Jump to content

Off Topic - Anovos Class Action Lawsuit


Sevan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone.

I'm new here.  Trying to spread word about something some of you might already be a part of.  My friend Matthew Lanclos from Twitter began the process of forming a group to go after Anovos.  We have a lawyer and quite a few people who have either never received their items ordered (like myself) or received poor quality products.  We still have time to gather more troops for the cause, so here's the information if you would like to be part of this.

From twitter:

--------------------

Matthew Lanclos

@MILEHIGHMAHOO
·
Jun 3

Hey #Twitterverse. If you have not received your items from 
@Anovos
 #Anovos and would like to participate in a possible #classaction #classactionlawsuit against them please email me at anovosclassaction@icloud.com with the subject "Questionnaire Form Request". #fraud #ponzischeme


------------------

The questionnaire form is fairly simple.  It's information about what you ordered, when, if you've contacted the company, and how the lawyer can reach you.   I will keep my account active here if you want to talk privately or respond to the thread as I'll check in to answer what I can.  We had a conference call this afternoon with the lawyer.  This currently is for all USA buyers, but the lawyer still wants to hear from international folks too.

It's time to take a stand against companies that defraud people.


Thx for reading.

Sevan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I take it this is another class action against the manufacturer. One took place over a year ago to try and rectify this situation so I wish you all the best of luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Am 12.6.2021 um 05:52 schrieb Sly11:

So I take it this is another class action against the manufacturer. One took place over a year ago to try and rectify this situation so I wish you all the best of luck.

First one "fizzled" out due to settlements before the class was certified. No Plaintiffs left = No CLass action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, masterx244 said:

First one "fizzled" out due to settlements before the class was certified. No Plaintiffs left = No Class action.

 

I wonder if the plaintiffs who settled were paid, because apparently the lawyers representing Anovos weren't.

 

Quote

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV 19-4821-MWF (KSx)
Date: May 26, 2021
Proceedings (In Chambers): ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT ANOVOS PRODUCTIONS, LLC [90]
Before the Court is Brianna Dahlberg’s unopposed Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant Anovos Productions, LLC (the “Motion”), filed on April 23, 2021. (Docket No. 90).
The Court has read and considered the papers filed in connection with the Motion and held a telephonic hearing on May 24, 2021, pursuant to General Order 21-07 arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.
For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is GRANTED. Brianna Dahlberg shall be permitted to withdraw from her representation of Defendant Anovos Productions, LLC (“Anovos”).
The decision to permit counsel to withdraw is within the sound discretion of the trial court. United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2009). “The motion for leave to withdraw must be supported by good cause.” L.R. 83-2.3.2. “Unless good cause is shown and the ends of justice require, no substitution or relief of attorney will be approved that will cause delay in prosecution of the case to completion.” L. R. 83-2.3.5.
In assessing the reasons for withdrawal, the Court looks to the California Rules of Professional Conduct. See Stewart v. Boeing Co., CV 12-5621-RS (WLx), 2013 WL 3168269, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 19, 2013) (“Federal courts also often look to

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date: May 26, 2021
Title: Arthur Catalano, et al. v. Anovos Productions, LLC et al.
applicable state rules in determining whether adequate grounds exist to excuse counsel from further representation.”); U.A. Local 342 Joint Labor-Mgmt. Comm. v. S. City Refrigeration, Inc., C-09-3219-JCS, 2010 WL 1293522, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2010) (“In this district, courts look to the standards of professional conduct required of members of the State Bar of California in determining whether counsel may withdraw representation.”).

Ms. Dalhberg asserts that Anovos owes her firm a substantial amount of money for legal services previously rendered. A representative from Anovos appeared at the hearing and explained that its business was struggling financially due to the pandemic, and that it was struggling to pay its bills, including monies owed to Ms. Dalhberg’s firm.


Courts have held that the failure to pay attorneys’ fees is a proper ground for withdrawal. See id.; see also Morrow v. Mid Peninsula Hotels, LLC, No. 19-CV-03863-TSH, 2020 WL 5074305, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2020) (“Failure to pay attorney’s fees constitutes good cause for such withdrawal.”). In addition, California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(b)(5) allows an attorney to withdraw from representation where the client “breaches a material term of an agreement with, or obligation, to the lawyer relating to the representation, and the lawyer has given the client a reasonable warning after the breach that the lawyer will withdraw unless the client fulfills the agreement or performs the obligation[.]”
Ms. Dalhberg has demonstrated good cause for withdrawal. Anovos breached its agreement with Ms. Dalhberg’s firm by failing to pay for legal services rendered as promised. (See Motion at 2-3). The Court will not force Ms. Dalhberg or her firm to work for free. Anovos was also warned that its continued failure to pay the past-due balance would result in Ms. Dalhberg and her firm withdrawing as counsel in this matter.
Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED. Ms. Dalhberg is granted leave to withdraw and will be deemed withdrawn as counsel of record. The docket shall reflect the withdrawal.

Date: May 26, 2021

Title: Arthur Catalano, et al. v. Anovos Productions, LLC et al.

Corporations must appear in federal court through counsel. See Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993) (only natural persons may proceed in forma pauperis because, inter alia, organizations need a lawyer in federal court). Accordingly, because Anovos cannot proceed pro se in this action, it must file notice with the Court no later than July 12, 2021, stating that it has either paid the outstanding balance to Ms. Dalhberg’s firm and the firm has agreed to continue representing Anovos, or that Anovos has retained new counsel.

Until Anovos files its notice with the Court regarding retaining counsel, the action is STAYED. The stay will be lifted one week after the above-referenced notice is filed, or on July 13, 2021, whichever first occurs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Edited by Scimitar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...