A judge tossed out Lumber Liquidators’ lawsuit on August 22, 2018. The court found the settlement agreement was adequate, reasonable, and fair for the Plaintiffs. The case is now dismissed. However, the judge did not dismiss it without a hearing, and there are many issues left to be resolved. Read on to learn more. This article will explain how the settlement agreement was reached and whether it is fair to plaintiffs.
The Lumber Liquidators workers claimed that the company misclassified them as managers and denied them overtime pay for nonmanagerial work.
On October 13, 2014, a federal magistrate judge granted conditional certification to the workers, allowing them to contact the 946 other workers denied overtime pay. On March 7, the plaintiffs requested the case be dismissed. The judge granted the Plaintiffs’ request. Despite the ruling, Lumber Liquidators continue to defend themselves against the lawsuit.
The lawsuit against Lumber Liquidators was settled after the company filed its answer in response to the class action complaint. Several of the companies have settled legal disputes in recent years. They are currently undergoing multi-district litigation in the Eastern District of Virginia. If the suit is dismissed, the company will be forced to settle the case with the Cabinets To Go owners. The Lumber Liquidators’ settlement with the plaintiffs will not prevent them from pursuing a rebuttal to the complaint in court.
The lawsuit was also dismissed because Lumber Liquidators used deceptive marketing tactics to conceal its unsafe products.
The company discredited the industry’s testing methods to disguise the risks of its products. It also offered free do-it-yourself air-testing kits to customers. These kits were not accurate and were a waste of time. Therefore, the plaintiffs’ class action lawsuit against Lumber Liquidators was denied.
The Lumber Liquidators lawsuit was filed in February and sought $6 million in damages. In the meantime, Sullivan’s F9 Properties LLC had recently increased its stake in the company’s stock. This move by the company prompted the plaintiffs to sell nearly $5 million worth of shares, which pushed the company’s share price even higher. A judge dismissed the case, thereby saving the investors from further litigation.
The Lumber Liquidators lawsuit was initially filed in the Northern District of California in 2014.
The plaintiffs alleged that the company sold defective Morning Star Bamboo. The class included Tammy Emery, Edwin Mendez, and Christopher Massaro. The complaint asserted a nationwide class of people with similar problems. The plaintiffs added additional plaintiffs, including John Foster, Laura Norris, and Christopher Massaro.
The lawsuit filed in December 2010 by Lumber Liquidators was dismissed. The plaintiffs’ Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint sought $14 million in damages. The company pleaded that the company had failed to provide these products and that they were not safe. In January, Taishan Gypsum and the Lumber Liquidators disputed the suit and said that the product was not suitable for sale in the United States.
In December 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended nationwide Class Action Complaint in the United States and added seven additional plaintiffs in California and New York.
The complaint asserted eight state sub-classes, and fourteen fact and expert depositions were taken. The court held the settlement as fair. Nonetheless, the Lumber Liquidators lawsuit was dismissed on March 8. This was due to the failure of the Plaintiffs to disclose relevant information to their employees.
The Lumber Liquidators lawsuit was filed in Henrico County Circuit Court on Nov. 26, 2010. On March 7, 2010, the company asked for a transfer and a stay to avoid the uncertainty and expense of litigation. The plaintiffs asked the court to appoint a mediator in the case to resolve the dispute between the parties. The settlement is finalized in the federal court. After the lawsuit was filed, the company is not required to pay damages.
The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in the Lumber Liquidators lawsuit.
They also objected to the Plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, which they claimed did not support the plaintiffs’ claims. The Court also rejected the company’s motion to transfer the case under FRCP 1404. Ultimately, the judge tossed both sides’ lawsuits. The settlement is a good outcome for the Plaintiffs. If the court dismisses Lumber Liquidators’ lawsuit, the judge will award them a $30,000 settlement.