Katie Renvall. The two plaintiffs filed individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals. The plaintiffs began investigating a cybersecurity incident in May 2020. The incident involved Minted, and a hacking group called the Shiny Hunters.

The Allegations: Melissa Atkinson and Katie Renvall et al. v. Minted, Inc.

In June 2021, the plaintiffs filed claims alleging millions of customer records from Minted’s user account database were breached by Shiny Hunters in a May 6, 2020 incident. According to the suit, the cyberattack resulted in the theft of approximately 4.1 million customers’ personal info. When no response was received in response to the CCPA letter, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to seek statutory penalties, and declaratory and injunctive relief.

Resolving the Case: Melissa Atkinson and Katie Renvall et al. v. Minted, Inc.

After a contentious dispute over arbitration discovery, some exchange of information, and deposition prep, the two parties agreed to engage in meditation. A tentative agreement was reached during meditation in early January 2021, but three months went by before sufficient information was gathered regarding the breach, the Defendant’s financial statements, etc. and the parties agreed to settlement terms to resolve litigation. On April 15, 2021, the plaintiffs and Minted finally reached a Settlement Agreement. According to the terms of the settlement agreement, Minted will establish a $5,000,000 settlement fund and implement several changes in their standard business practices that enhance security and protect user information.

Melissa Atkinson and Katie Renvall et al. v. Minted, Inc.: The Proposed Settlement

The comprehensive settlement guarantees relief for all the Settlement Class Members (both monetary and through mandatory data security changes). The proposed settlement establishes a non-reversionary $5 million fund that will provide relief for participating class members. Class members should receive an estimated $43 payment, 2 years of credit monitoring, and personal identity restoration services. Some class members may also be eligible for fraud resolution assistance.

If you need to discuss California state law or if you need to file a class action lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Popular Online Art Sourcing Company, Minted Faces Major Class Action

Atkinson and Renvall, plaintiffs in the case, brought a class action against Minted, a popular online marketplace for crowd-sourced home decor, invitations, and stationery. The plaintiffs in the case filed individually and on behalf of classes of similarly situated individuals.

Details of the Case: Melissa Atkinson and Katie Renvall et al. v. Minted, Inc.

Court: U.S. District Court Northern District of California

Case No.: 3:20-cv-03869-VC

Atkinson and Renvall v. Minted: The Plaintiffs in the Case

Plaintiffs Melissa Atkinson and Katie Renvall filed individually and on behalf of classes of similarly situated people.

Atkinson and Renvall v. Minted: The Defendant in the Case

Minted, a massive online marketplace, takes submissions from independent artists, allows the entire Minted online community to vote on submissions, and winning submissions are offered for sale on the site. Products vary from home decor to stationery. While the company is built on a crowd-sourcing business model, it is not a small business. According to an Inc. Magazine feature published in 2019, Minted employs between 400-800 people and generates hundreds of millions of dollars in sales annually. In order to purchase from Minted, customers are required to create user profiles using their personally identifiable information (including first and last name, email, home address, phone, credit card information, and password). Customers are assured that their personal information will be securely maintained in Minted’s Privacy Policy.

Overview of the Case: Atkinson and Renvall v. Minted

A computer hacking group that uses the name Shiny Hunters (a reference to the popular PokemonGo game) allegedly burst onto the dark web scene on May 6, 2020 attempting to sell over 73.2 million records. The records contained personally identifiable info from eleven different company’s user databases (one of these eleven companies was Minted). In a notice to affected customers, Minted stated that they became aware of the data breach through a public report listing them as one of several companies impacted by a cybersecurity incident. Almost two weeks later, or three weeks after the data breach, Minted reached out to affected customers again to notify them that their PII has been disclosed to unauthorized or malicious parties. Minted acknowledged that certain information was accessed by third parties including name, email address, hashed passwords, and in some cases phone numbers, billing addresses, and shipping addresses. However, Minted claims they do not have any reason to believe payment information, address book inf, photos, or personalized information was disclosed. No information regarding why they believe this info was not included in the breach was provided.

If you need to discuss violations of California state law or if you need to file a California class action lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Delta Argues for Rehearing of California Wage Violation Class Action

Delta Airlines argues that the full Ninth Circuit should rehear their appeal regarding a proposed California wage violation class action. Delta argues for the rehearing claiming that the panel misapplied federal law intended to stop state laws from creating an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.

Details of the Case: Dev Oman et al. v. Delta Air Lines Inc.

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Case No.: 17-15124

Dev Oman et al. v. Delta Air Lines Inc.: The Plaintiff

The proposed class action was filed in 2015 by Dev Oman on behalf of flight attendants. Later Todd Eichmann, Flores and Lehr joined the lawsuit. Plaintiffs in the case claimed that Delta shorted their flight crew workers on pay and violated wage statement and timekeeping requirements as stated in employment law.

Dev Oman et al. v. Delta Air Lines Inc.: The Defendant

According to Delta, Michael Lehr, one of the flight attendants who brought the suit, spent 94% of time during one pay period working outside California. And another named flight attendant, Albert Flores, spent 94% of his time working outside of California. In this case, Delta questions whether applying California state employment law is an undue burden on interstate commerce and if permitting California to apply its laws beyond its borders violates the dormant commerce clause.

Dev Oman et al. v. Delta Air Lines Inc.: An Overview

In 2017,summary judgment was granted in favor of Delta by the district court. The district court’s findings were based on the statements regarding the flight attendant’s spending most of their work hours in federal airspace - not California, so it did not matter if Delta failed to comply with California wage statement requirements since they would be subject to federal law, not California law. The plaintiffs appealed. In June 2020, the California Supreme Court responded to questions from the Ninth Circuit regarding the case stating that workers were entitled to California wage and hour protections if California served as the base of their “work operations” (even if most of their time on the job was out of state). In February 2021, the panel ruled that the commerce clause did not bar California rules from applying, and in so doing, reversed the district court’s summary judgement in favor of the airlines. Delta petitioned for a rehearing in March 2021 arguing that the Ninth Circuit received bad guidance from the California Supreme Court.

If you need to discuss California state labor laws or if you need to file wage and hour claims, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Can Geico Employees Keep their Wage Suit Alive?

In recent news, Geico attempted to have an overtime pay lawsuit tossed, but in this instance, auto claim adjusters alleging the company forced workers to work off the clock, and failed to provide meal breaks and rest periods as required by law.

Details of the Case: Saul Gonzalez et al. v. Government Employees Insurance Company Inc.

Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Case No.: 2:20-cv-11722

Workers Filed a Collective and Class Action:

In December 2020, workers filed a collective and class action alleging Geico employees were required to work off the clock, and work through breaks without appropriate compensation. The push to work through breaks and off the clock was allegedly a company effort to meet inspection quotas and employees claim they feared refusing could result in poor performance evaluations. Plaintiffs Alexander Rieske and Saul Gonzalez filed the suit alleging violations of California and New York state laws, and violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the motion, thirteen other adjusters have already joined the plaintiffs.

Defendant Files a Motion to Dismiss Claiming Lack of Jurisdiction:

In March 2021, Geico filed a motion to dismiss the suit claiming that there was no practical reason to litigate out-of-state claims in California and indicating the court lacked jurisdiction to decide the claims in the case. In their opposition filing, plaintiffs asserted that the U.S. Supreme Court decision the insurer relied on to push for dismissal of the nationwide collective action (and the New York state class action) doesn’t apply because unlike the Supreme Court case, Saul Gonzalez et al. v. Government Employees Insurance Company Inc. involves federal claims brought in federal court.

Does the 2017 Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court Decision Apply?

When filing for dismissal, Geico cited the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court. However, plaintiffs in the suit claim this decision does not apply to the current case since Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court pertained to state jurisdiction finding that California state courts could not adjudicate mass tort claims when plaintiffs were not from California. The Saul Gonzalez et al. v. Government Employees Insurance Company Inc. action is different because it concerns federal claims in federal court. Plaintiffs further argued that if the court accepted the position presented by Geico that federal courts cannot hear out-of-state claims brought under FLSA, it would effectively eliminate the collective nature of the FLSA.

California Federal Court Finds Bristol-Myers Decision Does Not Apply:

In October 2020, the California federal court’s decision stated that the Bristol-Meyers decision does not apply to FLSA claims brought in federal court (including the current action).

If you need to discuss California state labor laws or if you need to file FLSA claims, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Uber Facing San Francisco Discrimination Class Action Suit

A recent class action lawsuit filed in San Francisco claims Uber ratings posted by racially biased customers resulted in wrongful terminations.

Former Uber Drivers File Class Action Lawsuit in San Francisco Court:

A group of former Uber ride-share drivers filed a class action lawsuit in San Francisco, California court including allegations that the company uses an evaluation system that is heavily influenced by racial and ethnic biases of riders/customers. According to the lawsuit, riders decide to cancel scheduled rides or provide lower ratings/scores based on the race or ethnicity of their driver.

The Uber Rating/Scoring System:

Since a lower score or rating affects a drivers employment and can, in fact, be a significant factor in the driver’s termination from their job, drivers can allegedly be fired because of their race or ethnicity. Plaintiffs claim that Uber has done nothing to correct this glaring issue tying lower scores and more firings due to rider race biases. In response, the plaintiffs turned to the court with a class action lawsuit claiming that firing a worker based on customer or rider ratings is illegal discrimination.

The Plaintiffs in the Case:

Thomas Liu of San Diego is the lead plaintiff in the case. Liu was deactivated as an Uber driver after his score fell below 4.6 (Uber’s minimum rating or standard). Liu is an Asian-American and claims that he experienced hostile behavior from riders due to his accent. Liu claims those hostile passengers gave him low ratings that affected his overall score and eventually endangered his job due to Uber’s standard rating requirements.

Racial Bias a Factor in Uber Transactions Like Tipping:

Many Uber drivers and the massive ride-share company itself, have made note of the racial bias that plays a part in certain aspects of the Uber transaction. One obvious aspect of the overall experience that can be affected is tipping. Overall ratings can also be affected, but they can also be challenged. This is especially true when user comments are being considered.

The class action lawsuit is expected to be heard soon in court.

If you need help with a workplace discrimination claim or other California Labor Code violation, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP today. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Cigna Faces Class Action Lawsuit Alleging Wage and Hour Violations

A California wage and hour class-action lawsuit alleges Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company failed to pay employees accurately. 

Did Cigna Fail to Provide Workers Minimum Wage and Overtime?

According to the wage and hour class action, Cigna violated numerous California Labor code provisions when they allegedly failed to provide accurate pay and overtime pay. California state law protects workers against employers who try to increase profits by underpaying their workers, requiring unpaid work (i.e., mandatory unpaid training, off-the-clock work, etc.), or failing to calculate overtime pay accurately. Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP filed the class action complaint (Case No. 283609) that is now pending in the Tulare Superior Court of the State of California. 

Cigna Allegedly Failed to Pay Minimum Wage & Overtime Wages

The class action complaint outlines multiple violations of California Labor Law: 

1. Failure to pay minimum wage

2. Failure to accurately record and provide employees with mandatory meal breaks and rest periods

3. Failure to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements

4. Failure to reimburse workers for required business expenses

5. Failure to provide wages to workers when due

Additional Allegations: Did Cigna Commit Acts of Unfair Competition? 

The Cigna class action also alleges that the health and life insurance company committed acts of unfair competition that violated California’s Unfair Competition Law. For example, according to the class action, the company allegedly held a company-wide policy and standard procedure that failed to accurately calculate and record the correct overtime pay rate for workers. As a direct result of inaccurate overtime pay calculation standards and processes in place at Cigna, the company also allegedly failed to provide accurate overtime pay to workers. 

What Happens When California Employers Violate Labor Law? 

Most California businesses are subject to several regulatory and legal requirements (Federal, state, and local levels). The labor law requirements are designed to protect America’s workers. The state of California takes employment laws seriously, even when complying with the law may be difficult for California employers, so violating labor law can result in severe consequences for California employers.                              

If you need help collecting unpaid overtime, or if you need to file a California overtime pay lawsuit, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Aldi, Inc. California Overtime Lawsuit Ends in Settlement?

Plaintiffs in a California class action lawsuit claim that a major grocery chain violated employment law. Aldi, Inc., the grocery store chain, offers to resolve the claims through settlement.  

Plaintiffs Allege California Grocery Store Failed to Pay Overtime: 

A recent California class action alleges Aldi, Inc. failed to pay employees for all hours worked. The original Plaintiff in the case, Jeree Grant, filed the class action claiming misclassification, failure to pay overtime, and failure to provide payment for all hours worked. According to Grant, Aldi employed her to work at one of their grocery stores from October 2017 to May 2018, but she did not receive payment for all the hours she worked. The California class action lawsuit listed other allegations under California labor code, including meal break violations, rest break violations, wage statement violations, etc. Aldi has a reputation for being brutally efficient amidst the competition in the California grocery store scene. They draw shoppers with low prices and a minimal $0.25 deposit for grocery cart rentals. Yet shoppers are not aware that a significant portion of the "discount" they enjoy is possible because Aldi management doesn't just keep a "tight" rein on labor costs – their grip far more than "tight." According to the lawsuit, management violates labor law to take advantage of their own workers, adding to their bottom line by taking from those who cannot afford the loss. 

Aldi Grocery Store, Defendant in California Class Action Lawsuit:  

The central claim in the Aldi class action is misclassification under California labor law. Other allegations under the California labor code regarding mandatory meal breaks, rest periods, and accurate wage statements follow from the lawsuit's central claim. While the allegations in the class action are fairly simple, the speedy resolution could indicate a more complicated story of worker abuse. Some suspect a widespread problem of systemic misclassification to treat hourly nonexempt workers as if they were managerial staff so the company can avoid paying overtime wages. 

Defendant Offers to Settle with Grocery Workers in Misclassification Case:  

Aldi, the grocery store facing the misclassification allegations, offered to settle with the class of potentially thousands of California workers. The company didn't waste time offering a $2 million settlement. 

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law applies to your workplace, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.