Amazon Faces Wrongful Death Allegations Over Snow Sled Sold Online

A wrongful death lawsuit against Amazon over a snow sled purchased through their online retail site was removed to California District Court. The plaintiff claims that the decedent suffered injuries and death after using a defective snow sled manufactured and sold by Amazon LLC.

The Case: Dahveed Kolodny-Nagy, et al. v. Amazon.com, LLC, et al.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 23A H CV 00 1 92

The Plaintiff: Dahveed Kolodny-Nagy, et al. v. Amazon.com, LLC, et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Dahveed Kolodny-Nagy, filed a lawsuit alleging wrongful death, personal injury, property damage, and product liability on behalf of himself and the Estate of Xiaoyan Kolodgy-Nagy. The plaintiff alleges the decedent suffered injury and death from using a defective snow sled manufactured by Amazon LLC and sold on their online retail site. According to the complaint, the damages were caused by one product, the Weanas 47inch Snow Sled for Kids and Adults Heavy Dute Inflatable Sledding Tube with 2 Higher Handles and Detachable Tow Rope, Blue (also referred to as Weanas 47” Snow Sled).

The Defendant: Dahveed Kolodny-Nagy, et al. v. Amazon.com, LLC, et al.

The defendant in the case, Amazon.com, LLC, et al., listed and sold the Weanas 47” snow sled, advertising it as a snow sled safe for use. However, the plaintiff claims that the product was unsafe due to improper warnings, improper instructions on using the sled, a defective design, and defective manufacturing of the product or its parts. The plaintiff specifically claims that the snow tube’s poor design meant users could not steer, and the product was not safe for use by multiple adults (without proper warnings or instructions regarding these specific limitations/dangers).

The Case: Dahveed Kolodny-Nagy, et al. v. Amazon.com, LLC, et al.

In the case of Dahveed Kolodny-Nagy et al. v. Amazon.com, LLC, et al., the plaintiffs claim that due to their use of the dangerous snow sled, their property was destroyed, and both suffered injuries. Before her death, decedent Xiaoyan Kolodny-Nagy suffered special and general damages, including (but not limited to) medical expenses, personal property damage, lost wages (due to injuries), physical pain, mental suffering, disfigurement, etc.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful death lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Allegedly Improper Wound Care Results in Wrongful Death Allegations

The children of a man who received at-home care filed a wrongful death lawsuit claiming the treatment significantly increased the patient’s risk of infection and death.

The Case: Barends v. Accentcare, Inc.

The Court: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas Philadelphia County

The Case No.: 230401540

The Plaintiff: Barends v. Accentcare, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Barends, is the daughter of the deceased Mr. Weller and the executor of his estate. Barends filed a wrongful death lawsuit on April 17, 2023, in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County, alleging malpractice. She brought the action for herself and her brother, Bruce Weller. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant was negligent in the care provided to their father, Richard Weller, resulting in additional injury and complications that caused or substantially increased his risk of harm, injury, infection, and death.

The Defendant: Barends v. Accentcare, Inc.

The defendants in the case, Accentcare Inc., Southeastern Health Services of Pennsylvania LLC, and others, face a wrongful death lawsuit filed in April 2023 in Pennsylvania Court. The plaintiff in the case accuses the defendant of medical malpractice leading to wrongful death. AccentCare owns and operates Southeastern Health Services of Pennsylvania LLC. The company provides on-site care to residents and home health, palliative, and hospice care to patients throughout Philadelphia County. Richard Weller was referred to the defendant for home health care services and supportive care in July 2021 for medical conditions and a pressure wound.

The Case: Barends v. Accentcare, Inc.

In Barends v. Accentcare, Inc., the plaintiff lays out the initial visit of the defendant’s health professional and the proposed care to be provided to Mr. Weller. The lawsuit outlines numerous claims of negligence in Mr. Weller’s care, including:

1. Failing to inform the patient of alternatives to the Foley catheter and failing to properly gain the patient’s consent to its use

2. Failing to make a reasonable effort to use less invasive methods before turning to the Foley catheter

3. Failing to accurately gauge the risk of the Foley catheter for a high-risk patient and failing to ensure the patient’s safety before placing the device

4. Failing to use the initially recommended and agreed upon external condom catheter for urinary control

5. Failing to obtain appropriate consultations/assistance in connection to the patient’s co-morbidities to ensure his safety

6. Improperly recommending and placing the Foley catheter

7. Misplacing/malpositioning the Foley catheter

8. Failing to maintain a sterile field during placement

9. Failing to properly insert and position the Foley catheter

10. Failing to use the proper technique to place and secure the catheter, fill the catheter balloon, check proper positioning, test the catheter’s function after insertion, secure the catheter in place to avoid dislodgment, monitor the catheter for proper function, inspect the catheter for malposition, provide proper training to home caregivers, keep proper records of placement and monitoring of catheter, and follow procedures and policies in place for patient safety

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful death lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wrongful death attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Byer California Faces Allegations of Labor Law Violations

In recent news, Byer California faces allegations of labor law violations.

The Case: Jonathan Moore v. Byer California

The Court: San Francisco County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: CGC-23-605878

The Plaintiff: Jonathan Moore v. Byer California

The plaintiff in the case, Jonathan Moore, was employed by Byer California from July 18, 2022 through November 16, 2022 as a nonexempt employee paid hourly. Moore claims that the company's standard policies and practices resulted in labor law violations during his time at the company. Moore filed a class action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated workers employed by Byer California during the class period (the period beginning four(4) years before the filing of Moore's complaint and ending on the date as determined by the Court).

The Defendant: Jonathan Moore v. Byer California

The defendant in the case, Byer California, supplies junior, misses, and girls' fashion for retail department stores, online stores, and specialty stores throughout California and the nation. A substantial amount of their business is conducted in the state of California. According to the plaintiff, the defendant in the case, Jonathan Moore v. Byer California, failed to fully compensate their employees under labor laws.

The Case: Jonathan Moore v. Byer California

The case, Jonathan Moore v. Byer California, hinges on Moore's classification as a nonexempt hourly employee. As such, he is entitled to legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages due for all time worked for his employer. According to the plaintiff, Jonathan Moore, the defendant regularly required workers to work during their off-duty meal breaks, allowed work assignments to interrupt employees' off-duty breaks, and employed a rounding system as a standard practice that benefitted the employer by rounding hours down, which allegedly resulted in employees receiving less pay than they would if the company paid their workers for actual time worked without the rounding system.

If you have questions about how to file a California class action overtime 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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Fedex Faces PAGA-Only Action, Alleging California Labor Code Violations

FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. faces allegations of California labor code violations in a recent PAGA-only action.

The Case: Tayler Ortiz-Dixon v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

The Court: San Bernardino County Superior Court

The Case No.: CIV-SB-2305596

The Plaintiff: Tayler Ortiz-Dixon v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

The plaintiff alleges that FedEx Ground failed to provide their employees with all the legally required meal and rest periods (or compensate them for missed meal and rest periods). Ortiz-Dixon filed the lawsuit alleging violations of numerous labor laws including: § 2699, et seq. §§ 201-203, 204 et seq., 210, 218, 221, 226(a), 226.7, 227.3, 510, 512, 558(a)(1)(2), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802. The California labow law suit seeks penalties for the defendants’ multiple alleged violations.

The Defendant: Tayler Ortiz-Dixon v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

The defendant in the case, FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., allegedly failed to fully relieve their workers (plaintiff and other similarly aggrieved employees) of the legally required 30-minute meal breaks. In addition, from time to time, FedEx also allegedly required workers to work more than four hours without providing them with the legally required ten-minute rest periods. “Off duty” rest periods are defined by the California Supreme Court as when an employee is relieved from all their work-related duties and not under their employer’s control.

The Case: Tayler Ortiz-Dixon v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

In the case, Tayler Ortiz-Dixon v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. is a PAGA-only action. PAGA is a mechanism California workers can use to enforce state labor laws as a proxy or agent of the state’s labor law enforcement agencies. A PAGA action is essentially a law enforcement action designed to protect the public, not for the benefit of private parties. PAGA actions enforce Labor Code with citizens deputized as private attorneys general and not as a means of recovering damages or restitution for a private party.

If you have questions about how to file a California employment law 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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Twitter Facing California Class Action Complaint Alleging Labor Law Violation

Another former Twitter employee recently filed a California labor complaint alleging that the social media platform giant violated labor law when they failed to give the required notice to employees before companywide layoffs.

The Case: Eitan Adler v. Twitter Inc. et al.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

The Case No.: 3:23-cv-01788

The Plaintiff: Eitan Adler v. Twitter Inc. et al.

The plaintiff in the case, Eitan Adler, is a former Twitter employee. The software engineer's LinkedIn profile indicates he worked full-time at Twitter for over 7 ½ years. Adler was laid off on November 15, 2022. According to the complaint, Adler did not receive 60 days of advance written notice (required by the federal and California WARN Act). Adler also claims he did not receive pay in place of the legally required notice. On top of that, Adler brings another claim under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") on behalf of California and other aggrieved California employees in similar situations. California's PAGA allows workers to sue on behalf of themselves, other workers, and the state for California labor law violations.

The Defendant: Eitan Adler v. Twitter Inc. et al.

The defendant in the case, Twitter, has dropped from approx. eight thousand employees to about 2,000 employees since the new owner, Musk, took over the business. According to Adler, Elon Musk's near-immediate mass layoff has affected more than half of Twitter's workforce. In addition, Twitter is facing five additional suits in the same San Francisco federal court with similar allegations that are currently pending, claiming Twitter targeted female workers in layoffs, discriminated against employees with disabilities, those who criticized the company, tried to organize strikes, etc.

The Case: Eitan Adler v. Twitter Inc. et al.

According to court documents, Eitan Adler v. Twitter Inc. et al., Twitter did not provide the necessary notice for companywide layoffs to Adler and other employees. However, Twitter did provide the required notice under federal and California WARN Acts to many employees affected by the mass layoffs. As of April 13, when Adler filed the complaint, 75% of Twitter's workforce had been laid off. While numerous other suits were filed, this lawsuit stands apart because Adler opted out of the arbitration agreement between Twitter and their workers, and he asserted PAGA claims.

If you have questions about how to file a California employment law class action complaint, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Farmers Group Victorious Against Age Discrimination Claims

A California jury sided with Farmers Group stating that California employment laws do not apply because the insurance agents filing discrimination claims are independent contractors.

The Case: James Melin et al. v. Farmers Group Inc. et al.

The Court: Alameda County Superior Court, California

The Case No.: RG19001677

The Plaintiff: James Melin et al. v. Farmers Group Inc. et al.

The plaintiffs in the case are former California-based insurance agents claiming that they were discriminated against for their age. The plaintiffs allege that Farmers Group fired them based on their age so they could replace them with younger, “more productive” workers. The plaintiffs’ attorneys presented evidence showing Farmers Group saved 440% on commissions by replacing established agents.

The Defendant: James Melin et al. v. Farmers Group Inc. et al.

The defendant in the case, Farmers Group Inc., argued that the insurance agents were independent contractors, not employees and that labor law did not apply to independent contractors. While the plaintiffs attempted to argue that Farmers Group imposed performance standards, office requirements, etc., that effectively “controlled” as they would an employee, the defendant argued that the evidence showed they were independent contractors:

• Farmers Group argued that the agents could not state what Farmers Group does

• I couldn’t identify their “sales managers.”

• Filed their own taxes

• Declared themselves sole proprietors or independent contractors to the IRS

• And dedicated their office equipment, supplies, etc., on their taxes as a sole proprietor/independent contractor would

The Case: James Melin et al. v. Farmers Group Inc. et al.

In the case, James Melin et al. v. Farmers Group Inc. et al., Farmers Group Inc. was cleared of discrimination and wrongful termination allegations. The eight-week trial was followed by two days of deliberations. Still, the former California-based insurance agents claiming the company discriminated against them for their age so they could replace them with younger workers had their claims dismissed when jurors determined the four plaintiffs were, in fact, independent contractors, so Farmers did not violate California labor law.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful termination or age discrimination 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 in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

California Class Action Alleges Marriot Owes Banquet Servers Tips

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Schulman tentatively found that Marriot owed banquet servers close to $9M.

The Case: John Ordono et al. v Marriott International Inc.

The Court: San Francisco County Superior Court

The Case No.: CGC-16-550454

The Plaintiff: John Ordono et al. v Marriott International Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case are two former banquet servers for the hotel and conference space, Marriott. During their busy season, the largest ballroom seats up to 5,000 people. The class action focuses on the time between January 2012 and April 2017 when Marriott added a mandatory service charge to customers’ food/beverage bills. From January 2012, the service charge was 23%. Marriott increased the charge to 24% from November 2015 through April 2017. During this five-year period, Marriott distributed 70-72% of the mandatory service charge to their banquet staff. They retained the remainder. Plaintiffs in the case allege this standard practice equates to the employer skimming between 30 and 28% of the total. The plaintiffs filed as a class action, and considering normal turnover, the class of servers is likely to total about 150 people.

The Defendant: John Ordono et al. v Marriott International Inc.

The defendant in the case, Marriott International Inc., revised the billing format to break the mandatory charge into a “staff charge” and a “house charge” in April 2017. The Ordono case only focuses on the period prior to this change, but those arguing on behalf of the plaintiffs find this change telling.

The Case: John Ordono et al. v Marriott International Inc.

In the case, John Ordono et al. v Marriott International Inc., the judge tentatively found that the plaintiffs were entitled to $8.97 million because a reasonable customer may assume the mandatory service charge is a gratuity that goes to their server. California Labor Code 351 states that tips or gratuities belong to the employee, and employers may not take them or deduct any portion of them from the worker’s pay.

If you have questions about how to file a California wage and hour lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wage and hour attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.