Current Cases

Wage & Hour Cases (Unpaid Overtime, Employee Misclassification, Minimum Wage Violations)

Nelson et al v. Sabre Companies LLC

Overtime Pay for Operators at Sabre Energy. Field Operators at Sabre Energy have filed a class and collective action suit against Sabre Energy in the Northern District of New York. They allege that many weeks Sabre made them work long hours but did not pay them overtime. The Court has granted conditional certification, and you can learn more about this case at www.sabrewages.com.

Freeman et al v. MedStar Health Inc.

Missed Meal Breaks at MedStar Hospitals. Nurses and other hourly employees have filed a collective action suit against MedStar and several of its hospitals in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area, alleging that they were made to work through their meal breaks without compensation.

Dinkel et al v. MedStar Health Inc.

If you were a member of the decertified uniform maintenance collective action, you can take steps to assert your claims individually here.

Camara et al. v. Mastro's Restaurants LLC

Tip-sharing Between Servers and Non-Tipped Employees. Servers have filed a class and collective action against Mastro's Restaurants in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. They allege that Mastro's made them place approximately 42-45% of their tips into a "tip pool" that was to be shared with other employees who did not regularly interact with restaurant customers. You can learn more about this case here.

Whitfield et al. v. Trinity Restaurant Group LLC

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) violations. Servers have filed a collective action lawsuit against Trinity Restaurant Group in the Eastern District of Michigan. They allege that they spent more than 20% of their work time on non-tip producing work, while being paid sub-minimum wage, that mandatory meetings were unpaid, and that they were made to claim more in tips than they actually earned.

Thomas et al. v. Waste Pro USA Inc., Waste Pro of Florida Inc.

Overtime Pay for Waste Collection Workers at Waste Pro USA. Waste collection workers filed a collection action lawsuit against Waste Pro USA in the Middle District of Florida. They allege that Waste Pro USA violated the FLSA by failing to pay waste collection workers the legally required amount of overtime compensation in an amount required by law for all hours worked over forty in a workweek.

Buszta et al v. Quality Midwestern Holdings Inc, d/b/a Quality Services Moving ("QSM")

Unpaid Wages and Overtime Pay for Workers at QSM. Workers filed a class and collective action against QSM in the Eastern District of Virginia. They allege that they would regularly perform work for which QSM did not pay them wages, such as driving to job sites, returning moving trucks, and prepping the trucks for item delivery.

Massingale v. Liberty Oilfield Services LLC

Minimum Wage and Overtime Pay for Operators at Liberty Oilfield. Workers filed a class and collective action against Liberty Oilfield in the District Court for the District of Colorado. They allege that Liberty knowingly permitted its workers to work through meal breaks without properly compensating them for this work, or for overtime hours that workers routinely put in.

Product Defect Cases

In Re: JUUL Labs, Inc. Product Litigation:

Along with co-counsel, Migliaccio & Rathod LLP filed a class action lawsuit against JUUL on behalf of purchasers of JUUL e-cigarettes or JUUL pods since April 24, 2014. Plaintiffs allege JUUL engaged in false and deceptive sales, marketing, labeling, and advertising of JUUL e-cigarettes and JUUL pods. Although represented to consumers as an alternative to traditional cigarettes, Plaintiffs allege that JUUL’s nicotine salt formulation delivers an exceptionally potent dose of nicotine, rendering JUUL products even more addictive than traditional cigarettes. Plaintiffs allege that JUUL also poses serious health risks. Nicotine itself is a carcinogen, as well as a toxic chemical associated with cardiovascular, reproductive, and immunosuppressive problems; it adversely affects the heart, eyes, reproductive system, lung, and kidneys. Because vaping introduces foreign substances into the lungs, prolonged use of JUUL products may produce chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, just like traditional cigarette smoke. Vaping also triggers immune responses associated with inflammatory lung disease. In addition, plaintiffs contend JUUL specifically targeted young people with its advertising and marketing efforts in order to encourage JUUL use, driving today’s teen vaping epidemic – described by former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb as an “addiction crisis.”

Valsartan N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) Products Liability Litigation

Migliaccio & Rathod LLP and co-counsel have filed a lawsuit against Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceuticals and several other defendant pharmaceutical companies for manufacturing Valsartan, a generic blood pressure medication, contaminated with N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a known carcinogen. In July 2018, the FDA announced a recall of Valsartan medications due to the detection of NDMA. As such, plaintiffs contend they have suffered economic damages and are at a higher risk of developing cancer due to this contamination and the subsequent sale and marketing of the tainted Valsartan. Given their increased risk of developing serious medical conditions, plaintiffs also contend that they will require medical monitoring. Migliaccio & Rathod LLP serves on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in this multidistrict litigation (MDL), which seeks compensation for plaintiffs’ losses and injuries relating to defendants’ negligence, failure to exercise due care in the manufacturing, testing, distribution, labeling, and marketing of, warnings and disclosures about, and sale of Valsartan throughout the United States.

Auto Defect Cases (Safety Concerns, Defective Parts)

Weiss v. General Motors LLC

Defective Driveshafts in GM Trucks and SUVs.  A consumer represented by Migliaccio & Rathod LLP has brought a class action lawsuit on behalf of consumers against GM for vehicle shaking at highway speeds on trucks and SUVs. The defect, often referred to by consumers as the “Chevy Shake,” is that certain GM vehicles shake violently when they reach interstate cruising speeds. These defective drivelines were installed in all model year 2015 to present Cadillac Escalades, 2014 to present Chevrolet Silverados, 2015 to present Chevrolet Suburbans, 2015 to present Chevrolet Tahoes, 2014 to present GMC Sierras, and 2015 to present GMC Yukon/Yukon XLs sold or leased to consumers in the United States, including Plaintiff’s vehicle (the “Class Vehicles”). The root cause of the Chevy Shake is a defective drive shaft common to all Class Vehicles, also referred to by GM as a “propeller shaft” or “prop shaft,” which is part of the vehicle’s driveline. All Class Vehicles share the same defective condition of the driveline (and specifically the defective aluminum drive shaft) that GM failed to disclose to Plaintiff, consumers, and each Class Member. If your vehicle is experiencing the Chevy Shake, please fill out our online, confidential questionnaire here.

Hutchinson v. General Motors LLC

Defective Electronic Throttle Control and/or Accelerator Pedal Position Sensor. Plaintiff represented by Migliaccio & Rathod LLP has brought a class action lawsuit on behalf of 2016-2018 owners of the Chevy Malibu for experiencing a reduction of speed while on the road. The defect manifests with a significant and sudden reduction of speed accompanied by a "Reduced Engine Power" warning message on the dash. This is a major safety concern because drivers have reported that the defect can cause a loss of control or a rear end accident from vehicles following behind. Despite its knowledge, GM has failed to recall the inherently dangerous electronic throttle control and/or accelerator pedal position sensors or reimburse vehicle owners for the inevitable failure of this critical part. If your Chevy Malibu has displayed the "Engine Power Reduced" warning message, please complete our confidential, online questionnaire available here.

Hamilton v. American Honda Motor Company Inc.

Oil Dilution in 2015-2018 Honda Civics, CR-Vs and Accords with the 1.5L Turbo Engine. A consumer by Migliaccio & Rathod LLP has brought a class action lawsuit on behalf of consumers against Honda for oil dilution experienced with the 1.5L Turbo engines found in 2015-2018 Civics, CR-Vs, and Accords. The engines in the Class Vehicles suffer from an inherent latent defect that results in the engine oil becoming diluted with gasoline, which is known as fuel dilution. Due to the defect, gasoline gets into the crankcase, diluting the oil and reducing the oil's ability to protect and lubricate the engine, leading to premature engine wear, potential engine damage and ultimately potential engine failure. In addition, fuel dilution can lead to gasoline fumes seeping in to the passenger compartment. If your Honda vehicle has this problem, please complete our confidential, online questionnaire here.

Tomassini v. Chrysler Group, LLC,

Defective Valve Stems in Chrysler Tire Pressure Monitor Systems.  A consumer represented by Migliaccio & Rathod LLP has brought a class action lawsuit on behalf of consumers against Chrysler for faulty Tire Pressure Monitoring System (TPMS) sensor units. Plaintiffs maintain that TPMS units on certain Chrysler / Dodge / Jeep vehicles use an aluminum alloy valve stem assembly that is subject to corrosion and failure. Corrosion may be causing the aluminum alloy retaining nuts or valve stems (which secure the sensors to the inside of the wheel) to split or fail, causing sensors to loosen and fall into the tires, causing the tires, in turn, to suddenly deflate. Naturally, this is a very serious safety issue since rapid deflation at speed can lead to loss of vehicle control. As part of our ongoing investigation in these matters, we are looking for qualifying vehicles for our experts to inspect, including following vehicles manufactured after June 10, 2009: 2009 – 2011 Dodge Ram 1500 and 2500 trucks; 2009 – 2011 Chrysler and Dodge Minivans, including Caravan, Grand Caravan and Town & Country models; and 2009 – 2011 Dodge Journeys. The date of manufacture is listed on a placard on the chassis inside the driver’s side door. Please contact Nick Migliaccio at nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com if you own or lease one of these vehicles and believe you have a defective TPMS valve stem.

Brown v. Hyundai Motor America

Hyundai Engine Failure. This consumer class action arises from a latent defect found in model year 2011 through 2016 Hyundai ELantra cars with "Nu" 1.8-liter engines. Defects in the piston assemblies of the Nu 1.8L engines cause total and irreparable engine failure, the symptoms of which include a knocking noise from the engine while the car is warming up after being started and/or while driving. Once the fateful engine knock sound begins, the engine will inevitably fail completely, causing a loss of engine power, power steering and brake assistance which can lead to stalling while the vehicle is in motion and place the operator o the vehicle, and those that share the road with them, at risk of accident, injury, or death. Once the Piston Defect has manifested, the engine block has been damaged beyond repair. Therefore, the only fix is replacement of the engine, which can cost upwards of $10,000.

Miller et al v. Hyundai Motor America

Hyundai Brakes.  Migliaccio & Rathod LLP along with co-counsel, is currently litigating a case on behalf of model year 2006-2010 Hyundai Sontana owners against Hyundai Motor America. The suit alleges that premature wear and replacement is required due to a defect involving the brakes, which may involve defective parts and/or premature corrosion, and alleges that such repair or replacement should be covered by the warranty. It seeks reimbursement of the cost of repair and replacement of the rotors and/or calipers. In addition, there have been over 150 complaints relating to the rear brakes in the 2006-2010 Sonatas filed by consumers with the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration’s Office of Defects Investigation (NHTSA-ODI). These complaints indicate that owners have experienced problems with their rear brakes as early as 23,000 miles.

Haag v. Hyundai Motor of America

Hyundai Brakes.  Migliaccio & Rathod LLP along with co-counsel, is currently litigating a case on behalf of model year 2006-2010 Hyundai Sontana owners against Hyundai Motor America. The suit alleges that premature wear and replacement is required due to a defect involving the brakes, which may involve defective parts and/or premature corrosion, and alleges that such repair or replacement should be covered by the warranty. It seeks reimbursement of the cost of repair and replacement of the rotors and/or calipers. In addition, there have been over 150 complaints relating to the rear brakes in the 2006-2010 Sonatas filed by consumers with the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration’s Office of Defects Investigation (NHTSA-ODI). These complaints indicate that owners have experienced problems with their rear brakes as early as 23,000 miles.

Tech Cases (Defective Devices, Data Breaches, Privacy)

Dobson v. ZeniMax Media Inc.

This is a consumer class action against ZeniMax Media Inc., parent company of Bethesda Softworks LLC, for the unplayable state upon which Fallout 76 was released. Defendants, aware their self-described video “game-as-a-service” known as Fallout 76 was unfinished and unready for launch in November 2018, nevertheless engaged in a misleading marketing campaign  and implemented an unfair policy to maximize profits through the denial of refunds. Defendants’ greed-driven scheme is at the expense of California consumers, and in violation of applicable law.

Williams et al v. Apple, Inc.

This is a consumer class action alleging that Apple failed to disclose to Plaintiffs that Apple’s iPhone operating system (“iOS”) would materially degrade the operation of their iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, SE, 7, or 7 Plus models smartphones by reducing their processor speeds in certain circumstances, including when their non-user replaceable batteries lost storage capacity after multiple charge and discharge cycles. As detailed herein, Apple surreptitiously throttled the processor speeds of iPhones to mask the manifestation of sudden shutdowns that iPhones with degraded batteries were experiencing. Plaintiffs hereinafter refer to this surreptitious throttling – and its causes and impacts – as the  “throttling defect”.

Pena et al. v. British Airways, PLC (UK)

This is a consumer class action against British Airways for its failure to exercise reasonable care in securing and safeguarding its account holders’ Private Information, specifically their names, billing addresses, email addresses, and credit card information, including credit card numbers, expiry dates and CVV codes. On or about September 6, 2018, Plaintiff and Class members learned that commencing in or around August 2018, their Private Information was stolen from BA’s database storing Personal Information by hackers as a result of BA’s security failures.  Almost two months after announcement of the initial breach, British Airways announced that an internal investigation has revealed that the data breach was far greater than originally believed.

Bendetowies et al. v. Facebook, Inc.

This is a consumer class action against Facebook for its failure to exercise reasonable care in securing and safeguarding its account holders’ Private Information. Facebook operates a social networking platform where its users provide their Private Information to Facebook under the belief and agreement that Facebook will safeguard that information, and that Facebook will share the information only with the persons, entities, and groups with whom the user consents. This information includes, without limitation, users’ names, emails, addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, credit card numbers, private messages, locations, education, work history and photographs. On information and belief, Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ PI was stolen by hackers as a result of Facebook’s security failures. Facebook’s security failures exposed Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ Private Information to a massive security breach affecting approximately 50 million Facebook users. The failures put Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ personal and financial information and interests at serious, immediate, and ongoing risk. If you have been affected by this breach, please complete our online, confidential questionnaire here.

In Re: Intel Corp. CPU Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation

In January 2018, it was publicly revealed for the first time that Defendant Intel’s processors (also known as chips or central processing units), have significant security vulnerabilities. A CPU is the “brain” in every computer and mobile device and processes all of the essential applications, including the handling of confidential information such as passwords and encryption keys. Maintaining the security of confidential information is a fundamental function of all CPUs. The attacks identified in 2018, dubbed “Meltdown,” “Spectre,” and “Foreshadow,” exploited defects in Intel’s CPU design. More specifically, when Intel’s processors engaged in speculative execution, the processors made information, which should have remained secure and inaccessible to unauthorized use, accessible in the processors’ unsecured cache subsystem. In so doing, Intel’s processors created a vast security vulnerability that could be accessed through a number of different exploits. The Defects that allow these attacks are the direct result of Intel’s knowing decision to sacrifice security in favor of speed in its ongoing competition with rivals such as AMD.

Sprowl et al. v. Marriot International, Inc.

Plaintiffs bring this action against Marriott for failure to secure and safeguard their information including their names, birthdates, addresses, locations, email addresses, payment card information and passport information, including passport numbers, collectively referred to herein as Personally Identifiable Information that Marriott required customers to provide when they made reservations, checked-in to hotels, used one of its loyalty programs, or made purchases at dining or retail operations within its hotels. Marriott also failed to adequately notify Plaintiffs and Class members in a timely manner that their PII had been stolen. On November 30, 2018, Marriott announced that it had experienced a data breach due to a flaw in Marriott’s reservation system and database systems dating back to 2014, which allowed hackers to access the guest reservation system and steal the PII of up to 500 million guests. For approximately 327 million of these guests, the information includes some combination of name, mailing address, phone number, email address, passport number, Starwood Preferred Guest account information, date of birth, gender, arrival and departure information, reservation date, and communication preferences. For some, the information also includes payment card numbers and payment card expiration dates.

Beture et al. v. Samsung Electronics America

This consumer class action is brought by Plaintiffs who allege that Samsung concealed a known material defect in Samsung Galaxy Note 4 and Galaxy Note 4 Edge smartphones that it designed, manufactured, marketed, sold, and distributed to its customers. The defective component is the eMMC (embedded MultiMediaCard) memory, which prematurely fails, rendering Galaxy Note smartphones inoperable. Once this defect manifests, the phone will frequently freeze, restart and fail to boot, and ultimately become inoperable. Many Note 4 owners are using the "Wake Lock" app as a temporary band-aid fix, which appears to forestall the complete failure of the eMMC memory, at the expense of additional battery usage. The only solution to the eMMC memory defect is a motherboard replacement.

Civil Rights Cases

Hill v. County of Montgomery, New York:

Migliaccio & Rathod LLP represents individuals placed into custody of Montgomery County Jail who have been denied adequate food and nutrition. Plaintiffs have suffered symptoms of malnutrition and scurvy, including severe weight loss, hair loss, skin rashes and other debilitating symptoms. Among many violations, this treatment goes against the Eighth Amendment, which protects citizens from cruel and unusual punishments.

McDonald v. Franklin County, Ohio:

Along with co-counsel, Migliaccio & Rathod LLP represents a class of female inmates that underwent unconstitutional documentation of tattoos in their private areas. These women were admitted for failure to pay fines, city code violations, traffic infractions, and other minor crimes. The constitution demands that the need for a search and seizure be balanced against the invasion of one’s personal liberties. Given the minor violations these individuals were detained for, Migliaccio & Rathod LLP asserts Franklin County violated their Fourth Amendment rights, which protect citizens against such unreasonable searches and seizures – such as unreasonable photographic documentation, in this case.

Smith v. Franklin County, Ohio:

Migliaccio & Rathod LLP and co-counsel have brought a class action against Franklin County for denying pre-arraignment misdemeanor detainees an opportunity to post bail before being subjected to the indignities of a strip search and being unnecessarily incarcerated for several hours. Migliaccio & Rathod LLP maintains Franklin County has violated the due process rights, as safeguarded by the U.S. Constitution, of tens of thousands of individuals who were presumptively entitled to the right to post bail.

Russo v. Allegheny County, New York:

Co-counsel and Migliaccio & Rathod LLP have brought a case against Allegheny County, New York for violating detainees’ constitutional right to privacy. Specifically, during the booking process at the Allegheny County Jail, detainees are forced to detail their medical history and medical conditions while being placed in the same room as other detainees.  Under the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections of privacy, a citizen has the right to avoid disclosure of his or her personal matters, including the disclosure of medical records and health conditions. Therefore, Migliaccio & Rathod LLP contends Allegheny County has violated thousands of detainees’ constitutional right to privacy by requiring them to detail protected health information while being within earshot of other detainees.

Vasquez v. Libre by Nexus, Inc.

This is a civil class action seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief against Libre by Nexis, a bond financing company, for exploiting Spanish-speaking migrant detainees with crushing financial terms and GPS shackles in exchange for its “service” of arranging for a third party to post bond. Contrary to its marketing representations, Migliaccio & Rathod LLP and co-counsel allege Libre by Nexis is not in the business of helping as a neutral advisor for families who would like to get a loved one out of immigration detention. Instead,  Libre by Nexus is in the business of leasing GPS trackers under false pretenses to vulnerable detainees.

Facebooktwitterlinkedin