porzio, bromberg & newman, p.c. - truth in advertising · 2016-08-19 · blane friest,...

69
 1  3422739  PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. 100 Southgate Parkway Morristown, NJ 07962-1997 (973) 538-4006 Attorneys for Defendants Luxottica Retail North America Inc. Luxottica Group SpA Luxottica USA LLC and The United States Shoe Corp. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA GROUP SpA., LUXOTTICA USA, LLC, LUXOTTICA RETAIL NORTH AMERICA, INC., THE UNITED STATES SHOE CORP. t/a LENSCRAFTERS and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND ABC CORPS 6-10, Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. _______________ DEFENDANTS LUXOTTICA RETAIL NORTH AMERICA INC. AND LUXOTTICA GROUP S.p.A.’s NOTICE OF REMOVAL Document Electronically Filed Via ECF System  TO: William T. Walsh, Clerk United States District Court Mitchell H. Cohen U.S. Courthouse 1 John F. Gerry Plaza Camden, NJ 08101  WITH NOTICE TO: Clerk, Superior Court of New Jersey Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court 50 West Market Street Room 131 Newark, NJ 07102 Bruce H. Nagel, Esq. Nagel Rice, LLP 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Attorney for Plaintiff Blane Friest Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 1

Upload: others

Post on 04-Jul-2020

0 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

 

1  3422739 

 

PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. 100 Southgate Parkway Morristown, NJ 07962-1997 (973) 538-4006 Attorneys for Defendants Luxottica Retail North America Inc. Luxottica Group SpA Luxottica USA LLC and The United States Shoe Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA GROUP SpA., LUXOTTICA USA, LLC, LUXOTTICA RETAIL NORTH AMERICA, INC., THE UNITED STATES SHOE CORP. t/a LENSCRAFTERS and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND ABC CORPS 6-10,

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. _______________

DEFENDANTS LUXOTTICA RETAIL NORTH AMERICA INC. AND LUXOTTICA GROUP S.p.A.’s

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Document Electronically Filed Via ECF System

 

TO: William T. Walsh, Clerk United States District Court Mitchell H. Cohen U.S. Courthouse 1 John F. Gerry Plaza Camden, NJ 08101  

WITH NOTICE TO: Clerk, Superior Court of New Jersey Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court 50 West Market Street Room 131 Newark, NJ 07102

Bruce H. Nagel, Esq. Nagel Rice, LLP 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Attorney for Plaintiff Blane Friest

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 1

Page 2: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

 

2  3422739 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defendants, Luxottica Retail North America Inc. and

Luxottica Group S.p.A. (“Defendants”), by and through its attorneys, Porzio, Bromberg &

Newman PC, hereby removes the above-captioned action from the Superior court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Essex County, to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1332(d)(2), 1441, 1446, and 1453.

I. COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION AND SERVICE OF PROCESS

1. On or about April 22, 2016, plaintiff Blane Friest (“Plaintiff”) commenced this

putative class action against Luxottica Retail North America Inc. (“LRNA”), Luxottica Group

S.p.A. (“Luxottica Group”), Luxottica USA LLC (“Luxottica USA”) and The United States Shoe

Corp. (“US Shoe”)1 by filing a Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand (the “Complaint”) in

the Superior court of the State of New Jersey, Essex County, which was assigned docket no. L–

2882–16.

2. On May 10, 2016, a process server delivered the Complaint and summonses

addressed to LRNA and Luxottica Group at LRNA’s corporate headquarters.2 (See Affidavits of

Service obtained from Plaintiff’s counsel, attached hereto as Exh. “A”). This notice is therefore

timely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1446(b).3 As required by 28 U.S.C. §1446(a), true and correct

copies of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon LRNA and Luxottica Group are attached

hereto as Exh. “B”.

                                                            1 Three of the Defendants were improperly denominated in the Complaint: LRNA as “Luxottica Retail North America, Inc.”; Luxottica Group as “Luxottica Group SpA”; and Luxottica USA as “Luxottica USA, LLC”. Based upon the allegations in the Complaint, only LRNA, which operates LensCrafters, is a proper party to this action. 2 As of this date, service has not been received on Luxottica USA and US Shoe. 3 By filing this Notice of Removal, Defendants do not waive any objections to defects in process, service of process, jurisdiction, venue or any other defense.

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 2 of 11 PageID: 2

Page 3: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

 

3  3422739 

II. SATISFACTION OF PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

3. As more fully set forth below, this case is being properly removed to the United

States District Court for the District of New Jersey pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1441 because

Defendant has satisfied the procedural requirements for removal and this Court has subject

matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332.

4. This Notice of Removal is timely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1446(b)(2)(B) because it

is being filed within thirty days of Defendant’s receipt of Plaintiff’s initial pleading.

5. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1446(d), a copy of this Notice of Removal along with a

Notice of Filing the Notice of Removal is being served on counsel for Plaintiff and a copy is

being filed with the Clerk of the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex

County.

6. Venue is proper within the District of New Jersey pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §110 and

28 U.S.C. §1441 because it is the district and division embracing the place where such action is

currently pending.

7. This Notice of Removal is signed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1446(a).

8. No other Defendants are required to consent to this removal. 28 U.S.C. §1453(b).

III. ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT

9. The Complaint alleges that Defendants, through their affiliates and subsidiaries,

including LensCrafters, “the retail eyewear outlet store having 30 separate location in New

Jersey” violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. §56:8-1 et. seq. (“CFA”), the

New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, N.J.S.A. §56:12-15

(“TCCWNA”), and the New Jersey Antitrust Act, N.J.S.A. 56:9-3 (“Antitrust Act”), by engaging

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 3 of 11 PageID: 3

Page 4: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

 

4  3422739 

in a policy and practice of refusing to provide customers with their pupillary distance

measurement in order to preclude them from obtaining eyewear through competitors in

contravention of the rules and regulations of the New Jersey State Board of Ophthalmic

Dispensers and Technicians. (Complaint, Exh. B at ¶¶’s 1-4).

10. Plaintiff further alleges that LensCrafters’ website, by failing to disclose this

policy, “constitutes a misleading communication” in violation of regulations governing

ophthalmic dispensers, and thus is “false advertising” under the CFA. (Id.at ¶5). Additionally,

LensCrafters allegedly violates related regulations by suggesting that technicians who measure

the pupillary distance are optometrists and that this measurement constitutes part of the “eye

exam” from an optometrist. (Id.at ¶6). By disseminating these “misleading and deceptive

advertisements” on the Internet, LensCrafters allegedly violates TCCWNA. (Id.at ¶7). Lastly,

LensCrafters’ conduct allegedly “constitutes an anti-competitive activity” designed to “enhance

its pricing power and further consolidate its market share to the detriment of competition and at

the expense of consumers….” (Id. at ¶8).

11. Plaintiff seeks to certify a class consisting of “[a]ll individuals who purchased

prescription eyewear at a LensCrafters in New Jersey within the past six years who did not

receive their pupillary distance when they requested it.” (Id.at ¶25).

12. The Complaint seeks compensatory and consequential damages, treble damages,

statutory attorney’s fees and costs of suit, and injunctive relief under the CFA (Id. ¶¶’s 53, 63 &

79); compensatory and consequential damages, statutory damages of “‘not less than $100.00 or

for actual damages, or both,’” attorney’s fees and costs of suit under TCCWNA (Id.at ¶85); and

compensatory and consequential damages, treble damages, statutory attorney’s fees and costs of

suit, and injunctive relief under the Antitrust Act (Id.at ¶¶’s 96 &106).

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 4 of 11 PageID: 4

Page 5: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

 

5  3422739 

IV. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

13. This Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to the Class Action Fairness

Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), codified in various statutory sections including 28 U.S.C. §1332(d), and

this case is subject to removal under CAFA.

14. Under CAFA, a putative class action may be removed where (a) any member of a

class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant (b) the putative class

consists of more than 100 members; and (c) the amount in controversy is $5,000,000 or more,

when the claims of putative class members are aggregated (exclusive of interests and costs). See

28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).

15. The Complaint meets the CAFA definition of a class action, which is “any civil

action filed under rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or similar State

statue…authorizing an action to be brought by 1 or more representative persons as a class

action.” 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(1)(B); 28 U.S.C. §1453(a), (b).

A. Minimum Diversity Exists Between the Parties

16. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the State of New

Jersey, and lists his address as 68 Astor Place, Jersey City, NJ 07304. (Complaint, Exh. B at

¶11).

17. Plaintiff further alleges that LRNA is an Ohio Corporation maintaining its

principal place of business at 4000 Luxottica Place, Mason Ohio 45050. (Id.at ¶14). The

Complaint alleges that Luxottica Group is an Italian corporation with its principal place of

business in Milan and an office at the above-referenced location. (Id.at ¶12). Plaintiff also

alleges that Luxottica USA is a subsidiary of the Italian entity and has a principal place of

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 5 of 11 PageID: 5

Page 6: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

 

6  3422739 

business at 44 Harbor Park Drive, Port Washington, New York 11050.4 (Id.at ¶13). Lastly, the

Complaint avers that US Shoe is an Ohio Corporation with its principal place of business at One

Eastwood Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45227,5 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Italian entity,

and “the parent company of one or more of the other Defendants….” (Id.at ¶15). Thus, for

purposes of removal, as alleged, Luxottica Group is an Italian citizen, Luxottica USA is a New

York citizen and the remaining defendants are citizens of Ohio. See 28 U.S.C. §1332(c)(1).

18. Plaintiff is a citizen of New Jersey, is therefore diverse from not only one, but all

Defendants. 28 U.S.C. §1332(d).

B. The Proposed Class Consists of More Than 100 Persons

19. The Complaint alleges that LensCrafters has 30 stores in New Jersey where

customers can “obtain on-site eye-exams and purchase their prescription eyewear.” (Complaint,

Exh. B at ¶16).

20. Plaintiff seeks to certify a class consisting of “[a]ll individuals who purchased

prescription eyewear at a LensCrafters in New Jersey within the past six years who did not

receive their pupillary distance when they requested it.” (Id.at ¶25).

21. The Complaint alleges that the “members of the class are so numerous that

joinder of all members is impracticable.” (Id.at ¶26).

22. During the putative class period, LensCrafters sold prescription eyewear to more

than 100 customers each month at LensCrafters locations in New Jersey. (See Declaration of

Scott Messbarger, Vice-President, Finance, LensCrafters (“Messbarger Decl.”), ¶5, Exh. “C”

attached hereto). In each full year of the class period, LensCrafters sold more than 50,000

prescription eyeglasses in New Jersey. Without conceding the validity of Plaintiff’s assertions,

                                                            4 The correct street address for Luxottica USA is 12 Harbor Park Drive. 5 US Shoe’s actual headquarters is located at 12 Harbor Park Drive, Port Washington, NY 11050.

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 6 of 11 PageID: 6

Page 7: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

 

7  3422739 

these purchases represent tens of thousands of New Jersey customers, all of whom could be

potential class members, according to the allegations in the Complaint. (Id.) If only 0.2% of

these eyeglasses were purchased by customers who were refused their pupillary distance

measurement, the proposed class would exceed 100 persons. 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(5)(B).

C. The Aggregate Amount-in-Controversy Exceeds $5,000,000

23. The claims of the individual class members in a class action are aggregated to

determine if the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000. 28 U.S.C.

§1332(d)(2) & (d)(6). The notice of removal need only contain a plausible allegation that the

amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdiction threshold. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co.,

LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 553 (2014). “Where there is no dollar amount alleged in the

complaint and the action is in federal court by notice of removal . . . The Court first looks to the

complaint, and then to the moving papers, and then to anything else.” Faltaous v. Johnson and

Johnson, 2007 WL 3256833, Civ. Action No. 07-1572 (D.N.J. Nov. 2007)(citing United Food &

Comm. Workers Union v. CenterMark Properties Meriden Square Inc., 30 F.3d 298, 305 (2d Cir.

1994).

24. The Complaint seeks compensatory and consequential damages, treble damages,

and attorney’s fees under the CFA (Complaint, Exh. B, ¶¶’s 53, 63 & 79); compensatory and

consequential damages, statutory damages of “‘not less than $100.00 or for actual damages, or

both,’” and attorney’s fees under TCCWNA (Id.at ¶85); and compensatory and consequential

damages, treble damages, and attorney’s fees under the Antitrust Act (Id.at ¶¶’s 96 &106).

25. Without conceding the validity of Plaintiff’s claims, assuming that there are

50,000 customers who purchase eyeglasses from LensCrafters in New Jersey each year, and that

only 17% of them viewed the allegedly “misleading communications” on LensCrafters’ website

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 7 of 11 PageID: 7

Page 8: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

 

8  3422739 

during each of the 6 years of the class period, and that each customer could claim TCCWNA

damages of $100, the aggregated total would exceed $5,000,000 [8,500 customers (50,000

customers x 17%) x $100 damages x 6 years = $5,100,000]. See Slack v. Suburban Propane

Partners, L.P., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135530 (D.N.J. Dec. 22, 2010)(“any person who violates

the TCCWNA is liable for a $100 civil penalty or actual damages, at the election of the

consumer”).

26. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants’ policy of refusing to disclose the pupillary

distance measurement “induces customers to purchase additional pairs of eyeglasses from

Defendants….” (Id. at ¶49). LRNA’s net sales from ophthalmic products greatly exceeded

$20,000,000 in each of the six years in issue in this litigation (Messbarger Decl. ¶5). Without

admitting plaintiff’s allegations – and assuming that restitution of the purchase price represents a

proper measure of damages under the CFA, TCCWNA or the Antitrust Act – if only 4.2% of

LensCrafters’ minimum annual sales of $20,000,000 represented purchases by customers who

were denied their pupillary distance measurement and were “induced” to purchase an additional

pair of eyeglasses as a result, damages would exceed the jurisdictional threshold during the class

period [$20,000,000 annual sales x 4.2% = $840,000 in damages x 6 years = $5,040,000].

27. The potential award of treble damages and attorney’s fees provides additional

evidence that the amount-in-controversy threshold will likely be exceeded here. Attorney’s fees

are appropriately counted toward the amount in controversy if they are available to a successful

plaintiff pursuant to an underlying statute. Suber v. Chrysler Corp., 104 F.3d 578, 585 (3d Cir.

1997). This applies to cases removed under CAFA. See Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank National

Assoc., 479 F.3d 994, 1000 (9th Cir. 2007); Frazier v. Pioneer Americas, LLC, 455 F.3d 542 (5th

Cir. 2006).

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 8 of 11 PageID: 8

Page 9: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

 

9  3422739 

28. Under the CFA, a court shall “award threefold the damages” to any person who

suffers any ascertainable loss as a result of any unlawful practice, as well as “reasonable

attorney’s fees, filing fees and reasonable costs of suit.” N.J.S.A. 56:8-19. These potential CFA

awards must be taken into account when determining the amount in controversy. See, e.g.,

Frederico v. Home Depot, Inc., 507 F.3d 188, 197-99 (3d Cir. 2007). Moreover, attorney’s fees

could be “as much as 30% of the judgment.” Id. at 199 (citations omitted).

29. Attorney’s fees and costs of suit are also recoverable under TCCWNA, N.J.S.A.

56:6-17. Because this statute also provides for an award of “reasonable attorney’s fees and

court costs,” which could potentially be 27-30% of the judgment, the amount in controversy

based only on this statute, as calculated above, exceeds $5 million. See In re Rite Aid Corp. Sec.

Litig., 396 F.3d 294, 303 (3d Cir. 2005), as amended (Feb. 25, 2005).

30. Lastly, the Antitrust Act also provides for treble damages, N.J.S.A. 56:9-6 and an

award of attorney’s fee to a prevailing party. N.J.S.A. 56:9-10 b.

31. In sum, based on the allegations in the Complaint, the potential for an award to

the class of damages exceeding $5,000,000, even before trebling or a reasonable and

proportionate award of attorney’s fees, is plausibly established.

D. No CAFA Exclusion Applies

32. This action does not fall within any exclusions to removal jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. 28 1332(d) and 1453(b).

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 9 of 11 PageID: 9

Page 10: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

 

10  3422739 

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully removes this action from the Superior Court of

the State of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, to the United States District Court for the

District of New Jersey pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, 1446 and 1453.

PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN P.C. 100 Southgate Pkwy., PO Box 1997 Morristown, NJ 07962-1997 (973) 538-4006 (973) 538-5146 Fax [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants Luxottica Retail North America Inc. Luxottica Group SpA Luxottica USA LLC and The United States Shoe Corp. By: s/ Steven P. Benenson

Date: June 8, 2016 Steven P. Benenson An Attorney of the Firm

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 10 of 11 PageID: 10

Page 11: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

 

11  3422739 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this date, I caused to be mailed via Lawyers Service a Notice to

Adverse Party of Filing of Notice of Removal enclosing a copy of the foregoing Notice of

Removal and exhibits thereto, as well as a copy of a Notice to Clerk of the Superior Court of

Filing of Notice of Removal, to the following counsel for plaintiff:

Bruce H. Nagel, Esq. Nagel Rice, LLP 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Attorney for Plaintiff Blane Friest

I further certify that on this date, I caused to be mailed via Lawyers Service a Notice to

Clerk of the Superior Court of Filing of Notice of Removal, to:

Clerk, Superior Court of New Jersey Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court 50 West Market Street Room 131 Newark, NJ 07102

s/ Steven P. Benenson Date: June 8, 2016 Steven P. Benenson

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 11 of 11 PageID: 11

Page 12: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 1 of 56 PageID: 12

Page 13: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 2 of 56 PageID: 13

Page 14: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 3 of 56 PageID: 14

Page 15: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT B

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 4 of 56 PageID: 15

Page 16: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 5 of 56 PageID: 16

Page 17: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 6 of 56 PageID: 17

Page 18: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 7 of 56 PageID: 18

Page 19: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 8 of 56 PageID: 19

Page 20: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 9 of 56 PageID: 20

Page 21: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 10 of 56 PageID: 21

Page 22: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 11 of 56 PageID: 22

Page 23: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 12 of 56 PageID: 23

Page 24: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 13 of 56 PageID: 24

Page 25: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 14 of 56 PageID: 25

Page 26: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 15 of 56 PageID: 26

Page 27: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 16 of 56 PageID: 27

Page 28: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 17 of 56 PageID: 28

Page 29: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 18 of 56 PageID: 29

Page 30: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 19 of 56 PageID: 30

Page 31: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 20 of 56 PageID: 31

Page 32: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 21 of 56 PageID: 32

Page 33: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 22 of 56 PageID: 33

Page 34: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 23 of 56 PageID: 34

Page 35: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 24 of 56 PageID: 35

Page 36: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 25 of 56 PageID: 36

Page 37: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 26 of 56 PageID: 37

Page 38: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 27 of 56 PageID: 38

Page 39: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 28 of 56 PageID: 39

Page 40: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 29 of 56 PageID: 40

Page 41: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 30 of 56 PageID: 41

Page 42: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 31 of 56 PageID: 42

Page 43: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 32 of 56 PageID: 43

Page 44: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 33 of 56 PageID: 44

Page 45: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 34 of 56 PageID: 45

Page 46: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 35 of 56 PageID: 46

Page 47: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 36 of 56 PageID: 47

Page 48: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 37 of 56 PageID: 48

Page 49: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 38 of 56 PageID: 49

Page 50: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 39 of 56 PageID: 50

Page 51: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 40 of 56 PageID: 51

Page 52: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 41 of 56 PageID: 52

Page 53: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 42 of 56 PageID: 53

Page 54: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 43 of 56 PageID: 54

Page 55: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 44 of 56 PageID: 55

Page 56: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 45 of 56 PageID: 56

Page 57: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 46 of 56 PageID: 57

Page 58: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 47 of 56 PageID: 58

Page 59: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 48 of 56 PageID: 59

Page 60: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 49 of 56 PageID: 60

Page 61: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 50 of 56 PageID: 61

Page 62: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 51 of 56 PageID: 62

Page 63: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 52 of 56 PageID: 63

Page 64: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 53 of 56 PageID: 64

Page 65: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

EXHIBIT C

EXHIBIT C

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 54 of 56 PageID: 65

Page 66: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 55 of 56 PageID: 66

Page 67: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-1 Filed 06/08/16 Page 56 of 56 PageID: 67

Page 68: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

 

 3423397 

JS 44 (Rev. 12/12) 

              CIVIL COVER SHEET The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet.  (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) 

I. (a)   PLAINTIFFS BLANE FRIEST 

DEFENDANTSLUXOTTICA RETAIL NORTH AMERICA INC., LUXOTTICA GROUP S.p.A., LUXOTTICA USA, LLC., THE UNITED STATES SHOE CORP., et al.. 

   (b)   County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff  Hudson County, New Jersey County of Residence of First Listed Defendant  Principal place of business:Mason, Ohio 

    (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)  (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)   (c)    Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Bruce H. Nagel, Esq. NAGEL RICE, LLP 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 (973) 618‐0400 

NOTE:   IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF        THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. 

Attorneys (If Known)Steven  P. Benenson, Esq. Porzio, Bromberg & Newman P.C. 100 Southgate Parkway  Morristown, NJ 07962 (973) 538‐4006 

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION  (Place an “X” in One Box Only)  

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES    (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff)        (For Diversity Cases Only)                    and One Box for Defendant) 

1 U.S. Government          Plaintiff 

 3 Federal Question            (U.S. Government Not a Party) 

PTF     DEF

    Citizen of This State    1       1 

    PTF      DEF

Incorporated or Principal Place       4      4     of Business In This State 

 2 U.S. Government           Defendant 

 4 Diversity          (Indicate Citizenship of Parties           in Item III) 

    Citizen of Another State   2       2  Incorporated and Principal Place       5      5    of Business In Another State 

       Citizen or Subject of a 3      3        Foreign Country 

Foreign Nation     6     6

IV.  NATURE OF SUIT  (Place an “X” in One Box Only) 

CONTRACT  TORTS  FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY  OTHER STATUTES  110  Insurance   120  Marine   130  Miller Act   140  Negotiable Instrument   150  Recovery of Overpayment 

& Enforcement of Judgment 

  151  Medicare Act   152  Recovery of Defaulted 

  Student Loans   (Excludes Veterans) 

  153  Recovery of Overpayment of Veteran’s Benefits 

  160  Stockholders’ Suits   190   Other Contract   195  Contract Product Liability   196  Franchise 

PERSONAL INJURY  PERSONAL INJURY    625 Drug Related Seizure           of Property 21 USC 881   690 Other 

 

  422 Appeal 28 USC 158    375 False Claims Act   400 State Reapportionment   410 Antitrust   430 Banks and Banking   450 Commerce   460  Deportation   470  Racketeer Influenced and 

                 Corrupt Organizations   480  Consumer Credit   490  Cable/Sat TV   850 Securities/Commodities/ 

                Exchange   890  Other Statutory Actions   891  Agricultural Acts   893  Environmental Matters   895  Freedom of  Information 

Act   896 Arbitration   899 Administrative Procedure 

Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision 

  950  Constitutionality of  State Statutes 

  310  Airplane   315  Airplane Product 

                Liability   320  Assault, Libel & 

                Slander   330  Federal Employers’ 

  Liability   340  Marine   345  Marine Product 

                Liability   350  Motor Vehicle   355  Motor Vehicle 

  Product Liability   360  Other Personal Injury   362  Personal Injury – 

  Medical Malpractice 

  365  Personal Injury – Product Liability 

  367  Health Care/   Pharmaceutical 

Personal Injury Product Liability 

  368  Asbestos Personal   Injury Product  

Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 

  370  Other Fraud   371  Truth in Lending   380  Other Personal 

 Property Damage   385  Property Damage 

 Product Liability  

  423 Withdrawal          28 USC 157 

PROPERTY RIGHTS   820  Copyrights   830  Patent   840  Trademark 

SOCIAL SECURITY 

LABOR   861  HIA (1395ff)   862  Black Lung (923)   863  DIWC/DIWW (405(g))   864  SSID Title XVI   865  RSI (405(g)) 

  710  Fair Labor Standards                 Act 

  720  Labor/Management. Relations 

  740  Railway Labor Act   751  Family and Medical Leave 

Act   790  Other Labor Litigation   791  Employee Retirement 

  Income Security Act 

REAL PROPERTY  CIVIL RIGHTS  PRISONER PETITIONS  FEDERAL TAX SUITS 

  210  Land Condemnation   220  Foreclosure   230  Rent Lease & Ejectment   240  Torts to Land   245  Tort Product Liability   290 All Other Real Property 

  440 Other Civil Rights   441 Voting   442 Employment    443 Housing/ 

Accommodations   445 Amer. v/Disabilities – 

Employment   446 Amer. w/Disabilities – 

Other   448 Education 

       Habeas Corpus:   463  Alien Detainee   510 Motions to Vacate 

                Sentence   530  General   535  Death Penalty 

     Other:   540  Mandamus & Other   550  Civil Rights   555  Prison Condition   560  Civil Detainee – 

Conditions of Confinement 

  870  Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff           or Defendant)    871  IRS–Third Party 

               26 USC 7609 IMMIGRATION  

  462  Naturalization  Application   465  Other Immigration  

                 Actions     

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)  1  Original 

           Proceeding  2   Removed from 

            State Court  3  Remanded from 

           Appellate Court  4  Reinstated or 

           Reopened           Transferred from 

 5  Another District            (specify) 

 6  Multidistrict           Litigation 

 

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION  Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): 

Matter is being removed from state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 & 1453 Brief description of cause:  Plaintiff seeks injunctive, declaratory and monetary relief for alleged consumer fraud and antitrust violations 

VII. REQUESTED IN 

        COMPLAINT:   CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION 

       UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv. P. 

DEMAND $            CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

JURY DEMAND:     Yes         No 

VIII. RELATED CASE(S)           IF ANY  (See instructions): 

 JUDGE              DOCKET NUMBER 

            

DATE      June 8, 2016  SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD      s/ Steven P. Benenson 

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY  

RECEIPT # _______________ AMOUNT __________________  APPLYING IFP _______________   JUDGE ____________________ MAG. JUDGE ______________________ 

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-2 Filed 06/08/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 68

Page 69: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C. - Truth in Advertising · 2016-08-19 · BLANE FRIEST, Individually And on behalf of a class of Similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. LUXOTTICA

 

 3423397 

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 12/12) 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44 

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet  The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:  I.(a)   Plaintiffs‐Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only the full 

name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and title. 

(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county  in which the  first  listed defendant resides at the time of  filing.  (NOTE:  In  land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.) 

(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this section "(see attachment)".  

II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X" in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.   United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here. United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box. 

  Federal question.  (3) This  refers  to  suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where  jurisdiction arises under  the Constitution of  the United States, an amendment  to  the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked. 

  Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.)  

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for each principal party.  

IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature of suit, select the most definitive.  

V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the six boxes.   Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts. Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the petition for removal is granted, check this box. Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date. Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date. Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers. Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.  

VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service  

VII.   Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P. Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction. Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.  

VIII.   Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases. 

 Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.  

Case 2:16-cv-03327-SDW-LDW Document 1-2 Filed 06/08/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 69