/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221208.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, December 8, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 239 Headlines 17 EDUCATION: Zhang Securities Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y. 24 CAPITAL: PBC Must Advise Court on Withdrawal of Class Cert Bid A TO Z HARDWARE: Andrade Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wage A.T.R. CORPORATION: Bastian Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ADR SERVICES: Subcontracting Sues Over Failure to Screen Arbitrator ALL FLORIDA: Landry Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ALON USA: Files Appeal in Ebright Suit to 9th Cir. ALT FRAGRANCES: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR: Harmon Files Suit in D. New Jersey AMERICAN INCOME LIFE: Bell Suit Removed to D. New Jersey AMERICAN STATIONERY: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York AMERICAN TEXTILE: Lancaster Sues Over False & Misleading Labeling AMMD LLC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ANGLO AMERICAN: UN Bodies Can Participate in Mine Class Action ANTECH DIAGNOSTICS: Fort Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data APPLE INC: Faulty MacBooks $50-M Deal Gets Preliminary Court OK APR57.COM INC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ARBORWORKS LLC: Parties Must File Scheduling Report by Dec. 13 ASSESSOR OF ROCKVILLE CENTRE: Ziegler Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. BABESTA LLC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York BABY DELIGHT: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BALLOON SALOON: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York BANANAGRAMS INC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BELLA VITA: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BETTENDORF, IA: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL: Parties Stipulate Class Cert. Briefing BLUE KNIGHT SECURITY: Martorana Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BLUETRITON BRANDS: Gordon Sues Over Untimely Wage Compensation BP VENTURE MANAGEMENT: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BP WEST: Ebright Appeals Summary Judgment to 9th Cir. BP WEST: Persian Gulf Appeals Summary Judgment to 9th Circuit BRANDENBURG INDUSTRIAL: Garcia Suit Removed to S.D. California BSC OWNER LLC: Anderson Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages BUNNY FUFUU: Bridges Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages CACI: Winston Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Illinois CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL: Traylor Files Suit in E.D. Virginia CARLYLE GROUP: Abernathy Sues Under Trafficking Protection Act CAVENDER STORES: Sanchez Files Suit in E.D. Texas CGAP INC: Prettyman Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia CHATTANOOGA BAKERY: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CHRISTIE'S ENTERPRISES: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CITIBANK NA: Final Judgment Entered in FrontPoint v. ANZ, et al. CITIBANK NA: FrontPoint's Class Deal w/ Credit Suisse Gets Final OK CITIBANK NA: FrontPoint's Class Deal with ANZ, Others Gets Final OK COLLECTION BUREAU: Bleich Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York COLOR FACTORY: Fuentes Sues Over Unpaid Regular, Overtime Wages COLORADO DOC: Carbajal Files Suit in D. Colorado COMMUNITY HOUSING: Shea Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. COMMUNITY LOAN: Kazmierczak Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida COMPASS GROUP: Bosco Suit Removed to D. New Jersey COMPLEAT SCULPTOR: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York COMPLEAT STRATEGIST: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York COSTCO WHOLESALES: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Seaweed Snacks COTTON ON USA: Cancino Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages DENVER, CO: Jarman, et al., File Bid for Class Certification DIAMOND COMIC: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DRYCO CONSTRUCTION: Barriga Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DYWIDAG SYSTEMS: Guerrero Sues Over Missing Plan Contributions E.J. LANDRIGAN: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York EMORTGAGE LENDING: Cochran Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Tennessee EMPANADA MAMA: Gibson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York EMPRESS AMBULANCE: D'Agostini Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ERIC ADAMS: K.M. Suit Transferred to Supreme Court U.S. FAIRLIFE LLC: Faces Class Action Following Animal Cruelty Reports FALONI LAW GROUP: Friedman Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York FCA US: Faces Class Action Over Defective Jeep Wrangler 4xe SUVs FEDEX OFFICE: Briand WMS Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FIRST STUDENT: Guardado Suit Removed to C.D. California FLAGS UNLIMITED: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FLEX LTD: Binion Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages FREEDOM FINANCIAL: Rainford Suit Transferred to D. Arizona FTX TRADING: Dallas Mavericks Owner Comments on Crypto Class Suit GAIA INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Potential Securities Claims GAMEFLY HOLDINGS: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GATEWAY REHABILITATION: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Morris Says GEICO GENERAL: Appeals Ruling in Milligan Insurance Class Suit GESICK CONCRETE: Cashpal Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Bid to Dismiss DeCostanzo Class Suit Denied GOOGLE LLC: Content Moderators Sue Over Lack of Safety Standards GOOGLE LLC: Faces GBP13.6-Bil. Class Action Over Adtech Practices HARRIS & HARRIS: Hershkowitz Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Kennedy Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines HOME DEPOT: Partial Summary Judgment Bids in Eisele Suit Granted HOMES OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Mobile Home Parks KRAFT HEINZ: Sued Over Mislabeled Velveeta Shells & Cheese Cups LUMBER CITY: Fails to Pay Employees' Minimum & OT Wages, Hsu Says ME LIQUORS: Fails to Pay Workers' Minimum & OT Wages, Munoz Alleges MONTREAL, QC: Settles Protest Class Action v. SPVM for $3.1 Million OPTIMUM POINT: Fails To Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Ortiz Alleges R&L CARRIERS: Faces Millan Suit Over Unpaid Half-Time OT Wages SOJOURN VENTURES: Fails to Pay Housekeepers' OT Wages, Hatcher Says TENGRAM CAPITAL: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Body Spray Products TIKTOK INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Privacy Law Violations TOMMY BAHAMA: Vazquez Suit Removed to S.D. California TOYOTA MOTOR: Several Claims in Prius Bad Smell Class Suit Tossed TRANSAM TRUCKING: Class Cert Reply Filing Extended to Jan. 6, 2023 TRISTATE NOTE: Faces Orr Suit Over Unpaid Wages & OT Under FLSA UBIQUITI INC: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: May Face Class Action Over Meals Plans VERU INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Potential Securities Claims WAKEFIELD AND ASSOCIATES: Jacobson Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Ill. WALGREEN CO: Bryant Sues Over Failure to Provide COBRA Notice WASHINGTON DC: Pappas Must File Class Cert. Bid by Jan. 9, 2023 WONDER WORKS: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York XCEL ENERGY: Must Face Class Action Over Marshall Fire's Origins YALE UNIVERSITY: Elis Sues Over Discrimination Against Students ZERO OTTO NOVE: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ********* 17 EDUCATION: Zhang Securities Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ZIQI ZHANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 17 EDUCATION & TECHNOLOGY GROUP INC., ANDY CHANG LIU, MICHAEL CHAO DU, DUN XIAO, TUCK LYE KOH, COLLEEN A. DE VRIES, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA) L.L.C., BOFA SECURITIES, INC., CHINA RENAISSANCE SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LIMITED, TIGER BROKERS (NZ) LIMITED, and COGENCY GLOBAL INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-04937, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on November 18, 2022. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-09843-LAK to the proceeding. The suit is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded 17EdTech securities pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus issued in connection with 17EdTech December 2020 initial public offering, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933. 17 Education & Technology Group Inc. is an education technology company in the People's Republic of China which provides K-12 education services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com 24 CAPITAL: PBC Must Advise Court on Withdrawal of Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Peters Broadcast Engineering, Inc., v. 24 Capital, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00236 (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Holly A. Brady entered an order directing the Plaintiff to advise the Court by Dec. 9, 2022 if it seeks to withdraw the request for class certification or seeks a ruling from the Court. The suit alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Peters Broadcast manages tower sites including site management to light monitoring for clients. 24 Capital provides alternatives to traditional funding sources.[CC] A TO Z HARDWARE: Andrade Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wage ------------------------------------------------------- Rogelio Andrade, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. A TO Z HARDWARE INC. and ABDO ALSAIDA, Case No. 1:22-cv-07304 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 1, 2022), is brought for unpaid overtime wage orders pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and for violations of the New York Labor Law, and overtime wage orders of the New York Commission of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate compensation for the hours over 40 per week that he worked. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked over 40 hours and paid him at straight time, which is against the appropriate Labor Laws. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond the Plaintiff to all other similarly situated employees. The Defendants maintain a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from 2015 until September 24, 2022. The Defendants own, operate, or control a hardware store located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. Toneille Raglan, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL PC 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, New York 10004 Phone: 212-203-2417 Web: www.StillmanLegalPC.com A.T.R. CORPORATION: Bastian Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bernabe Bastian, and other similarly situated individuals v. The A. T. R. Corporation d/b/a North American Transmission and Dayton A. Babcock, individually, Case No. 6:22-cv-02205 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 29, 2022), is brought to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages under the United States' laws, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours weekly, but he was not compensated for overtime hours as required by law. The Plaintiff did not clock in and out, but the Defendants were in complete control of the Plaintiff's schedule. Thus, the Defendants could track the number of hours worked by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages, at the rate of time and a half his regular rate, for every hour that he worked in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a non-exempted, full-time, hourly employee, and he had duties as a mechanic repairing transmissions, engines, brakes, etc. The A.T.R. Corporation doing business as North American Transmission is a mechanic and transmission repair shop located in Orlando, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com ADR SERVICES: Subcontracting Sues Over Failure to Screen Arbitrator ------------------------------------------------------------------- Subcontracting Concepts, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, individually and as a class action on behalf of itself and other-consumers v. ADR SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation and LUCIE BARRON, an individual, Case No. 30-2022-01286859-CU-BT-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., Oct. 19, 2022), is brought for violations of California Law stemming from Defendant ADR's actions in holding itself out as fully screening its arbitrators and providing consumers with the highest level of quality, integrity, and efficiency in dispute resolution services (via Defendant's arbitrators but actually failing to screen its arbitrators and whether they are suitable for a particular matter. On March 4, 2020, the Defendant ADR appointed Robert Friedenberg, Esq. as an arbitrator, warranting his fitness, suitability competency, and qua1ifications as a neutral arbitrator. The Defendant ADR failed to disclose (in any company information or require, arbitrator disclosure) the prior existence of a $200,000,000.00 legal malpractice judgment against Mr. Friedenberg for his mishandling of a legal case. The Defendant ADR also failed to disclose that Mr. Friedenberg had certain biased that made him unsuitable to serve as a neutral in a case dealing with the issues in this matter. Mr. Friedenbeig was not serving as a mediator, but as a true "neutral" arbitrator. However, Mr. Friedenberg lacked the necessary neutrality and competency to do so, and ADR failed to convey this to the general public and/or Plaintiffs as a "Partner" or otherwise. Relying on and paying substantial sums of money to Defendant ADR based Defendant ADR' s marketing and purported assessment of Mr. Friedenberg as a competent and neutral arbitrator, Plaintiff commenced the Arbitration with Mr. Friedenberg serving as the neutral arbitrator. During the course of the Arbitration process, Plaintiff's Counsel raised these issues to both the Defendant ADR (via case managers including Defendant ADR's General Manager Haward Cho and owner Defendant BARRON and) and Mr. Friedenberg through and Mr. Friedenberg on numerous occasions (both directly and as a cc regarding othe 2 II issues), including, but not limited to, objections presented on March 23, 2021; March 29 2021; April 13 2021; April 20, 2021; August 23, 2021; September 20, 2012; September 29, 2021; October 12, 2021. The Defendant ADR refused to take any actions to address the Plaintiff's concerns, a confirmed in Mr. Friedenberg's orders and via Defendant's Management Team, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware that is authorized to do business in the State of California. ADR is a dispute resolution arbitration and mediation) services firm claiming to provide consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carmine J. Pearl, II, Esq. PEARL LEGAL, APC 9891 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 200 Phone: (949) 398-8230 Facsimile: (949) 377-3331 - and - Peter P. Perla, Jr., Esq. VAUGHAN BAIO & PARTNERS 317 George Street, Suite 320 New Brunswick, NJ 08901 Phone: (732) 884-2300 ALL FLORIDA: Landry Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Mark Landry, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ALL FLORIDA MANUFACTURED HOME SERVICES LLC, Case No. 8:22-cv-02735 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 1, 2022), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff overtime at a rate not less than 1 and 1/2 times the regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of 40 hours in a work week. Throughout his employment with the Defendant, the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week, for which he was not compensated at the overtime rate. The Plaintiff estimates that he worked an average of fifty to fifty-five hours working Monday through Friday in addition to occasional work on Saturdays. The Defendant failed to comply with their statutory obligation to keep accurate time records, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed with the Defendant as a full-time hourly employee from March 2022. The Defendant is a Florida corporation licensed and authorized to conduct business in Pasco County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott L. Terry, Esq. Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq. FLORIN GRAY BOUZAS OWENS, LLC 16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100 Lutz, FL 33558 Phone (727) 220-4000 Facsimile (727) 483-7942 Email: sterry@fgbolaw.com wflorin@fgbolaw.com ALON USA: Files Appeal in Ebright Suit to 9th Cir. -------------------------------------------------- ALON USA ENERGY, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Joshua Ebright, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Alon USA Energy, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01374-JO-AGS, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs are consumers who purchased gasoline in California processed by one or more Defendant gasoline refineries: BP, Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Tesoro Refining & Marketing Co., LLC, Equilon Enterprises, LLC, doing business as Shell Oil Products US, Exxon Mobil Corp., Valero Marketing and Supply Co., Phillips 66, and Alon. They allege that the Defendants conspired to manipulate the gasoline market in California and caused historically high retail prices in 2012 and 2015. In their operative consolidated complaint, they allege violations of the Cartwright Act, and the Unfair Competition Law. On Oct. 4, 2019, Alon USA Energy filed a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1927, which the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on May 7, 2020. The appellate case is captioned Joshua Ebright, et al. v. Alon USA Energy, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-56018, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 1, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Alon USA Energy, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 8, 2022; -- Appellees Joshua Ebright, Paul Lee and David Rinaldi first cross appeal brief is due on February 6, 2023; -- Appellants' second brief on cross appeal is due on March 7, 2023; -- Appellees Joshua Ebright, Paul Lee and David Rinaldi third brief on cross appeal is due on April 7, 2023; and -- Optional cross appeal reply brief for Alon USA Energy, Inc. is due within 21 days after service of third brief on cross appeal. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees JOSHUA EBRIGHT, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: George C. Aguilar, Esq. Michael J. Nicoud, Esq. ROBBINS, LLP 5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Defendants-Appellants ALON USA ENERGY, INC., et al., are represented by: Tyson Herrold, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP 1735 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7501 Telephone: (215) 564-3286 - and - Carl Hittinger, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP 1735 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7501 Telephone: (215) 564-2898 - and - Diane Lee McGimsey, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP 1888 Century Park, E., Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067-1725 Telephone: (310) 712-6644 - and - Robert A. Sacks, Esq. Robert M. W. Smith, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP 1888 Century Park, E., Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067-1725 Telephone: (310) 712-6600 - and - Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq. Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq. Jagannathan Srinivasan, Esq. Daniel Glen Swanson, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 - and - Thomas G. Hungar, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 955-8500 - and - Cynthia Richman, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 955-8234 - and - Eric Patrick Enson, Esq. JONES DAY 555 S. Flower Street 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 243-2304 - and - David Craig Kiernan, Esq. JONES DAY 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 626-3939 - and - Robert A. Mittelstaedt, Esq. JONES DAY 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 875-5710 - and - Rasha Gerges Shields, Esq. JONES DAY 555 S. Flower Street, 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 234-2719 - and - Craig Stewart, Esq. JONES DAY 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 875-5714 - and - Kent Michael Roger, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP One Market Street Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 442-1140 - and - Colin Charles West, Esq. BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP 3 Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 393-2000 - and - Hubert Kim, Esq. Frederick William Kosmo, Jr., Esq. Robin A. Wofford, Esq. WILSON TURNER KOSMO, LLP 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 236-9600 - and - Dawn Sestito, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP 400 S. Hope Street, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-6352 - and - Joshua D. Lichtman, Esq. FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP 555 South Flower Street, 41st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 - and - Geraldine Young, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 1301 McKinney Street, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 651-5437 - and - Gerald Edward Hawxhurst, Esq. HAWXHURST HARRIS LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 620 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 893-5151 ALT FRAGRANCES: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alt Fragrances LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alt Fragrances LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-10215 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 1, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. ALT. Fragrances -- https://altfragrances.com/ -- is a premier fragrance company offering alternatives to your favorite scents for a fraction of the price.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR: Harmon Files Suit in D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Honda Motor Co., Inc. The case is styled as David Harmon, Ivan Kosin, Matthew Kosin, Shirley Dunn, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06150-CPO-SAK (D.N.J., Oct. 18, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. The American Honda Motor Company, Inc. (sometimes abbreviated as AHM) -- http://www.honda.com/-- is the North American Honda subsidiary of the Honda Motor Company, Ltd.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ross H Schmierer, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 3000 Atrium Way, Suite 200 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Email: ross@kazlg.com AMERICAN INCOME LIFE: Bell Suit Removed to D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Atiya Bell and Abel Flores, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons v. AMERICAN INCOME LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, GIGLIONE-ACKERMAN AGENCY, LLC, ERIC GIGLIONE, and DAVID ACKERMAN, Case No. MID-L-004928-22 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on Nov. 30, 2022, and assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-06913. In connection with the foregoing allegations, the Plaintiffs assert on behalf of both the putative Training Class and COVID Remote-Work Class claims for: failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"); and failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL"). The Plaintiffs seek to recover "all unpaid minimum and overtime wages, plus liquidated damages in the amount of 200% of all unpaid or underpaid wages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest rate allowable by law, and reasonable attorneys' fees (with appropriate fee enhancements)."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jennifer N. Capozzola, Esq. POST & SCHELL, P.C. Four Penn Center 1600 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 587-1151 Fax: (215) 587-1444 Email: jcapozzola@postschell.com AMERICAN STATIONERY: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Stationery Company, Inc. The case is styled as Mykayla Fagnani, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. American Stationery Company, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10136 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 29, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. American Stationery -- https://www.americanstationery.com/ -- delivers unsurpassed quality, selection and customer service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal AMERICAN TEXTILE: Lancaster Sues Over False & Misleading Labeling ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alma Lancaster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Textile Company, Incorporated, Case No. 1:22-cv-01280-BKS-ML (N.D.N.Y., Dec. 1, 2022), is brought seeking damages and an injunction to stop the Defendant's false and misleading labeling practices with regard to its sheet sets represented as having a thread count of 1250 under the Sealy brand ("Product"). The representation that the Product's thread count is 1250 is false and misleading. Laboratory analysis shows it has 57 warp yarns and 166 weft yarns per inch, a total thread count of 223. However, the 19 individual filaments in each warp yarn were counted as separate yarns, which is scientifically wrong based on the definition of fiber and yarn structures. The Defendant calculated 1250 for the thread count by multiplying the number of warp yarns, 57, by the filaments in each warp yarn, 19, to reach 1083, and added 166 weft yarns, for a total of 1249. By counting the plied yarns individually, the Product's thread count is inflated by several times over what it would be if industry standard methods were used. The result was that the Product was of lower quality, softness, comfort, durability, and longevity than they otherwise would if they were the represented thread count and quality as stated on the labeling. The Defendant makes other representations and omissions with respect to the Product which are false and misleading. As a result of the false and misleading representations, the Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than no less than $54.99 for the king or queen size sheet set, excluding tax and sales, higher than similar products, represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it would be sold for absent the misleading representations and omissions, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Product at stores including Big Lots in Newburgh, New York. The Defendant is one of the largest textile manufacturers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck NY 11021 Phone: (516) 268-7080 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com AMMD LLC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AMMD, LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMMD, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-10208 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 1, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. AMMD -- https://www.amymyersmd.com/ -- is a nutrition company that offers a wide range of supplements, beauty products, kits, protein bars, and weight loss programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com ANGLO AMERICAN: UN Bodies Can Participate in Mine Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Zelda Venter, writing for iol, reports that several UN bodies obtained permission from the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg to be admitted as a friend of the court in a class action lawsuit against Anglo American South Africa (AA) over alleged health problems caused by lead mines in central Zambia. At this stage the court ruled that four international organisations -- including the UN Special Rapporteur on Toxins and Human Rights and the UN body concerned with the rights of people with disabilities -- may participate in the main application to be heard later to assist the court. The legal challenge, filed in South Africa, alleges that mining operations carried out in Kabwe, north of the Zambian capital Lusaka, by multinational mining company Anglo-American, were in such close proximity to residents that they caused significant soil contamination and poisoned the population, especially young children. They further contend that in villages in and around Kabwe, both children and adults living in the shadow of the old lead mine have experienced heightened health issues due to the high levels of lead in the area's topsoil and water supplies. The suit, filed against Anglo America's South African subsidiary, represents 180 000 women and children in Kabwe with 13 plaintiffs representing the case. The applicants allege that Anglo, through its mining activities conducted at the mine in Kabwe during the period 1925 to 1974, both caused and materially contributed to the ongoing harm suffered by the children and women of child-bearing age in Kabwe as a result of their exposure to lead pollution. Anglo avers that it did not cause the present state of uncontrolled and polluted conditions in Kabwe and that it is not liable for any harm caused to the applicants by the current state, nor is it liable to remedy it. It alleges, among others, that Zambian Consolidated Copper Mines Limited (ZCCM) caused the failed state of the mine and concomitant environmental contamination in Kabwe and that ZCCM remains liable today for the rehabilitation and remediation of lead emissions in Kabwe. Human Rights Watch, one of the bodies who applied for leave to intervene as a friend of the court, saw their application turned down. Judge Avrille Maier-Trawley said she could not find that this body could contribute to the main proceedings. In 2019, Human Rights Watch published a report entitled "We have to be worried - the impact of lead contamination on children's rights in Kabwe, Zambia" (the Human Rights Watch report). It said Anglo-American relied on this report to sustain its argument that it was not responsible for the harms caused to the applicants. It said that Anglo-American's reliance on its research was misplaced. The judge said there was no need for this organisation to be part of the proceedings as the court, which will later hear the main application, will read the report and form its own view as to what it says. While AA also opposed the joinder of the other UN bodies as friends of the court, its lawyer, Steven Budlender SC, conceded that the UN bodies' submissions, as expounded upon during oral argument in court, were new in the sense that they had not hitherto been raised or canvassed by any of the parties in the certification proceedings. AA, however, persisted in its opposition to the admission of the UN bodies as friends of the court on the basis that their submissions were neither relevant nor helpful. The UN bodies argued that they could be helpful as they could highlight the rights of victims of human rights violations to have access to justice and the right to a remedy. They further submitted that certain guiding principles committed AA, among others, to respect the rule of law and to address adverse human rights impacts, which it may have caused or contributed to through its business endeavours. Judge Maier-Trawley said: "What the UN bodies seek to do before the certification court is to distil the legal significance of Anglo's commitments to the guiding principles as a factor to be weighed in the balance when determining where the interests of justice lie. "Seen from this perspective, the requirement, namely, that submissions by an amicus (friend of the court) must be new and that 'new contentions are those that may materially affect the outcome of the case' has in my view been met by the UN bodies. This is so because it is an argument which, if found to be persuasive, may tilt the scale in favour of certification." [GN] ANTECH DIAGNOSTICS: Fort Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kenya Fort, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Antech Diagnostics, Inc. and Vicar Operating, Inc. dba VCA, Case No. 2022LA001042 (Ill. Cir. Ct., DuPage Cty., Nov. 29, 2022), is brought against the Defendants to put a stop to its unlawful collection, use, disclosure, dissemination, and storage of Plaintiff's and the putative Class members' sensitive biometric data. While there are tremendous benefits to using biometric systems, there are also serious risks. For example, if a fingerprint database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed, individuals have no means by which to prevent identity theft and unauthorized tracking. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act, ("BIPA"), specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as handprints. Despite this law, Antech disregarded individuals' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collect, store, and use their biometric data in violation of the BIPA. Specifically, Antech has violated (and continue to violate) the BIPA because it did not: Before collection, properly inform Plaintiff and the Class members in writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their fingerprints were being collected, stored, and used, as required by the BIPA; Before collection provide a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying Plaintiff's and the Class's fingerprints, as required by the BIPA; nor Before first collecting receive a written release from Plaintiff or the members of the Class to collect, capture, or otherwise obtain handprints, as required by the BIPA. Before disclosure and dissemination, obtain consent from Plaintiff and Class members, says the complaint. The Plaintiff performed duties for one of Antech's clients in Illinois. Antech is a veterinary diagnostic and lab testing facility located in Oak Brook, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Fish, Esq. Mara Baltabols, Esq. FISH POTTER BOLANOS, P.C. 200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Email: dfish@fishlawfirm.com mara@fishlawfirm.com docketing@fishlawfirm.com APPLE INC: Faulty MacBooks $50-M Deal Gets Preliminary Court OK --------------------------------------------------------------- David Price, writing for Macworld, reports that for the $50m settlement to a class-action lawsuit agreed by Apple back in July has been given preliminary approval by a federal judge in California, according to Law360 (via MacTrast), with around $33m of that assigned to class members. Users who have suffered with faulty MacBook keyboards can now look forward to a payout of up to $395. The suit focused on the much-maligned butterfly keyboards used on MacBook models in the last decade. Users complained that the keys tended to become stuck, unresponsive, or broken, and could be prevented from working correctly by tiny amounts of dust and debris. Apple apologised to the "small number of users [who] are having issues with their third-generation butterfly keyboard" and then phased out the design from 2019, offering replacement keyboards for free via its Keyboard Service Program. A class-action lawsuit subsequently contended that Apple "knew and concealed" the keyboards' failure-prone design, and sought "economic injury and aggregate damages." Apple has not admitted wrongdoing, but did agree this summer to pay out a total of $50m to those affected (and their attorneys). The settlement covers MacBook, MacBook Air, and most MacBook Pro models purchased between 2015 and 2019 in California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Washington. Lawyers predict maximum payouts of $395 to those who replaced multiple keyboards, $125 if you replaced one keyboard, and $50 for just keycaps. If you signed up for a butterfly keyboard replacement a class notice should find its way to you, but it may be worth contacting the law firms involved for further information: Girard Sharp LLP and Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP. Alternatively, you will soon be able to find relevant info at KeyboardSettlement.com. [GN] APR57.COM INC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against APR57.Com, Inc. The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. APR57.Com, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07288 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 1, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. APR57 -- https://www.apr57.com/ -- is an authoritative choice for appraising, buying, and selling all items of value.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com ARBORWORKS LLC: Parties Must File Scheduling Report by Dec. 13 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gonzalez v. ArborWorks, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01030 (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sheila K. Oberto entered an order directing the parties to file an amended joint scheduling report no later than December 13, 2022. -- The amended joint scheduling report shall includes a proposed deadline for class certification discovery, class certification motion briefing schedule, and hearing date before the undersigned (as well as a deadline for initial disclosures if they have not already been completed). -- No other dates or deadlines are required to be proposed, as the Court will set all remaining deadlines at a further scheduling conference following resolution of the class certification issue. -- In order to afford the parties time to complete that task, the Court hereby continues the mandatory scheduling conference in this matter to December 20, 2022. The nature of suit states Labor -- Other Labor Litigation. Arborworks was founded in 2009. The company's line of business includes providing ornamental shrub and tree services.[CC] ASSESSOR OF ROCKVILLE CENTRE: Ziegler Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the Village of Rockville Centre, et al. The case is styled as Cynthia Ziegler, all other similarly situated Petitioners on the annexed SCHEDULE A, Petitioner v. The Assessor of the Village of Rockville Centre, The Board of Assessment Review of the Village of Rockville Centre, Respondents, Case No. 616672/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Nov. 29, 2022). The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)." Rockville Centre -- https://www.rvcny.gov/ -- commonly abbreviated as RVC, is an incorporated village located in the Town of Hempstead in Nassau County, on the South Shore of Long Island, in New York.[BN] The Petitioner is represented by: MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG, LLP 132 Spruce St Cedarhurst, NY 11516-1915 BABESTA LLC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Babesta, LLC. The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Babesta, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07297 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 1, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Babesta, LLC -- https://www.babesta.com/ -- is a children's clothing store in New York City offering fashion-forward streetwear for babies & kids, as well as toys & gifts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com BABY DELIGHT: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Baby Delight, Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Baby Delight, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10109-ER (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 29, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Baby Delight -- https://www.babydelight.com/ -- specializes in offering high-quality product solutions for infants and children.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com BALLOON SALOON: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Balloon Saloon, Inc. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Balloon Saloon, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07267 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Balloon Saloon -- https://www.balloonsaloon.com/ -- is a New York City balloon delivery, and balloon decorating company servicing all of New York City, Long Island, The Hamptons, CT, and NJ.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com BANANAGRAMS INC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bananagrams, Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bananagrams, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10112 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 29, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bananagrams -- https://bananagrams.com/ -- is a word game invented by Abraham Nathanson and Rena Nathanson of Cranston, Rhode Island, wherein lettered tiles are used to spell words.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com BELLA VITA: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bella Vita, Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bella Vita, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10159 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bella Vita, Inc. -- https://shopbellavita.com/ -- is specializing in pottery, dinnerware, bedding, apparel, home accessories and bridal registry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com BETTENDORF, IA: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORRY SHIPLEY & MARK SCHULTZ, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. CITY OF BETTENDORF, IOWA, Case No. 3:22-cv-00047-RGE-HCA (S.D. Iowa), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending the time to file its Response to class certification Motion. The Defendant requests the Court grant its motion and extend its response deadline to December 22, 2022 and that plaintiff's reply deadline be extended to January 12, 2023. On November 1, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Conditional Certification and Notice to Class Members. The City's current deadline to file its response to the motion for class certification is due December 1, 2022. Due to other work commitments of defense counsel, the City needs additional time to prepare its response to the motion. Accordingly, the City requests an extension until December 22, 2022, to file its response. Bettendorf is a city in Scott County, Iowa. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VkQA2B at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dorothy A. O'Brien, Esq. Kelsey A.W. Marquard, Esq. O'BRIEN & MARQUARD, P.L.C. 2322 East Kimberly Road, Suite 100E Davenport, IA 52807 E-mail: dao@emprights.com kawm@emprights.com The Defendant is represented by: Jason M. Craig, Esq. AHLERS & COONEY, P.C. 100 Court Avenue, Suite 600 Des Moines, IO 50309-2231 Telephone: (515) 243-7611 Facsimile: (515) 243-2149 Email: jcraig@ahlerslaw.com BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL: Parties Stipulate Class Cert. Briefing --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:20-cv-06719-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the the Parties agree and stipulate to the following class certification briefing schedule: 1. The Defendants shall file their January 27, 2023 Opposition to Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification by: 2. Lead Plaintiff shall file any March 28, 2023 Reply in support of its Motion for Class Certification by: 3. The hearing on Lead Plaintiff's April 12, 2023 Motion for Class Certification is reset to: On October 4, 2022, the Court held a Case Management Conference and set the deadline for Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification as October 17, 2022, the deadline for Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification as December 16, 2022, the deadline for Lead Plaintiff's Reply as February 14, 2023, and the hearing on the Motion for Class Certification for March 1, 2023. BioMarin is an American biotechnology company headquartered in San Rafael, California. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FwyLIB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katherine M. Sinderson, Esq. Salvatore Graziano, Esq. Jeroen Van Kwawegan, Esq. Abe Alexander, Esq. William E. Freeland, Esq. Thomas Z. Sperber, Esq. Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: salvatore@blbglaw.com jeroen@blbglaw.com katiem@blbglaw.com abe.alexander@blbglaw.com billy.freeland@blbglaw.com thomas.sperber@blbglaw.com jonathanu@blbglaw.com The Defendants are represented by: John C. Dwyer, Esq. Patrick E. Gibbs, Esq. Amanda A. Main, Esq. Brett De Jarnette, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130 Telephone: (650) 843-5000 Facsimile: (650) 849-7400 E-mail: dwyerjc@cooley.com pgibbs@cooley.com amain@cooley.com bdejarnette@cooley.com BLUE KNIGHT SECURITY: Martorana Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Knight Security & Patrol, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Ricky Martorana, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Blue Knight Security & Patrol, Inc., Does 1-20, Case No. 34-2022-00330471-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 29, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Blue Knight Security & Patrol -- https://blueknightsp.com/ -- is one of the oldest and most reliable security service providers in Northern California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel A. Wong, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 379-6250 Fax: (949) 379-6251 Email: swong@aegislawfirm.com BLUETRITON BRANDS: Gordon Sues Over Untimely Wage Compensation -------------------------------------------------------------- Phil Gordon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BLUETRITON BRANDS, INC., (f/k/a NESTLE WATERS NORTH AMERICA, INC.), is brought to recover damages for untimely wage compensation for Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers and to remedy violations of the New York Labor Law. The Defendant has compensated the Plaintiff on a bi-weekly basis. Despite being Manual Workers, the Defendant failed to properly pay the Plaintiff their wages within seven calendar days after the end of the week in which these wages were earned. In this regard, the Defendant has failed to provide timely wages to, and has taken unlawful deductions from the wages of, the Plaintiff and all other similar Manual Workers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by BTB as a ReadyRefresh Service Representative ("RSR") from September 2018 until June 2020. Bluetriton Brands, Inc. is a beverage wholesaler that sells various water beverages to various retail customers in New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. Josef Nussbaum, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 688-5640 Fax: (212) 688-2548 - and - Kelly M. Cardin, Esq. Jessica R. Schild, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 599 Lexington Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-492-3571 Email: jessica.schild@ogletree.com BP VENTURE MANAGEMENT: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BP Venture Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Maria Rodriguez, on behalf of all other similarly situated v. BP Venture Management, Inc., Does 1–10, Case No. 34-2022-00330413-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 29, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Unlimited Civil." BP Ventures Inc. operates as a venture capital firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin F. Marquez, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510 Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145 Phone: 213-381-9988 Fax: 213-381-9989 Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com BP WEST: Ebright Appeals Summary Judgment to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA EBRIGHT, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Joshua Ebright, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BP West Coast Products, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01374-JO-AGS, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs are consumers who purchased gasoline in California processed by one or more Defendant gasoline refineries: BP, Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Tesoro Refining & Marketing Co., LLC, Equilon Enterprises, LLC, doing business as Shell Oil Products US, Exxon Mobil Corp., Valero Marketing and Supply Co., Phillips 66, and Alon. They allege that the Defendants conspired to manipulate the gasoline market in California and caused historically high retail prices in 2012 and 2015. In their operative consolidated complaint, they allege violations of the Cartwright Act, and the Unfair Competition Law. On Sept. 30, 2022, the Court granted the Defendants' motions for summary judgment through an Order entered by Judge Jinsook Ohta. The appellate case is captioned Joshua Ebright, et al v. BP West Coast Products, LLC, et al., Case No. 22-56017, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 1, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants Joshua Ebright, Paul Lee and David Rinaldi Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 8, 2022; -- Appellants Joshua Ebright, Paul Lee and David Rinaldi opening brief is due on February 6, 2023; -- Appellees' answering brief is due on March 7, 2023; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JOSHUA EBRIGHT, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: George C. Aguilar, Esq. Michael J. Nicoud, Esq. ROBBINS, LLP 5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Defendants-Appellees BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS, LLC, et al., are represented by: Tyson Herrold, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP 1735 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7501 Telephone: (215) 564-3286 - and - Carl Hittinger, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP 1735 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7501 Telephone: (215) 564-2898 - and - Diane Lee McGimsey, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP 1888 Century Park, E., Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067-1725 Telephone: (310) 712-6644 - and - Robert A. Sacks, Esq. Robert M. W. Smith, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP 1888 Century Park, E., Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067-1725 Telephone: (310) 712-6600 - and - Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq. Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq. Jagannathan Srinivasan, Esq. Daniel Glen Swanson, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 - and - Thomas G. Hungar, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 955-8500 - and - Cynthia Richman, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 955-8234 - and - Eric Patrick Enson, Esq. JONES DAY 555 S. Flower Street 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 243-2304 - and - David Craig Kiernan, Esq. JONES DAY 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 626-3939 - and - Robert A. Mittelstaedt, Esq. JONES DAY 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 875-5710 - and - Rasha Gerges Shields, Esq. JONES DAY 555 S. Flower Street, 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 234-2719 - and - Craig Stewart, Esq. JONES DAY 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 875-5714 - and - Kent Michael Roger, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP One Market Street Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 442-1140 - and - Colin Charles West, Esq. BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP 3 Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 393-2000 - and - Hubert Kim, Esq. Frederick William Kosmo, Jr., Esq. Robin A. Wofford, Esq. WILSON TURNER KOSMO, LLP 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 236-9600 - and - Dawn Sestito, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP 400 S. Hope Street, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-6352 - and - Joshua D. Lichtman, Esq. FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP 555 South Flower Street, 41st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 - and - Geraldine Young, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 1301 McKinney Street, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 651-5437 - and - Gerald Edward Hawxhurst, Esq. HAWXHURST HARRIS LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 620 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 893-5151 BP WEST: Persian Gulf Appeals Summary Judgment to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------- PERSIAN GULF, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Persian Gulf, Inc., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BP West Coast Products, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-01749-JO-AGS, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, San Diego County, alleges violation of antitrust laws. On Sept. 30, 2022, the Court granted the Defendants' motions for summary judgment through an Order entered by Judge Jinsook Ohta. The appellate case is captioned Persian Gulf, Inc. v. BP West Coast Products, LLC, et al., Case No. 22-56010, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 1, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Alon USA Energy, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 8, 2022; -- Appellant Persian Gulf, Inc. first cross appeal brief is due on February 6, 2023; -- Appellants' second brief on cross appeal is due on March 7, 2023; -- Appellant Persian Gulf, Inc. third brief on cross appeal is due on April 7, 2023; and -- Optional cross appeal reply brief for Alon USA Energy, Inc. is due within 21 days after service of third brief on cross appeal. [BN] BRANDENBURG INDUSTRIAL: Garcia Suit Removed to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Edna Garcia, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Brandenburg Industrial Service Company, Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-22-00040337-CU-OE-NC was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Nov. 30, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-01890-JLS-BLM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights. Brandenburg Industrial Service Company -- https://www.brandenburg.com/ -- is a demolition contractor specializing in demolition, hazardous material removal, excavation & more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cathy Gonzalez, Esq. Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Melissa Robinson, Esq. HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 696-2306 The Defendants are represented by: Ann Michelle Zakarian, Esq. Michael Afars, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-5296 Fax: (310) 201-9257 Email: mzakarian@gmail.com mafar@seyfarth.com BSC OWNER LLC: Anderson Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Jamel Anderson, Josapha Gonzalez, Vedasto Masana, and Vincenzo Oppedisano on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action v. BSC Owner LLC, and Grenadier Realty Corp., Case No. 1:22-cv-07256 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2022), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York State Labor Law, and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Plaintiffs were required to work in excess of 40 hours per week, but never received an overtime premium of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for those hours. No notification, either in the form of posted notices, or other means, was ever given to the Plaintiffs regarding wages are required under the FLSA or NYLL. The Defendants did not provide Plaintiffs a statement of wages, as required by NYLL. The Defendants did not give any notice to Plaintiffs of their rate of pay, employer's regular pay day, and such other information as required by NYLL. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs at the rate of one and one-half times their hourly wage rate for hours worked in excess of forty per workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed as a non-managerial employee at Spring Creek Towers. BSC Owner LLC is a domestic limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 792-0046 Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com BUNNY FUFUU: Bridges Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Bridges, Timothy Hutchison, Aaron Nordquist, Anhai Tran, Zachary Diamond, Jenna Hayward, Christian Olvera, Patrick Hutchison, and Ryu Nun, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. BUNNY FUFUU LLC, and MICHAEL KURYLO, Case No. 2:22-cv-01989 (D. Nev., Nov. 29, 2022), is brought seeking relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages and overtime as required by the FLSA. The Plaintiffs were entitled to an hourly minimum wage for every hour that they worked for the Defendant and the Plaintiffs were often not paid such required minimum wages. The Plaintiffs worked in excess of 40 hours a week, they did not receive time and one-half their regular rate of pay for such hours worked in excess of 40 hours a week. The Plaintiffs and the FLSA collective action members were entitled to an overtime hourly wage of time and one-half their regular hourly wage for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per week, the Plaintiffs and the FLSA collective action members worked more than 40 hours per week for the defendants and such defendants willfully failed to make said overtime wage payments, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendants. BUNNY FUFUU, LLC is a limited liability corporation existing and established pursuant to the laws of the State of Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Leon Greenberg, Esq. Ruthann Devereaux-Gonzalez, Esq. LEON GREENBERG PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1811 S. Rainbow Blvd., Suite 210 Las Vegas, NV 89146 Phone: (702) 383-6085 Fax: (702) 385-1827 Email: leongreenberg@overtimelaw.com Ranni@overtimelaw.com CACI: Winston Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CACI. The case is styled as Walt Winston, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CACI, Case No. 3:22-cv-02764-SPM (S.D. Ill., Nov. 29, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. CACI International Inc. -- https://www.caci.com/ -- is an American multinational professional services and information technology company headquartered in Northern Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL: Traylor Files Suit in E.D. Virginia ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital One Financial Corporation. The case is styled as Wayne Traylor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-01349 (E.D. Va., Nov. 29, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit for the Electronic Fees Transfer Act. Capital One Financial Corporation -- https://www.capitalone.com/ -- is an American bank holding company specializing in credit cards, auto loans, banking, and savings accounts, headquartered in McLean, Virginia with operations primarily in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Madison Small, Esq. J. MADISON PLC 1750 Tysons Boulevard, Suite 1500 McLean, VA 22102 Phone: (703) 910-5062 Fax: (703) 910-5107 Email: jmsmall@jmadisonplc.com CARLYLE GROUP: Abernathy Sues Under Trafficking Protection Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Abernathy, Cedrick Arthur, Larry Bess, Darius Cain, Marcus Carter, Mario Cavazos, Mike Cowley, Bonita Cromartie, Vernon Dasher, Misael Diaz, Jason Foster, Michael Gatson, Delonte Green, Jerome Greene, Christopher Jacobs, Ryan Jakubowski, Kyle Kendrick, Justin Logan, Alton McNeil, LaDarius Phillips, Frank Lambey, Lawrence Freeman, Eric Nelson, Michael Nomura, Josean Ortiz-Medina, Edward Ponder, Tamecia Turner, Jeffery Willis, and Tristan Yumul, on their own behalf and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. The Carlyle Group, Inc.; ManTech International Corp.; ManTech Telecommunications and Information Sys. Corp.; Michael Brogan; Kevin Cody; Muge Cody; Bonnie Cook; Brian Earhart; John Guarnieri; Mark Croll; and Kathryn Romance, Case No. 1:22-cv-03603 (D.D.C., Nov. 30, 2022), is brought to seek compensation and equitable relief for damages inflicted upon them by Defendants for violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act ("TVPA") and its progeny (including but not limited to the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act or TVPA). The acts and omissions giving rise to TVPA liability occurred in Kuwait and Afghanistan and were perpetrated by Defendants as part of a scheme to become unjustly enriched from Contract No. W56HZV-12-C-0127 ("the Contract") entered with the U.S. Army Contracting Command, Warren, Michigan. The Contract was for logistics sustainment and support for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected family of vehicles ("MRAPs"). ManTech won this contract by offering dramatically reduced costs to the United States in servicing and repairing damaged MRAPs. However, ManTech realized the reduced costs (and its corresponding profits) by abusing Plaintiffs in a manner prohibited by the TVPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are former ManTech employees who ManTech employed illegally in Kuwait and Afghanistan. The Carlyle Group, Inc. is a publicly-traded (NASDAQ "CG") multinational private equity, alternative asset management and financial services corporation based in Washington, DC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph A. Hennessey, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH HENNESSEY, LLC 2 Wisconsin Circle, Suite 700 Chevy Chase, MD 20815 Phone: (301) 351-5614 Email: jhennessey@jahlegal.com CAVENDER STORES: Sanchez Files Suit in E.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavender Stores, LTD. The case is styled as Alexis Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cavender Stores, LTD., Case No. 4:22-cv-01016 (E.D. Tex., Nov. 29, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Cavender's -- https://www.cavenders.com/ -- has been a trusted cowboy boots and western wear outfitter for over 50 years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elton Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC - DALLAS 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450 Dallas, TX 75219 Phone: (214) 744-3000 Fax: (214) 744-3015 Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com CGAP INC: Prettyman Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CGAP, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Michelle Prettyman, on behalf of Herself and all others similarly situated v. CGAP, Inc. doing business as: MortgageDepot, Case No. 5:22-cv-00293-JPB (N.D.W. Va., Dec. 1, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. CGAP -- https://www.cgap.org/ -- is an independent think tank that works to empower poor people to build resilience and capture opportunities through financial services..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan R Marshall, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: (304) 345-6555 Fax: (304) 342-1110 Email: jmarshall@baileyglasser.com - and - Patricia M. Kipnis BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 923 Haddonfield Road Cherry Hill, NJ 08002, Suite 300 Phone: (856) 324-8219 Fax: (304) 342-1110 Email: pkipnis@baileyglasser.com CHATTANOOGA BAKERY: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chattanooga Bakery, Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Chattanooga Bakery, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10115 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 29, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Chattanooga Bakery, Inc. produces bakery products. The Company offers cookies, crackers, pretzels, and other dry bakery products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com CHRISTIE'S ENTERPRISES: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Christie's Enterprises, Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Christie's Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10161 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Christie's Enterprises Inc is a company that operates in the Retail industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com CITIBANK NA: Final Judgment Entered in FrontPoint v. ANZ, et al. ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, FUND LIQUIDATION HOLDINGS LLC, as assignee and successor-in-interest to FrontPoint Asian Event Driven Fund L.P., MOON CAPITAL PARTNERS MASTER FUND LTD., and MOON CAPITAL MASTER FUND LTD., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITIBANK, N.A., BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, UBS AG, BNP PARIBAS, S.A., OVERSEA-CHINESE BANKING CORPORATION LTD., BARCLAYS BANK PLC, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK, CREDIT SUISSE AG, STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, DBS BANK LTD., ING BANK, N.V., UNITED OVERSEAS BANK LIMITED, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP, LTD., THE BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI UFJ, LTD., THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED, COMMERZBANK AG, AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-50, Defendants, Docket No. 16-cv-05263 (AKH) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Alvin K. Hellestein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a final judgment and order of dismissal with prejudice. The matter came for a duly-noticed hearing on Nov. 29, 2022 (the "Fairness Hearing"), upon Representative Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement with Australia and New Zealand Banking Group, Ltd. ("ANZ"), Bank of America, N.A. ("BOA"), Barclays Bank PLC ("Barclays"), BNP Paribas, S.A. ("BNPP"), Commerzbank AG ("Commerzbank"), Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank ("CACIB"), DBS Bank Ltd. ("DBS"), MUFG Bank, Ltd. (f/k/a The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd.) ("MUFG"), Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited ("OCBC"), The Royal Bank of Scotland plc (n/k/a NatWest Markets plc) ("RBS"), Standard Chartered Bank ("SCB"), UBS AG ("UBS"), and United Overseas Bank Limited ("UOB") (collectively, the "Settling Defendants") in the action captioned Fund Liquidation Holdings LLC, et al. v. Citibank, N.A., et al., No. 16-cv-05263 (AKH) (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Action"), which was consented to by the Settling Defendants (together with Representative Plaintiffs, the "Parties"). The Final Judgment incorporates by reference the definitions in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated May 27, 2022 between the Representative Plaintiffs and the Settling Defendants, and all terms used in the Final Judgment and Order, except as otherwise expressly defined therein, will have the same meanings as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Upon the Effective Date of the Settlement, the Action, including each claim in the Action, is hereby dismissed with prejudice on the merits as to Settling Defendants (but not any other Defendant) without fees or costs except as provided by the terms of the Settlement. Upon the Effective Date of the Settlement, the Action will be dismissed fully, finally and in its entirety against the Settling Defendants. The Releasing Parties will be deemed to have, and by operation of the Final Judgment have, finally and forever released and discharged from and covenanted not to sue the Released Parties for any and all manner of claims. The following claims will not be released by the Settlement: (i) any claims against former employees of the Settling Defendants arising solely from those former employees' conduct that occurred while not employed by the Settling Defendants; (ii) any claims against the named Defendants in the Action other than the Released Parties; or (iii) any claims against any Defendant not affiliated with the Settling Defendants who may be subsequently added in the Action. For the avoidance of doubt, Released Claims does not include claims arising under foreign law based solely on transactions executed entirely outside the United States by the Settling Class Members domiciled outside the United States. Although the foregoing release is not a general release, the foregoing release constitutes a waiver by the Parties and each Settling Class Member of any and all rights and provisions under Section 1542 of the California Civil Code (to the extent it applies to the Action). In entering and making this Settlement Agreement, the Parties assume the risk of any mistake of fact or law and the release will be irrevocable and remain in effect notwithstanding any mistake of fact or law. Upon the Effective Date, each of the Releasing Parties will forever be enjoined from prosecuting in any forum any Released Claim against any of the Released Parties and agrees and covenants not to sue any of the Released Parties on the basis of any Released Claims or to assist any third party in prosecuting any Released Claims against any Released Party. Judge Hellerstein, finding no just reason for delay, directs pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the judgment of dismissal as to the Settling Defendants will be final and entered forthwith. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2022 Final Judgment & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/265tnt58 from Leagle.com. CITIBANK NA: FrontPoint's Class Deal w/ Credit Suisse Gets Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, FUND LIQUIDATION HOLDINGS LLC, as assignee and successor-in-interest to FrontPoint Asian Event Driven Fund L.P., MOON CAPITAL PARTNERS MASTER FUND LTD., and MOON CAPITAL MASTER FUND LTD., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITIBANK, N.A., BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, UBS AG, BNP PARIBAS, S.A., OVERSEA-CHINESE BANKING CORPORATION LTD., BARCLAYS BANK PLC, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK, CREDIT SUISSE AG, STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, DBS BANK LTD., ING BANK, N.V., UNITED OVERSEAS BANK LIMITED, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP, LTD., THE BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI UFJ, LTD., THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED, COMMERZBANK AG, AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-50, Defendants, Docket No. 16-cv-05263 (AKH) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Representative Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement with Credit Suisse AG. The matter came for the Fairness Hearing on Nov. 29, 2022, upon the Representative Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement with Credit Suisse, which was consented to by Credit Suisse. Judge Hellerstein incorporates the Final Judgment by reference the definitions in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated April 22, 2022 between the Representative Plaintiffs and Credit Suisse, and all terms used in the Final Judgment and Order will have the same meanings as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Upon the Effective Date of the Settlement, the Action, including each claim in the Action, is dismissed with prejudice on the merits as to Credit Suisse (but not any other Defendant) without fees or costs except as provided by the terms of the Settlement. Upon the Effective Date of the Settlement, the Action will be dismissed fully, finally and in its entirety against Credit Suisse. The Releasing Parties will be deemed to have, and by operation of the Final Judgment have, finally and forever released and discharged from and covenanted not to sue the Released Parties for any and all manner of claims. The following claims will not be released by the Settlement: (i) any claims against former Credit Suisse employees arising solely from those former employees' conduct that occurred while not employed by Credit Suisse; (ii) any claims against the named Defendants in the Action other than the Released Parties; or (iii) any claims against any Defendant not affiliated with Credit Suisse who may be subsequently added in the Action. For the avoidance of doubt, the Released Claims does not include claims arising under foreign law based solely on transactions executed entirely outside the United States by the Settling Class Members domiciled outside the United States. Although the foregoing release is not a general release, the foregoing release constitutes a waiver by the Parties and each Settling Class Member of any and all rights and provisions under Section 1542 of the California Civil Code (to the extent it applies to the Action). Upon the Effective Date, each of the Releasing Parties will forever be enjoined from prosecuting in any forum any Released Claim against any of the Released Parties and agrees and covenants not to sue any of the Released Parties on the basis of any Released Claims or to assist any third party in prosecuting any Released Claims against any Released Party. Judge Hellerstein, finding no just reason for delay, directs pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that the judgment of dismissal as to Credit Suisse will be final and entered forthwith. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2022 Final Judgment & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/6knbwamh from Leagle.com. CITIBANK NA: FrontPoint's Class Deal with ANZ, Others Gets Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, FUND LIQUIDATION HOLDINGS LLC, as assignee and successor-in-interest to FrontPoint Asian Event Driven Fund L.P., MOON CAPITAL PARTNERS MASTER FUND LTD., and MOON CAPITAL MASTER FUND LTD., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITIBANK, N.A., BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, UBS AG, BNP PARIBAS, S.A., OVERSEA-CHINESE BANKING CORPORATION LTD., BARCLAYS BANK PLC, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK, CREDIT SUISSE AG, STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, DBS BANK LTD., ING BANK, N.V., UNITED OVERSEAS BANK LIMITED, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP, LTD., THE BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI UFJ, LTD., THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED, COMMERZBANK AG, AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-50, Defendants, Docket No. 16-cv-05263 (AKH) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Alvin K. Hellestein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Representative Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement with Australia and New Zealand Banking Group, Ltd., Bank of America, N.A., Barclays Bank PLC, BNP Paribas, S.A., Commerzbank AG, Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, DBS Bank Ltd., MUFG Bank, Ltd. (f/k/a The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd.), Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited, The Royal Bank of Scotland plc (n/kJa NatWest Markets plc), Standard Chartered Bank, UBS AG, and United Overseas Bank Limited. The matter came for the Fairness Hearing on Nov. 29, 2022, upon the Representative Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement with the Settling Defendants. Due and adequate notice of the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated May 27, 2022, have been given to the Settlement Class Members. Having considered all papers filed and proceedings had in the Action, Judge Hellerstein grants the Representative Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval. For purposes only of the settlement of the Released Claims set forth in the Settlement Agreement, he finally certifies the Settlement Class: All Persons (including both natural persons and entities) who purchased, sold, held, traded, or otherwise had any interest in SIBOR- and/or SOR-Based Derivatives during the period of Jan. 1, 2007 to Dec. 31, 2011 (the Class Period). Based on the record, he reconfirms that the applicable provisions of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied for purposes only of the Settlement. For purposes of the Settlement, the Representative Plaintiffs are approved to serve as representatives of such Settlement Class and Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. is appointed the Class Counsel to the Settlement Class. It is determined that all the Settling Class Members are bound by the Settlement Agreement and the Final Approval Order regardless of whether such Settling Class Members execute and deliver a Proof of Claim and Release. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Hellerstein finally approves the Settlement, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, and finds that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable and adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class, including the Representative Plaintiffs. The Parties are directed to carry out the Settlement Agreement in accordance with all of its terms and provisions, including the termination provisions. Judge Hellerstein approves the establishment of the Settlement Fiduciary Account under the Settlement Agreement as qualified settlement funds pursuant to Section 468B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder. Without affecting the finality of the Final Approval Order for purposes of appeal, the Court reserves exclusive jurisdiction over the implementation and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement and the Settlement contemplated thereby and over the enforcement of the Final Approval Order. Each Settling Class Member must execute a release and covenant not to sue, in conformity with the Settlement Agreement, as incorporated into the Proof of Claim and Release form, in order to receive the Settling Class Member's share, if any, of the Net Settlement Fund defined in the Settlement Agreement. Judge Hellerstein confirms the appointment of A.B. Data, Ltd. as Settlement Administrator and directs it to ensure that each Proof of Claim and Release form provided to the Settling Class Members contains a copy of such release and covenant not to sue. However, the Settling Class Members' claims will be released pursuant to Section 12 of the Settlement Agreement regardless of whether the Settling Class Member executes a release and covenant not to sue. Judge Hellerstein declares that the Settlement Agreement and the Final Approval Order will be binding on, and will have res judicata and preclusive effect in, all pending and future lawsuits or other proceedings against the Released Parties involving the Released Claims that are maintained by or on behalf of any Releasing Party regardless of whether the Releasing Party previously initiated or subsequently initiates individual litigation or other proceedings involving the Released Claims, and even if such Releasing Party never received actual notice of the Action or the proposed Settlement. Judge Hellerstein approves the release and covenant not to sue set forth in Section 12 of the Settlement and directs dismissal of the Action as against the Settling Defendants and any Released Parties (but not any other Defendant) fully, finally and with prejudice, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement and the Final Judgment to be entered concurrently with the Final Judgment and Order. Any data or other information provided by the Settlement Class Members in connection with the submission of claims will be held in strict confidence, available only to the Settlement Administrator, the Class Counsel, and experts or consultants acting on behalf of the Settlement Class. In no event will a Settlement Class Member's data or personal information be made publicly available, except as provided for herein or upon Court Order for good cause shown. The Distribution Plan and the Proof of Claim and Release Form are each approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate. Judge Hellerstein's certification of the Settlement Class and appointment of the Representative Plaintiffs as the class representatives is without prejudice to, or waiver of, the rights of any Defendant to contest any other request by the Representative Plaintiffs to certify a class. His findings in his Final Approval Order will have no effect on the Court's ruling on any motion to certify any class or to appoint class representatives in the litigation or any challenge to the Representative Plaintiffs' capacity to litigate or to represent a putative class, and no party may cite or refer to the Court's approval of the Settlement Class as binding or persuasive authority with respect to any such motion or challenge. Finally, the Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses (and Incentive Awards for the Representative Plaintiffs) will be the subject of a separate order by the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2022 Final Approval Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr466tx6 from Leagle.com. COLLECTION BUREAU: Bleich Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Collection Bureau Of The Hudson Valley, Inc. The case is styled as Yoel Bleich, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Collection Bureau Of The Hudson Valley, Inc., Case No. 7:22-cv-10135-PMH (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 29, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Collection Bureau of the Hudson Valley, Inc. -- https://www.cbhv.com/ -- provides receivable collection services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christofer Merritt, Esq. STEIN SAKS LLC 1 University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: cmerritt@SteinSaksLegal.com COLOR FACTORY: Fuentes Sues Over Unpaid Regular, Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Jasmina Fuentes, and other similarly-situated individuals v. COLOR FACTORY, INC., GREAT PAINTING CORP., BL EXCLUSIVE PAINTING SERVICES CORP., CARLOS C. SAMPAIO, ALEJANDRA VEGA MAYA, and JHOAN BASTARDO LINARES, individually, Case No. 1:22-cv-23886-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 29, 2022), is brought to recover money damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages and retaliation under the laws of the United States, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. While employed by the Defendants, the Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours every week, but she was not paid for all her regular and overtime hours worked. There were many weeks when the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals showed up for work as required. While on duty in the work site, if the work was interrupted or delayed for any reason, the Defendants did not count the time spent waiting as working time and deducted those hours from the Plaintiff's total number of working hours. Due to this practice, the Plaintiff was paid for less than 40 regular hours weekly, and she was not paid for all her overtime hours, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired as a painter, and her primary duty was caulking before painting. The Defendants are construction contractors specializing in painting services for residential and commercial accounts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com COLORADO DOC: Carbajal Files Suit in D. Colorado ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Colorado Department of Corrections. The case is styled as Dean Carbajal, an individual; Warren Worthington, an individual; Estate of Robert Murphy, John Doe, an individual and the personal representative of the Estate of Robert Murphy; Estate of John Deathrage, John Doe, an individual and the personal representative of the Estate of John Deathrage; Daniel Villa John Doe, an individual and the personal representative of the Estate of Daniel Villa, and all other [sic] similarly situated v. Colorado Department of Corrections; Jeff Long, in their official capacity as Warden of the Sterling Correctional Facility of the Colorado Department of Corrections; Jessica Dorcey, in their official capacity as Major of the Sterling Correctional Facility of the Colorado Department of Corrections; Thomas FNU, Scott FNU, Captains; Vickie Nira, in their official capacity as Wardens of the Sterling Correctional Facility of the Colorado Department of Corrections; Case No. 1:22-cv-03062-GPG (D. Colo., Nov. 28, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. The Colorado Department of Corrections -- https://cdoc.colorado.gov/ -- is the principal department of the Colorado state government that operates the state prisons.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. COMMUNITY HOUSING: Shea Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Housing Partnership, et al. The case is styled as Gary Shea, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Community Housing Partnership, Does 1-10, Case No. CGC22602448 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Oct. 18, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Community Housing Partners -- https://www.communityhousingpartners.org/ -- works to create healthy, sustainable, and affordable homes and communities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com COMMUNITY LOAN: Kazmierczak Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Grzegorz Kazmierczak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COMMUNITY LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-23413-RNS was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Oct. 20, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-23413 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Community Loan Servicing, LLC -- https://communityloanservicing.com/ -- provides financial solutions. The Company offers servicing loans for banks and other financial institutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Sharon A. Harris, Esq. Matthew C. De Re, Esq. Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 440-0020 Email: firm@attorneyzim.com Web: www.attorneyzim.com - and - Arthur C. Czaja LAW OFFICE OF ARTHUR C. CZAJA 7521 N. Milwaukee Ave. Niles, IL 60714 Phone: (847) 647-2106 telephone Email: arthur@czajalawoffices.com COMPASS GROUP: Bosco Suit Removed to D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ferdanindo Bosco and Claudette Jackson-Goodman, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COMPASS GROUP USA, INC.; COMPASS ONE, LLC; and COMPASS 2K12 SERVICES, LLC, Case No. BER-L-005214-22 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on Nov. 30, 2022, and assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-06909. The Complaint filed by Plaintiffs alleges claims of negligence, fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. The Plaintiffs seek an award for "compensatory damages for all unpaid wages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law, costs of suit and attorney's fees, as allowed by law, punitive damages, and any all such other relief as the Court deems just and proper."[BN] The Plaintiff are represented by: Mark T. Sadaka, Esq. SADAKA ASSOCIATES LLC 155 North Dean Street, Suite 4-D Englewood, NJ 07631 Phone: (201) 266-5670 Fax: (201) 266-5671 Email: mark@sadakafirm.com The Defendants are represented by: William P. McLane, Esq. Jennifer I. Fischer, Esq. Christie Pazdzierski, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. A Professional Corporation One Newark Center, 8th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: 973.848.4700 COMPLEAT SCULPTOR: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Compleat Sculptor, Inc. The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Compleat Sculptor, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07296-HG (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 1, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Compleat Sculptor, Inc. -- https://shop.sculpt.com/ -- is one of the largest sculpture suppliers in the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com COMPLEAT STRATEGIST: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Compleat Strategist, Inc. The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Compleat Strategist, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07290-MKB-TAM (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 1, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Compleat Strategist -- https://www.thecompleatstrategist.com/ -- provides a huge selection of board and tabletop games, miniatures, puzzles, dice, and gaming accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com COSTCO WHOLESALES: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Seaweed Snacks ------------------------------------------------------------------ Erink Shaak, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed class action alleges Costco Wholesale Corporation has failed to disclose that its Kirkland Organic Roasted Seaweed snack may contain cadmium, perchlorate or other toxins. According to the 40-page lawsuit, Costco knew or should have known that its seaweed product contained cadmium, a known human carcinogen associated with various health risks, yet failed to sufficiently test the snack and warn consumers of the presence of the heavy metal. The case claims that consumers, who "lack the scientific knowledge necessary" to determine whether the seaweed snack contains cadmium or other toxins, would not have purchased the Kirkland Organic Roasted Seaweed, or would have paid less for it, had they known about its "true quality and ingredients." The lawsuit states that seaweed snacks such as Costco's private-label Kirkland Signature product have risen in popularity in recent years due to their perceived health benefits. According to the case, edible seaweed has been associated with improved thyroid function, gut health, immunity and cardiovascular and brain health. The suit claims, however, that ConsumerLab.com tested certain dried seaweed and roasted seaweed snacks in 2021 and found that a single serving contained 6 mcg of cadmium, a non-essential toxic heavy metal and environmental toxin that has "no known beneficial role in the human body," according to the complaint. Per the case, long-term exposure to cadmium can lead to a build-up of the heavy metal that can cause kidney disease, lung damage and fragile bones. Moreover, the Department of Health and Human Services has classified cadmium as a known human carcinogen, the complaint adds. The lawsuit alleges that Costco's Kirkland Organic Roasted Seaweed Snack is deceptively labeled in that it fails to disclose anywhere on the packaging that the product contains or has a significant risk of containing "dangerous heavy metals" such as cadmium. On the other hand, the seaweed snack label emphasizes that the product is organic and made with superior ingredients, according to the suit. "Based on Defendant's decision to wholly omit mention of the presence of cadmium, heavy metal and/or other undesirable toxins or contaminants in the Products, and to instead advertise, package, and market their Products as healthy, nutritious, and organic, claims which were bolstered by images of the seaweed snack on the packaging, they had a duty to ensure that these statements and the message portrayed by the packaging's imagery were true and not misleading," the lawsuit attests. "As such, Defendant knew or should have known the Products included nondisclosed cadmium, and/or other undesirable toxins or contaminants and that over time, these toxins can accumulate to [consumers'] detriment." According to the case, Costco's failure to disclose the presence of cadmium in its seaweed product was "deceptive, misleading, unfair, and/or false" and allowed the big box retailer to reap "enormous profits" from consumers who paid a premium price for the snack. The lawsuit, which was recently removed from San Diego County Superior Court to California's Southern District Court, looks to represent consumers who purchased the Kirkland Organic Roasted Seaweed snack in the U.S. for household or business use (and not for resale) between January 26, 2018 and the date of judgment in the case. [GN] COTTON ON USA: Cancino Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Oscar Cancino, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. COTTON ON USA INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 22CV405002 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., Oct. 20, 2022), is brought against the Defendants' violations of California's laws by failing to pay minimum and overtime wages. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and the Class Members, as a class action, against Defendants for: unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, non-compliant wage statements and failure to maintain payroll records, wages not timely paid upon termination, failure to timely pay wages during employment, unreimbursed business expenses, unlawful business practices and unfair business practices, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly paid, non-exempt Sales Associate from September 2021 to September 2022. The Defendants are an Australian retail chain known for their fast fashion clothing for men, women, and kids sold through their Cotton On, Cotton On Kids, Cotton On Body, and Typo brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Drexler, Esq. Molly DeSario, Esq. Jonathan Lee, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 Email: Robert.Drexler@CapstoneLawyers.com Molly.DeSario@CapstoneLawyers.com Jonathan.Lee@CapstoneLawyers.com DENVER, CO: Jarman, et al., File Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re DENVER JAIL COVID-19 LITIGATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-01795-JLK-KLM (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs Paul Jarman and Thomas Melendez the Plaintiffs seek to certify the following classes: -- Primary Class "All detainees who were placed in custody of the Denver County Jails (combined facilities) and tested positive for COVID-19 while detained." The class period commenced on January 1, 2020 and ended February 1, 2022. -- COJL Class "All detainees who were placed in custody of the Denver County Jail (“COJL”) and tested positive while detained." The class period commenced on January 1, 2020 and ended February 1, 2022. -- DDC Class "All detainees who were placed in custody of the Cise- Simonet Downtown Detention Center (DDC) and tested positive while detained." The class period commenced on January 1, 2020 and ended February 1, 2022. The Denver Sheriff's Department's Interactive Statistics shows that, as of February 1, 2022, at least 2,640 people in the Denver County Jails had tested positive for COVID-19, and 1,685 of those COVID-19 cases were contracted in the jail, while 955 were intake cases. The Plaintiffs in this case contracted COVID-19 in the Denver County Jails. That never should have happened. The City knew that COVID-19 was deadly, and that contracting the disease could put inmates' lives at risk. Nonetheless, it disregarded medical advice and cavalierly flouted recommendations that could have ensured the safety of inmates confined against their will, the lawsuit contend. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VKipBd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley A. Levin, Esq. Nelson A. Waneka, Esq. Susan M. Minamizono, Esq. Robyn Levin, Esq. LEVIN SITCOFF WANEKA PC 1512 Larimer Street, Suite 650 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 575-9390 Facsimile: (303) 575-9385 E-mail: brad@lsw-legal.com nelson@lsw-legal.com susan@lsw-legal.com robyn@lsw-legal.com - and - Rick D. Bailey, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RICK D. BAILEY 1085 Lafayette St., Suite 702 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (720) 676-6023 E-mail: rick@rickbaileylaw.com - and - Zachary D. Warren, Esq. Annika Adams, Esq. HIGHLANDS LAW FIRM 501 S. Cherry St., 11 th Floor Denver, CO 80246 Telephone: (720) 722-3880 Facsimile: (720) 815-3380 E-mail: zwarren@highlandslawfirm.com aadams@highlandslawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Geoffrey C. Klingsporn, Esq. DENVER CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 201 West Colfax Ave., Dept. 1108 Denver, CO 80202 E-mail: Geoffrey.klingsporn@denvergov.org DIAMOND COMIC: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diamond Comic Distributors, Inc. The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Diamond Comic Distributors, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10128-JPC (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 29, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Diamond Comic Distributors, Inc. -- https://www.diamondcomics.com/ -- is an American comic book distributor serving retailers in North America and worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com DRYCO CONSTRUCTION: Barriga Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dryco Construction, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Willy Barriga, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Dryco Construction, Inc., Does 1-10, Case No. 34-2022-00330437-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 29, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." DRYCO -- https://www.dryco.com/ -- was originally a commercial paving contractor and now includes concrete and fencing divisions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Orlando J. Villalba, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park E., Ste. 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2533 Phone: 310-712-8002 Email: Orlando.Villalba@capstonelawyers.com DYWIDAG SYSTEMS: Guerrero Sues Over Missing Plan Contributions -------------------------------------------------------------- Miguel Guerrero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DYWIDAG Systems International, Class Action USA, Inc., a New York Corporation, DSI Holding USA Inc. Profit and Retirement Plan, Mike Kelley and Crystal Soldan, plan administrators, Case No. 1:22-cv-06613 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 28, 2022) asserts claim to enforce the Plaintiff and the Class' rights under the terms of the Profit and Retirement Plan and seeks to recover those benefits due to them under the terms of the Plan. In 1991, DYWIDAG established the DSI Holding USA Inc. Profit and Retirement Plan. Under the Plan, participants make pre-tax salary contributions to individual retirement accounts. The first 2% of employee contributions are matched at 100% (the "Matching Contribution"). Additionally, the Company contributes an additional 3% of an employee's compensation, regardless of any amounts an employee elects to defer (the "Safe Harbor Contribution"). Pursuant to the Plan, the Defendants did not pay into Plaintiff's account the required Safe Harbor or Matching Contributions corresponding to his accrued vacation pay, the Plaintiff contends. Mr. Guerrero made elective deferrals to the Plan which entitled him to the full Matching Contribution. Between the Safe Harbor Contribution and the Matching Contributions, the Company was to contribute 5% of his compensation to his Plan account. In April of 2021, Mr. Guerrero noticed missing Safe Harbor Contributions to his 401(k). On April 23, 2022, Mr. Guerrero presented his pay stub and AUL account statement through April 22, 2022 to the Defendants. While the paystub showed the Safe Harbor Contribution being made, no such contribution was reflected in the American United Life Insurance Company (AUL) account statement, says the suit. On August 22, 2022, however, after repeated denials, the Defendants belatedly admitted they in fact had make a mistake with respect to the Safe Harbor Contribution and had underpaid them. In September 2022, the Plaintiff terminated his 34-year employment with Defendant DYWIDAG. Defendant DYWIDAG tried to persuade Plaintiff to stay by telling Plaintiff that if he left, the still unresolved issues with respect to his benefits would "go to the bottom of the bucket." He was subsequently paid his accrued vacation pay, albeit weeks late in violation of the Illinois Wage Payment Act, the suit alleges. Mr. Guerrero began working for DYWIDAG in 1988. DYWIDAG Systems is a global technology group in the construction and mining sectors. AUL is the custodian of the plan assets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Heffner, Esq. Matthew Hurst, Esq. HEFFNER HURST 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1210 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 346-3466 E-mail: mheffner@heffnerhurst.com mhurst@heffnerhurst.com - and - Charles Watkins, Esq. GUIN, STOKES & EVANS, LLC 805 Lake Street, Suite 226 Oak Park, IL 60301 Telephone: (312) 878-8391 E-mail: cwatkins@gseattorneys.com E.J. LANDRIGAN: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against E.J. Landrigan, Inc. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. E.J. Landrigan, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07268 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. E.J. Landrigan, Inc. is a luxury goods & jewelry company based out in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com EMORTGAGE LENDING: Cochran Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Tennessee ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against eMortgage Lending, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Robert M. Cochran, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. eMortgage Lending, Inc., John Does 1-10, Case No. 3:22-cv-00429 (E.D. Tenn., Nov. 30, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. eMortgage Lending, Inc. -- https://www.emortgagecal.com/ -- is a mortgage banker, serving the lending needs of real estate professionals, builders and individual homebuyers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marwan R. Daher, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Email: mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com EMPANADA MAMA: Gibson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Empanada Mama LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jason Gibson, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Empanada Mama LLC, Tek Lim Chen Revocable Trust, Case No. 1:22-cv-10106-GHW (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 29, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Empanada Mama -- https://www.empmamanyc.com/ -- is a colorful, vibrant and casual Latin restaurant in the neighborhood of Hell's Kitchen and LES in Manhattan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A Johnston, Esq. JOHNSTON LAW LLC 1103 Stewart Avenue, Suite 200 Garden City, NY 11757 Phone: (516) 388-7611 Email: DJ@BellLG.com - and - Jonathan Ryan Bell, Esq. BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC 100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 280-3008 Fax: (212) 656-1845 Email: jb@belllg.com EMPRESS AMBULANCE: D'Agostini Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert D'Agostini, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EMPRESS AMBULANCE SERVICE, LLC d/b/a EMPRESS EMS, a Delaware limited liability company; DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 7:22-cv-10122 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 29, 2022), is brought to secure redress against Empress for its reckless and negligent violation of their privacy rights by failing to safeguard personal identifying information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI"). In May 26, 2022, Empress experienced a data breach whereby unauthorized, third-party hackers gained access to the Defendant's internal systems through a ransomware attack. Empress did not detect this unauthorized access until July 14, 2022--almost two months later--at which point those third-party hackers had already exfiltrated the PII and PHI of approximately 318,558 individuals from Empress' systems. This PII included, inter alia, those individual's names, dates of birth, demographic information, diagnosis and treatment information, medical record numbers, dates of service, insurance information, prescription information, and social security numbers. The Plaintiff and Class Members have had their privacy rights violated and are now exposed to a heightened risk of identity theft and credit fraud for the remainder of their lifetimes. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now spend time and money on prophylactic measures, such as increased monitoring of their personal and financial accounts and the purchase of credit monitoring services, to protect themselves from future loss. Plaintiff and Class Members have also lost the value of their PII and PHI. Further, Empress unreasonably delayed in notifying Plaintiff and Class Members of the data breach until approximately September 9, 2022--despite having discovered the breach nearly two months earlier--when it disseminated letters informing Plaintiff and other Class Members that their PII and PHI had been compromised by the data breach (the "Data Breach Notice"). As a result of Empress's wrongful actions and inactions, patient information was stolen. Plaintiff and Class Members have had their PII and PHI compromised by nefarious third- party hackers, have had their privacy rights violated, have been exposed to the risk of fraud and identify theft, and have otherwise suffered damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are patients and former patients of Empress who had their PII and PHI collected, stored and ultimately breached by Empress Empress is an emergency medical services and aftercare transportation provider in the New York metro area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com - and - Daniel A. Schlanger, Esq. SCHLANGER LAW GROUP LLP 80 Broad Street, Suite 1301 New York, NY 10004 Phone: 212-500-6114 Fax: 646-612-7996 Email: dschlanger@consumerprotection.net ERIC ADAMS: K.M. Suit Transferred to Supreme Court U.S. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as K.M., individually and on behalf of M.M. and S.M., and all others similarly situated v. Eric Adams, Mayor of the City of New York, et al., Case No. 20-4128 was transferred from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, to the Supreme Court of United States on Nov. 29, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 22A464 to the proceeding. Eric Leroy Adams is an American politician, serving as the 110th mayor of New York City since January 1, 2022.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rory J. Bellantoni, Esq. BRAIN INJURY RIGHTS GROUP, LTD. 300 E. 95th Street, Suite 130 New York, NY 10128 Email: rory@pabilaw.org FAIRLIFE LLC: Faces Class Action Following Animal Cruelty Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that Chicago-based Fairlife, LLC has been hit with a proposed class action filed by two consumers who say the company has fraudulently advertised and profited from the claim that its milk products are derived from cows that are treated with the highest degrees of care. In truth, cows at Fairlife's flagship Fair Oaks Farm in Indiana are routinely abused and mistreated, the 21-page complaint alleges. "As a result, Fairlife has unfairly profited from its customers on the expectation that it treats its cows not just humanely, but in ease and comfort," the case states. The lawsuit says that in early June, non-profit Animal Recovery Mission posted an expose online that detailed instances of animal cruelty [warning: there are images of animals on the other side of that link that some may consider to be graphic] at the defendant's farm. The Florida-based animal rights group, via the work of an operative who went undercover as an employee at Fair Oaks Farms, said to have observed Fairlife employees "throwing, slapping, and kicking calves" and captured video of the conduct, the complaint says. According to the lawsuit, Animal Recovery Mission "further witnessed young calves being starved to death, beaten with steel bars, and burned with branding irons," as well as grown cows too old to produce milk that were "shot and left to die," which the lawsuit says sometimes took several hours. Fairlife claims across its products and website that cows at Fair Oaks Farm are treated with "the utmost care" and with "extraordinary care and comfort," the suit continues, marketing that the plaintiffs attest is a core part of Fairlife's identity. Consumers rely on Fairlife's representations of how it treats its animals, and are willing to pay a premium price "for goods and foodstuffs that are grown in humane, sustainable ways," the complaint reads. "Fairlife's products, as demonstrated, are sold at as much as a 100% markup over its competitors," according to the lawsuit. "A measurable part of that cost reflects the expectation that Fairlife's products will come from humanely-treated cows." In the days after Animal Recovery Mission's expose made headlines, Fair Oaks Farms has admitted that the incidents detailed in the report did actually occur, the lawsuit says, with Fair Oaks' owner taking full responsibility for the reported conduct. An individual who worked at Fair Oaks Farms and was alleged to have abused animals at the facility was arrested on June 12, according to a report from the Northwest Indiana Times, and two others also alleged to have abused animals are being sought by police. According to a statement on its website, Fairlife has discontinued use of milk produced at Fair Oaks Farms, and has reportedly begun auditing its 30 supply farms. [GN] FALONI LAW GROUP: Friedman Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Faloni Law Group, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Joseph Friedman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Faloni Law Group, LLC, First Portfolio Ventures I, LLC, Case No. 7:22-cv-10127 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 29, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Faloni Law Group, LLC -- https://www.falonilaw.com/ -- is a full service law firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Thomas Yusko, Esq. STEIN SAKS LLC 1 University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com FCA US: Faces Class Action Over Defective Jeep Wrangler 4xe SUVs ---------------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Jeep Wrangler 4xe class action lawsuit alleges the hybrid SUVs are too dangerous to drive because they can suddenly shut down while driving. The Jeep Wrangler 4xe is a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle first released in 2021. The Wrangler 4xe class action doesn't go into great detail about the cause of the vehicle shutdowns, but the two plaintiffs contend the Jeeps "contain faulty electronic and/or computer systems that cause the vehicles to suddenly, and without warning, shut down." Plaintiffs Jibri Ward-Richardson and Yesenia Robaina allege all owners of Jeep Wrangler 4xe SUVs are driving vehicles at risk of suddenly activating check engine warning lights then shutting down while driving. One plaintiff says that is what happened to her Jeep Wrangler hybrid less than two miles after purchasing the Jeep. The Jeep dealer made repairs several times but the plaintiff alleges the Wrangler kept breaking down. The other plaintiff alleges the Wrangler 4xe check engine light illuminated and the Jeep's computer indicated "numerous errors related to the functioning of the vehicle." The Jeep dealership cleared the diagnostic trouble codes and told the plaintiff the check engine light was caused by the gas pump when the Wrangler 4xe was last fueled. But the plaintiff alleges her Jeep Wrangler 4xe "suffered a catastrophic failure of its propulsion system" and "suddenly and without warning failed to start multiple times." According to the class action lawsuit, the Wrangler 4xe SUVs are dangerous and owners and lessees wouldn't have purchased the vehicles if Chrysler would have warned them about the alleged defects. Jeep Wrangler 4xe Lawsuit -- Motion to Dismiss Judge Richard W. Story granted FCA's motion to dismiss all claims in the class action except for fraudulent concealment and consumer protection claims. However, those claims remain only for the states of Georgia and Virginia where the two plaintiffs purchased their Jeep Wrangler 4xe vehicles. The claim for fraudulent concealment alleges Chrysler intentionally misrepresented and concealed safety information or acted with "reckless disregard for the truth." The plaintiffs assert FCA denied Jeep Wrangler hybrid customers important information that is needed to making purchasing decisions. The Jeep Wrangler 4xe class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Gainesville Division: Jibri Ward-Richardson and Yesenia Robaina, v. FCA US LLC. The plaintiffs are represented by Thompson O'Brien Kappler & Nasuti, P.C. [GN] FEDEX OFFICE: Briand WMS Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against FedEx Office and Print Services, Inc. The case is styled as Briand WMS Esquire, individually on behalf of himself the General Public and on behalf of all other persons and class similarly situated v. Paradigm Industries, Inc., Case No. 22STCV37416 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 30, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Personal Injury/Property Damage tort (General Jurisdiction)." FedEx Office Print & Ship Services Inc. -- https://www.office.fedex.com/ -- is an American retail chain that provides an outlet for FedEx Express and FedEx Ground shipping, as well as copying, printing, marketing, office services and shipping.[BN] FIRST STUDENT: Guardado Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Maria Guardado, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. FIRST STUDENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; FIRST STUDENT, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV33722 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 30, 2022, and assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-08699. The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: Violation of California Labor Codes by unpaid overtime; unpaid meal period premiums; unpaid rest period premiums; unpaid minimum wages; final wages not timely paid; wages not timely paid during employment; non-compliant wage statements; failure to keep requisite payroll records; unreimbursed business expenses; and violation of California Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David J. Dow, Esq. Jocelyn D. Hannah, Esq. Amanda Fleming, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101.3577 Phone: 619.232.0441 Fax: 619.232.4302 Email: ddow@littler.com jhannah@littler.com afleming@littler.com FLAGS UNLIMITED: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flags Unlimited, Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Flags Unlimited, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10123 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 29, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Flags Unlimited -- https://flags-unlimited.com/ -- is a family owned business providing the highest quality flags, flagpoles, logo wearables and ad-specialties since 1978.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com FLEX LTD: Binion Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Brittany Binion, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. FLEX LTD., FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL USA, INC., And FLEXTRONICS AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-06683 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 29, 2022), is brought against Defendant arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, for the Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages based on the correct regular rate of pay to the Plaintiff and other bonus-eligible hourly employees. During the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant, the Defendant paid performance and attendance bonuses, including retention bonuses and quarterly bonuses, to hourly employees, calculated pursuant to a formula set by company policy ("Defendant's Bonus Policy"). When the Defendant's bonus-eligible hourly employees, like the Plaintiff, have worked over 40 hours in individual work weeks, the Defendant paid these employees overtime at one and one-half times their hourly rates of pay. When the Defendant paid bonus-eligible hourly employees, like the Plaintiff, overtime pay, the Defendant failed to include their earned bonuses into the employees' regular rates of pay when calculating employees' overtime rates of pay, as required by law. As a result, the Defendant failed to pay overtime to bonus-eligible hourly employees, like the Plaintiff, at the correct rate, thereby violating the FLSA and IMWL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly employee subject to the Defendant's Bonus Policy. The Defendant is a multinational diversified manufacturing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. MICHAEL L. FRADIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Phone: 847-986-5889 Email: mike@fradinlaw.com FREEDOM FINANCIAL: Rainford Suit Transferred to D. Arizona ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Nickeisha Rainford, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. Freedom Financial Network LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-05260 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on Nov. 29, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-02014-DWL to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Freedom Financial Network, LLC -- https://www.freedomfinancialnetwork.com/ -- provides consumer credit and financial advocacy services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ 1 Towne Sq., 17th Fl. Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Fax: (248) 746-4001 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com - and - Jacob R Rusch, Esq. Zackary S Kaylor, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER PLLC 444 Cedar St., Ste. 1800 St. Paul, MN 55101 Phone: (612) 436-1800 Fax: (612) 436-1801 Email: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com zkaylor@JohnsonBecker.com The Defendant is represented by: Andrew B Levin, Esq. Douglas Calvin Lynn, III, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART PC - PHOENIX, AZ 2415 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 800 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phone: (602) 778-3700 Email: andy.levin@ogletree.com Trey.lynn@ogletreedeakins.com FTX TRADING: Dallas Mavericks Owner Comments on Crypto Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sabrina Toppa, writing for TheStreet, reports that Mark Cuban, the billionaire owner of the Dallas Mavericks, believes that crypto is not going anywhere, but suggested that disgraced FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried might be heading to a correctional facility. "I don't know all the details, but if I were him, I'd be afraid of going to jail for a long time," Cuban told TMZ. "I talked to the guy and thought he was smart. I had no idea he was going to take other people's money and put it to his personal use." Cuban has been an ardent proponent of crypto, in the past claiming popular memecoin Dogecoin was "real money" and the "strongest" medium of exchange. However, in recent months he has generated controversy for his role promoting now bankrupt crypto lender Voyager. "Cuban and [Voyager CEO Stephen Ehrlich] . . . went to great lengths to use their experience as investors to dupe millions of Americans into investing -- in many cases, their life savings -- into the deceptive Voyager platform and purchasing Voyager earn program accounts, which are unregistered securities," the class-action lawsuit says. "As a result, over 3.5 million Americans have now all but lost over $5 billion in cryptocurrency assets." Cuban, who is an Ethereum maximalist, doubled down on his belief that the FTX collapse will not be a death knell for the crypto industry. "Separate the signal from the noise," Cuban said. "There's been a lot of people making a lot of mistakes, but it doesn't change the underlying value." [GN] GAIA INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Potential Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues its investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Gaia, Inc. (NASDAQ: GAIA) resulting from allegations that Gaia may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Gaia securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=9917 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On November 7, 2022, Gaia revealed "an investigation by the staff of the Denver Regional Office (the 'Staff') of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the 'SEC')" which began in June 2020. According to the Company, "[i]n September 2022, Gaia and Gaia's Chief Financial Officer ('CFO') reached an agreement in principle with the Staff on a framework for a complete resolution of the investigation." Further, according to the Company, "[t]he agreement in principle contemplates that Gaia would consent, without admitting or denying any findings, to the entry of an administrative order: (1) finding that Gaia (a) misstated in its April 29, 2019 earnings release and earnings call the number of paying subscribers for the period ending March 31, 2019, … and (b) failed to comply with SEC whistleblower protection requirements with respect to the termination of one employee and the language used in severance agreements for other employees; and (2) requiring Gaia to pay a total civil monetary penalty of $2,000[,000] over a one-year period for these violations. At the same time, the CFO would consent, without admitting or denying any findings, to the entry of an administrative order: (1) finding that the CFO caused Gaia's misstatements in the April 29, 2019 earnings release and earnings call that is described above; and (2) requiring the CFO to pay a civil monetary penalty of $50[,000]." Gaia also stated "[t]here can be no assurance that the contemplated settlement will be finalized and approved." WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] GAMEFLY HOLDINGS: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gamefly Holdings, LLC. The case is styled as Jovan Campbell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Gamefly Holdings, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-10107 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 29, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. GameFly -- https://www.gamefly.com/ -- is a privately held American online video game rental subscription service that specializes in providing games for Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft systems starting from the sixth generation onwards.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com GATEWAY REHABILITATION: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Morris Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- DYLAN MORRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GATEWAY REHABILITATION CENTER, d/b/a GATEWAY REHAB, Case No. 2:22-cv-01678-WSH (W.D. Pa., Nov. 28, 2022) is a class action on behalf of individual patients whose Personal Identifiable Information (PII) and/or Personal Health Information (PHI) was accessed and exposed to unauthorized third parties during a data breach of Defendant's system, which Defendant discovered on June 13, 2022, but did not disclose until November 18, 2022 (the "Data Breach"). According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to notify Plaintiff and putative Class Members for approximately five months from its discovery of the Data Breach. The patient PII and PHI compromised in the Data Breach includes patient names, dates of birth, Social Security Numbers, driver's license or state ID numbers, financial account and/or payment information, medical information, and health insurance information, says the suit. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's inadequate data security, and its breach of its duty to handle PII and PHI with reasonable care, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI has been accessed by hackers, posted on the dark web, and exposed to an untold number of unauthorized individuals, the lawsuit claims. The Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, misappropriation of health insurance benefits, intrusion of their health privacy, and similar forms of criminal mischief, risk which may last for the rest of their lives, the suit added. The Plaintiff and the Class seek damages in an amount to be determined at trial, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief requiring Defendant to: -- disclose, expeditiously, the full nature of the Data Breach and the types of PII and PHI accessed, obtained, or exposed by the hackers; -- implement improved data security practices to reasonably guard against future breaches of PII and PHI possessed by the Defendant; and -- provide, at its own expense, all impacted victims with lifetime identity theft protection services. Gateway offers outpatient, inpatient, and extended drug and alcohol addiction treatment care at thirteen locations throughout Western Pennsylvania and Eastern Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com jamisen@lcllp.com nickc@lcllp.com GEICO GENERAL: Appeals Ruling in Milligan Insurance Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- GEICO General Insurance Company filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Milligan v. Geico General Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 16-cv-240, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Plaintiff brought this putative class action against GEICO General Insurance Company and CCC Information Services Inc. alleging systemic underpayments for vehicles that were insured by Defendant GEICO and damaged in accidents. The lawsuit seeks to recover actual, consequential, and punitive damages, equitable and declaratory relief, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under GEICO Policies and New York Law. On May 7, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. Defendants filed motions to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff opposed the motions to dismiss. On September 30, 2020, Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry entered an Order granting Defendant's motions to dismiss in their entirety and dismissing the action with prejudice. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 12, 2020, the Plaintiff appealed the District Court's September 30, 2020 Opinion and Order. That appellate case was captioned as Milligan v. Geico General Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 20-3726, filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On March 8, 2022, Second Circuit ruled that the September 30, 2020 order of the District Court granting Defendants' motions to dismiss is AFFIRMED in part insofar as it granted Defendant CCC Information Services Inc.'s motion to dismiss in its entirety, and insofar as it granted Defendant GEICO's motion to dismiss the counts for violation of Regulation 64, negligence, and unjust enrichment. The District Court's order is VACATED in part insofar as it granted GEICO's motion to dismiss the breach of contract and General Business Law Section 349 counts. Accordingly, the case was REMANDED to the District Court with instructions that CCC should be terminated from the action and only the breach of contract and GBL Section 349 claims against GEICO should proceed to discovery, or to such other pre-discovery proceedings as the District Court deems necessary. GEICO took an appeal from this ruling. On November 10, 2022, GEICO filed a motion to stay the case pending resolution of its appeal. On November 14, 2022, the Court stated that it sees very little likelihood of Defendants' success on the merits of the appeal, hence, the motion to stay the case pending appeal is denied. The Defendants' dilatory request will not stop this case from proceeding, says the order. GEICO General Insurance Company seeks a review of this order. The appellate case is captioned as Milligan v. Geico General Insurance Company, Case No. 22-2950, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on Nov. 16, 2022.[BN] Defendant-Appellant GEICO General Insurance Company is represented by: Barry I. Levy, Esq. RIVKIN RADLER LLP 926 RXR Plaza Uniondale, NY 11556 Telephone: (516) 357-3000 Plaintiff-Appellee Lorena M. Milligan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Sharon Almonrode, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 West University Drive Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 - and - Keith L. Altman, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF KEITH ALTMAN 33228 West 12 Mile Road Farmington Hills, MI 48334 Telephone: (516) 456-5885 GESICK CONCRETE: Cashpal Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gesick Concrete, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Carlos Cashpal, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gesick Concrete, Inc., Does 1–10, Case No. 34-2022-00330545-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 30, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Unlimited Civil." Gesick Concrete, Inc. -- https://gesickconcrete.net/ -- is a commercial concrete subcontractor based out of Sacramento, California that specializes in flat slab on grade projects.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin F. Marquez, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510 Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145 Phone: 213-381-9988 Fax: 213-381-9989 Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Bid to Dismiss DeCostanzo Class Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LORI DECOSTANZO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC and GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC, Defendants, Case No. 21-CV-4869 (GRB) (AYS) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Gary R. Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss except with respect to the unjust enrichment claim. DeCostanzo brings the putative class action on behalf of herself and similarly situated consumers against the British pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline PLC and its wholly-owned US subsidiary GlaxoSmithKline LLC (together, "GSK") claiming that their ad campaign for the whooping cough vaccine Boostrix misled consumers into believing the vaccine would help prevent transmission of the disease to infants when in fact it increases the risk of unwittingly transmitting the disease. The Plaintiff brings claims under New York General Business Law ("GBL") Sections 349, 350, state consumer protection statutes, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, unjust enrichment, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. GSK is engaged in the manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of an acellular pertussis vaccine for the whooping cough called Boostrix. The complaint alleges that those who receive Boostrix are more likely to transmit whooping cough because although the vaccine reduces symptoms it does not prevent transmission. As a result of a marketing campaign which allegedly misled consumers into believing Boostrix prevents transmission, the Plaintiff and millions of others increased their risk of unknowingly transmitting the whooping cough. On May 20, 2020, DeCostanzo commenced the initial version of the action against GSK regarding Boostrix. On Dec. 2, 2020, she voluntarily dismissed her claim in order to exhaust her administrative remedies for certain types of claims which may first need to be raised in a special proceeding in the United States Court of Federal Claims (the "Vaccine Court"). That same day, DeCostanzo filed her claim in Vaccine Court, and the following day the Vaccine Court issued an order directing her to submit medical records and certain other documents. She requested four two-month extensions to submit the documents, all of which were granted. On July 30, 2021, the Chief Special Master issued an order stating the Plaintiff may request to withdraw her petition because the statutory 240-day time period for the special master to issue a decision had expired. On Aug. 29, 2021, the Plaintiff timely filed a notice of intent to withdraw, which was granted later that same week. As the Vaccine Court's order explained, because a decision had not been issued within the time specified in Vaccine Rule 10(b), a notice issued advising that that the petitioner may withdraw the petition under section 300aa-21(b) of this title or the petitioner may choose under section 300aa-21(b) of this title to have the petition remain before the special master. Accordingly, the Vaccine Court granted the Plaintiff's request to withdraw and notified the Clerk of Court that proceedings "on the merits" have concluded but no judgment on the merits should be entered. On the same day that the Plaintiff withdrew her claim in Vaccine Court, she filed the instant action against GSK asserting the same claims raised in the initial version of her complaint. The Defendants move to dismiss. First, the Plaintiff argues that the exhaustion requirement of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 ("NCVIA") does not apply to her claims. She reasons that claims for deceptive practices and false advertising under GBL Sections 349, 350 fall outside the purview of NCVIA's exhaustion requirement because they do not involve a "vaccine-related injury" under 42 U.S. Code Section 300aa-11(a)(2). The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff failed to satisfy the exhaustion requirement because she never filed a satisfactory petition as defined by the statute. Judge Brown holds that a petitioner's right to withdraw a petition and file an action in federal court if the Vaccine Court does not render a decision within 240 days is not a "loophole" of the NCVIA, but rather by design. Even if the petition contained the required medical records, it likely would not have led to a different outcome because, absent expert testimony, the Vaccine Court realistically could not have decided the case on the merits. And, even if all the necessary medical evidence were available, due to current caseloads it is "very rare" for the Vaccine Court to decide a case within 240 days. Hence, assuming the NCVIA's exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement applies, DeCostanzo has satisfied it. Next, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed under the primary jurisdiction doctrine because the FDA found Boostrix "safe and effective" when approving the vaccine and the CDC recommends adults get a Tdap vaccine, especially if they are around infants. But Judge Brown finds that the cases cited by the Defendants are readily distinguishable. The primary jurisdiction cases regarding public utilities they cited also fail to support their position. For these reasons, the primary jurisdiction doctrine is inapplicable to the Plaintiff's suit. The Plaintiff also argues that she suffered an injury because the vaccine created a defective immunity to pertussis that will last the remainder of her life, she received a painful injection of various substances she would not have otherwise received, she expended time and resources to seek out and obtain Boostrix, paying, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, for Boostrix, and she has suffered the emotional injury of fearing she will spread the whooping cough because the product has actually rendered her more likely to spread pertussis. The Defendants counter that the Plaintiff cannot establish the requisite injury because she did not pay for Boostrix, her fear of spreading whooping cough is overly speculative, and the alleged deception itself cannot be the harm. Judge Brown finds that the Plaintiff suffered a cognizable injury under GBL Sections 349, 350 and common law fraud. For those same reasons, she also alleges a cognizable injury for her negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and express and implied warranty claims. Lastly, Judge Brown dismisses the unjust enrichment claim as duplicative of the Plaintiff's other claims because it simply restates elements of other claims. Moreover, he cannot conceive of any set of facts upon which the Plaintiff would fail to establish her breach of warranty and statutory claims, but nonetheless succeed in proving unjust enrichment. For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied except with respect to the unjust enrichment claim, which is dismissed as duplicative. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2022 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr4cbjby from Leagle.com. GOOGLE LLC: Content Moderators Sue Over Lack of Safety Standards ---------------------------------------------------------------- Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a Jane Doe plaintiff has filed a proposed class action against YouTube over what she alleges is the Google-owned streaming giant's failure to implement workplace safety standards to protect content moderators from psychological trauma resulting from frequent exposure to graphic and objectionable videos. As a result of content moderators' unmitigated exposure to "highly toxic and extremely disturbing images" through YouTube's proprietary "single review tool," the workers have developed and suffered from "significant psychological trauma," including anxiety, depression and symptoms associated with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the 46-page lawsuit, filed September 21 in San Mateo County Court, alleges. Echoing a suit filed against Facebook in March 2020, the plaintiff argues that while YouTube has aimed to bolster its public image by drafting workplace safety standards to mitigate the psychological harm caused by viewing graphic material day in and day out, the company has nevertheless failed to put these measures aimed at protecting content moderators' mental health into practice. "Instead, the multibillion-dollar corporation affirmatively requires its Content Moderators to work under conditions it knows cause and exacerbate psychological trauma," the lawsuit says, alleging that such conditions violate California law. The case emphasizes that while the aforementioned safety standards might not eliminate altogether the risk of content moderators developing job-related psychological disorders, the standards could at least reduce the risk and mitigate any harm. "By requiring its Content Moderators to review graphic and objectionable content, YouTube requires Content Moderators to engage in an abnormally dangerous activity," the lawsuit says. "And by failing to implement the workplace safety standards it helped develop, YouTube violates California law." Still further, the suit alleges the non-disclosure agreements to which YouTube requires content moderators to agree "exacerbates" the harm experienced by the workers. According to the lawsuit, YouTube content moderators, tasked with keeping disturbing content—described in the complaint as millions of uploads that include "graphic and objectionable content such as child sexual abuse, rape, torture, bestiality, beheadings, suicide, and murder" -- off of the streaming platform, are exposed every day to not only videos of extreme and graphic violence and assault but repeatedly to "conspiracy theories, fringe beliefs, and political disinformation," including content related to Holocaust denials, COVID-19 hoaxes and doctored videos of elected officials. "This type of content has destabilized society and often features objectionable content," the suit says. Per the complaint, YouTube content moderators, of which there are thousands across the country, are required to view "hundreds of thousands if not millions" of potentially rule-breaking videos uploaded to the platform each week. YouTube relies on users to "flag" inappropriate content before it comes before the eyes of a moderator, the suit relays. The plaintiff goes on to allege that YouTube, during the hiring process for prospective content moderators, failed to properly inform the individuals about the nature of the work or the effect reviewing graphic content could have on their mental health. Though prospective moderators are told they might have to review graphic content, they're neither provided examples of such nor told that they would be required to view it daily, the suit claims. Prospective hires are also never asked about their experience in viewing graphic content or told it could have negative consequences with regard to mental health, the lawsuit says, stating training for content moderators begins only after they sign a non-disclosure agreement. As the lawsuit tells it, the training process falls short of adequately preparing YouTube content moderators for the hazards of the position and for the job itself. From the complaint: "During the training process, YouTube failed to train Content Moderators on how to assess their own reaction to the images, and YouTube failed to ease Content Moderators into review of graphic content through controlled exposure with a seasoned team member followed by counseling sessions. Instead, Content Moderators are provided a two-week training where an instructor presents PowerPoints created by YouTube. The PowerPoints covered various categories of content, including graphic violence, child abuse, dangerous organizations, solicitation, porn, animal abuse, regulated products, fraud, and spam. Each category was covered by 60–80 slides. For each category, the PowerPoint began with a brief description of the applicable Community Guidelines, and then dozens of examples of content, applying the Community Guidelines." During training, "little to no time" is spent on wellness and resiliency, the case says. According to the suit, many YouTube content moderators, who while on the job are subject to strict quantity and accuracy quotas, remain in the position for less than a year due to "low wages, short-term contracts, and the trauma associated with the work." The plaintiff asks the court for, among other damages, medical monitoring for YouTube content moderators that provides specialized screening, assessment and treatment not generally given to the public at large. [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Faces GBP13.6-Bil. Class Action Over Adtech Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Natasha Lomas, writing for TechCrunch, reports that litigation against Google and its parent entity Alphabet being brought in the U.K. on behalf of thousands of digital publishers -- seeking up to £13.6 billion (~$16.3 billion) in damages on their behalf for alleged anti-competitive behavior related to Google's adtech practices -- has been filed with the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). "The claim alleges that Google abused its dominant position in the market for online advertising, earning super-profits for itself at the expense of the tens of thousands of publishers of websites and mobile apps in the UK," runs a press release accompanying news of the filing at the CAT. The competition class-action style suit, which includes a parallel European Economic Area (EEA) claim in the Netherlands, was announced earlier this fall. That EEA-wide multi-billion Euro claim is expected to be filed in early 2023, per Geradin Partners, one of the law firms involved in the legal action. City litigation firm Humphries Kerstetter is also acting on the claim -- which is being funded by litigation funder, Harbour. While Claudio Pollack, a former director of the U.K.'s media and comms regulator, Ofcom, is named as heading the claim -- as the representative for the class of businesses allegedly damaged by Google's actions. The lawsuit will argue that Google has abused its dominance of adtech infrastructure to dictate terms, control pricing and deploy self preferencing that has damaged thousands of businesses that have had little choice but to use its tools if they wish to generate revenue from advertising. The suit is being brought on behalf of around 130,000 businesses publishing around 1.75 million websites and apps in the U.K. which the litigation claims have been harmed by Google's anti-competitive practices. Economic analysis produced to support the claim suggests Google's practices may have reduced advertising revenues by up to 40% for some companies. £13.6 billion is an estimate of the total loss to those 130,000 businesses since January 1, 2014 to date. The claimants can point to enforcement last year by France's competition watchdog — which found Google had abused a dominant position for ad servers for website publishers and mobile apps and fining it up to €220 million for a variety of self-preferencing abuses and also extracting a series of interoperability commitments. Google's adtech stack -- and certain other ad-related practices -- remain under investigation by both EU and U.K. competition authorities. But European web and app publishers evidently aren't waiting around for further regulatory smackdowns -- not least as they're hoping to force Google to fork over major damages for what the class action style suits alleges are "serious" anti-competitive practices. In a statement on the suit, Pollack said: "The marketplace for online advertising is sophisticated, technical and highly automated. Advertising is sold in a fraction of a second in a process which is designed to match the product being advertised with the profile of an individual visiting a website. Third party platforms operate on both sides of the marketplace matching supply with demand and -- in an ideal world -- ensuring the market operates efficiently and effectively. Unfortunately, it is now well established that this market has developed in a way that is primarily serving Google." In another statement, Damien Geradin, founding partner of the eponymous law firm, added: "While the value of the claim we are bringing is substantial, we believe the matter is about much more than money. For years Google has been denying companies in the UK and Europe and beyond, including the local press and the publishers of community focused websites, the chance to earn a proper income by way of advertising. "As well as bringing Google to account the parties who have lost out need proper compensation, something a CAT claim can achieve at no cost to those parties." Google was contacted for a response to the development. The company previously dubbed the litigation "speculative and opportunistic". In a further statement emailed to TechCrunch on Nov. 30 it said: Google works constructively with publishers across Europe -- our advertising tools, and those of our many adtech competitors, help millions of websites and apps fund their content, and enable businesses of all sizes to effectively reach new customers. These services adapt and evolve in partnership with those same publishers. While Google is keen to dismiss the legal challenge as baseless, the U.K.'s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has expressed major concerns about dysfunction in the digital ad market -- following a deep dive investigation it kicked off in 2019. Its final report, published in July 2020, concluded that the market power of Google and Facebook was so great a new regulatory approach (and dedicated oversight body) was needed to address what it summarized as "wide ranging and self reinforcing" concerns. However the U.K. government has so far failed to bring forward the necessary legislation to enable that reboot -- which may be another factor driving antitrust class action litigation. In the meanwhile, a planned adtech stack migration by Google away from third party cookie-based tracking (aka its Privacy Sandbox proposal) remains under close regulatory supervision by the CMA -- which stepped in following fresh objections by publishers concerned the move would further entrench the adtech giant's market dominance. [GN] HARRIS & HARRIS: Hershkowitz Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harris & Harris, Ltd. The case is styled as Moses Hershkowitz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Harris & Harris, Ltd., Case No. 7:22-cv-10181-VB (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Harris & Harris Ltd. -- https://www.harriscollect.com/ -- operates as credit rating agency. The Company offers credit reporting and management, and debt collection services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Thomas Yusko, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Kennedy Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Christian S. Kennedy, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC, Inpatient Consultants of Florida, Inc., Case No. 6:22-cv-02210 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 29, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC -- https://www.healthcarerevenuerecoverygroup.com/ -- provides collection services to health care sector.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander J. Taylor, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (331) 307-7646 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kennedy v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC et al., Case No. 6:22-cv-02210 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for: -- (1) disclosure of expert reports -- class action, plaintiff and defendant; -- (2) discovery - class action; -- (3) motion for class certification; -- (4) response to motion for class certification; and -- (5) reply to motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Healthcare Revenue provides collection services to health care sector.[CC] HOME DEPOT: Partial Summary Judgment Bids in Eisele Suit Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KATHLEEN EISELE, Plaintiff v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-01740-HZ (D. Or.), Judge Marco A. Hernandez of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon grants in part and denies in part both Home Depot's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Eisele's Cross-motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Illegality of Home Depot's Rounding Policy. Home Depot uses a time-keeping software system, Kronos, to track the time worked by non-exempt employees (associates) for payroll purposes in Oregon and elsewhere. Associates use Kronos to punch in and out at the beginning and end of their shifts and to punch in and out for meal breaks. Kronos precisely records the time the associates work based on these punches, but is programmed to round each associate's total shift time either up or down to the nearest quarter of an hour for pay purposes. Specifically, minutes 0-7 round to zero minutes; minutes 8-22 round to 15 minutes; minutes 23-37 round to 30 minutes; minutes 38-52 round to 45 minutes; and minutes 53-60 round to 60 minutes. On Aug. 28, 2020, Eisele filed a class action complaint against Defendant in Multnomah County Circuit Court bringing claims for failure to pay wages when due in violation of Oregon Revised Statute Section 652.120 and for failure to pay wages on termination in violation of Oregon Revised Statute Section 652.140. She alleges the Defendant rounded her and the other class members' time punches, resulting in a consistent net underpayment to them and failed to pay them all earned and unpaid wages (including vacation pay) within the statutory deadline to do so upon termination of their employment. The Plaintiff alleges two classes of putative plaintiffs: (1) the rounding class consisting of all current and former Oregon Home Depot employees who lost time due to the Defendant's rounding policies and (2) the final paycheck class consisting of all former Home Depot employees who did not receive all wages due in their final paycheck within the statutory deadline. On Oct. 8, 2020, the Defendant removed the matter to this Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2)(A). On July 22, 2022, it filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in which it seeks an order determining that the Plaintiff's claim for failure to provide wages due on behalf of herself and the 'Rounding Class' fails as a matter of law and it is not liable for penalty wages on the Plaintiff's claims based on rounding. On July 22, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment in which she seeks an order holding the Defendant's rounding policy is not authorized by Oregon law and, therefore, she and the class members are entitled to recover unpaid wages and penalties as a result of time lost to the rounding policy. The Court heard oral argument and took the Motions under advisement on Sept. 28, 2022. The Plaintiff asserts rounding is not permissible under Oregon law and, even if it is permissible, the Defendant's system does not meet the applicable standard. The Defendant, on the other hand, asserts rounding is permissible under Oregon law and its rounding system satisfies the requirements. Judge Hernandez concludes the Defendant has not established that Oregon law authorizes time rounding that results in the failure to pay each employee for all of the time worked particularly when, as in the case, an employer can capture and has captured the exact amount of time an employee has worked. He is not persuaded by the Defendant's argument because it records the precise time worked by associates and then must take an extra step to round each employee's total shift wages. More importantly, it does not point to any provision in Oregon law that privileges arithmetic simplicity over paying employees for all time worked. Judge Hernandez also concludes that in the absence of persuasive authority that Oregon has adopted the de minimus doctrine and because the Defendant fails, in any event, to establish that it satisfied the Lindow requirements, the de minimus doctrine does not apply. Accordingly, he denies the Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to the issue of the propriety of rounding and grants the Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on that issue. Lastly, although he concludes Oregon does not permit rounding, Judge Hernandez also concludes the state of the law was sufficiently uncertain that the Defendant should not be penalized for reasonably believing that its rounding program was permissible in Oregon. Thus, the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff's wages as a result of the rounding program was not "willful" within the meaning of O.R.S. Section 652.150. Accordingly, he grants the Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to the issue of penalty wages for the Plaintiff's claims based on rounding and denies the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the issue of penalty wages for her claims based on rounding. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Hernandez grants in part and denies in part both the Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and the Plaintiff's Cross-motion for Partial Summary Judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 29, 2022 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/249z93rf from Leagle.com. Jon M. Egan -- info@eganlegalteam.com -- Jon M. Egan, PC, Lake Oswego, OR, Attorney for the Plaintiff. David G. Hosenpud -- hosenpudd@lanepowell.com -- Erin M. Wilson -- wilsonem@lanepowell.com -- Hank Stebbins -- stebbinsh@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC Portland, OR, Donna Marie Mezias -- dmezias@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for the Defendant. HOMES OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Mobile Home Parks ---------------------------------------------------------------- Aynae Simmons, writing for abc8News, reports that a class action lawsuit is filed against an out-of-state firm that owns five mobile home parks in the Mercer County area. It includes Garner Estates, Elk View MHP, Country Roads, Shadow View, and Delaney MHP. Resident Michael Todd said he's furious at the situation he's been put in. "I feel like it's cruel as far as people they're already low-income and finding out right before Christmas that you may be losing your home I just feel like that's cruel," Todd said. Todd said as for his children, he's had to cut back and spend less money in order to provide a good Christmas and be able to make rent. Mountain State Justice is the local firm that decided to sue Homes of America LLC, the company owning the Mobile Home Parks. Attorney Adam Wolfe said the firm needed to do something to help out the residents. "We think that it's just wrong for this out-of-state, private equity company to come in here to buy this property and make what was once affordable housing not affordable for these residents who are low income, veterans, retired people, people on fixed incomes," Wolfe said. Todd added now he has renewed hope since Mountain State Justice stepped in. But both he and Wolfe agree more needs to be done. "It would be great if ultimately if some laws could be passed to prevent this from happening again," Todd said. "Mr. Todd made a good point is the legislature needs to look and do what's best for the residents of West Virginia and try to protect these people from out-of-state companies coming in and doing this again to them," Wolfe added. 59News reached out to the owners through a phone number found on a letter that states the rent increase. Our attempts were sent to voicemail multiple times. Wolfe added if the class action is certified by the courts, it will benefit the residing residents of the mobile home parks. [GN] KRAFT HEINZ: Sued Over Mislabeled Velveeta Shells & Cheese Cups --------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Sorace, writing for FOXBusiness, reports that a Florida woman is suing the parent company of Velveeta's microwavable Shells & Cheese cups after claiming it takes longer to prepare the meal than the 3 1/2 minutes the box label says. Amanda Ramirez of Hialeah is listed as the plaintiff in the $5 million class-action lawsuit that was filed against Kraft Heinz Foods Company on Nov. 18 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida's Miami Division. The suit alleges that the statement of "'ready in 3 1/2 minutes' is false and misleading because the product takes longer than the 3-and-a-half minutes to prepare for consumption." It goes on to quote the four steps to prepare the meal that are printed on the box label before alleging that the 3 1/2-minute ready time is "just the length of time to complete one of several steps," referring to the time it takes to microwave the product after having mixed in other ingredients listed in previous steps. However, the lawsuit does not state the overall time it took Ramirez to prepare the cups for eating. The suit claims the macaroni and cheese dish is sold at a "premium price" of $10.99 before tax for eight 2.39-ounce cups, which it says is higher than similar products "represented in a non-misleading way." Ramirez, like other consumers, sought to "stretch their money as far as possible when buying groceries," according to the suit, and "looks to bold statements of value when quickly selecting groceries." The class action suit states that she "believed and expected" the product would be ready to eat in a total of 3 1/2 minutes. The Kraft Heinz Company told Fox Business via email: "We are aware of this frivolous lawsuit and will strongly defend against the allegations in the complaint." [GN] LUMBER CITY: Fails to Pay Employees' Minimum & OT Wages, Hsu Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROGER Y. HSU, on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees, v. LUMBER CITY CORP; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV37190 (Cal. Super., Nov. 28, 2022), seeks to recover lawful wages pursuant to the California Labor Code and Private Attorneys' General Act. The Defendants fail to pay minimum and overtime wages; fail to pay reporting time pay; fail to authorize or permit all legally required and/or compliant meal periods or pay meal period premium wages; fail to authorize or permit all legally required and/or compliant rest periods or pay rest period premium wages; and fail to pay accrued and vested vacation/PTO wage. From the beginning of the class period until July 2021, the Defendant "rounded" down or "shaved" the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees' total daily hours worked at the time of their shifts to the nearest quarter of an hour, the suit says.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Pooja V. Patel, Esq. Courtney Miller, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd. No. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 - and - Garen Majarian, Esq. Sahag Majarian II, Esq. MAJARIAN LAW GROUP, APC 18250 Ventura Blvd., Tarzana, CA 91356 ME LIQUORS: Fails to Pay Workers' Minimum & OT Wages, Munoz Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- JEREMIAS MUNOZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. ME LIQUORS CORP (d/b/a "Me Liquors"), COOL JAZZ FURNITURE, INC., 1800 FURNISH INC., MIGUEL JORGE, and MELISSA ESTEVEZ, Case No. 1:22-cv-07209 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 28, 2022), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, unpaid spread-of-hours pay, and other monies pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from August 2021 until August 2022. He worked as a liquor store worker who performed several tasks including inventory, securing the business from threats, stocking shelves, cleaning, taking out the trash, and decorating. The Plaintiff spent more than 20% or two hours of each shift doing non-tipped work. He earned approximately $100 per week in tips but was not given those tips. The Plaintiff worked 74.5 hours per week, but he was not paid overtime at a rate of one and one-half for the hours worked over 40 per week. Furthermore, the Plaintiff was not given uninterrupted thirty-minute meal periods, was not given a day of rest, was not given a termination notice, and was not given an accurate W2, says the suit. ME LIQUORS sells liquor and wine.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford Tucker, Esq. SACCO & FILLAS LLP 31-19 Newtown Ave., 7th Floor Astoria, NY 11102 Telephone: (718) 269-2243 E-mail: Ctucker@SaccoFillas.com MONTREAL, QC: Settles Protest Class Action v. SPVM for $3.1 Million ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jason C. McLean, writing for Forget the Box, reports that potentially hundreds of protesters detained and/or arrested by Montreal Police (SPVM) in violation of their rights at eight protests between 2012 and 2014 are entitled to a share of the $3.1 million settlement the City of Montreal reached with lawyers in a class action lawsuit. The city will also post an apology on their website. The SPVM started kettling protesters (surrounding then detaining them) as a routine tactic in 2012 when the city added a clause demanding protesters provide a route to Municipal Bylaw P-6 under Gerald Tremblay's administration at the height of the student protests. The clause was struck down by the courts in 2018 then taken off the books by Valérie Plante's administration in 2019. Protests covered by this settlement include anti-police brutality marches and the anniversary of the start of the student strike protest. This agreement, which still needs to be approved by the Quebec Court of Appeals on December 21st, means that anyone who was detained and/or arrested by the SPVM at the following protests could be entitled to financial compensation: June 7, 2012 at around 6 p.m., on Notre-Dame Street, between des Seigneurs and Richmond March 15, 2013, on Sainte-Catherine Street, between Sainte-Elizabeth and Sanguinet Street, from around 5:45pm March 15, 2013, on Sainte-Catherine Street, between Sanguinet and Saint- Denis Street, from around 6:30pm March 22, 2013, on De Maisonneuve Boulevard, between Saint-André and Saint-Timothee Street, from around 6:20pm March 22, 2013, on Saint-Timothee Street, near the intersection with De Maisonneuve Boulevard, from around 6:15pm April 5, 2013, on De Maisonneuve boulevard, between Berri and St-Hubert Street around 6:35pm May 1, 2013, on Place Royal, at the corner of de la Commune Ouest around 7:15pm March 15, 2014, on Chateaubriand Street, between Jean- Talon and Belanger Street around 3:20pm [GN] OPTIMUM POINT: Fails To Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Ortiz Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- Maricel Ortiz, and other similarly situated individuals v. Optimum Point of Care Physicians Group, L.L.C., Lloyd Leiva, and Nilsa Leiva, individually, Case No. 8:22-cv-02710 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 28, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff had duties preparing medical records, taking patient vital signs, applying vaccines, and getting patients ready for medical evaluation. During her employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff worked five days from Monday to Friday, 10.5 hours daily or 52.5 hours weekly. The Plaintiff worked consistently and regularly more than 40 hours weekly, but she was paid for only 50 regular hours at a straight time. She was not paid for overtime hours, the suit claims. Furthermore, Defendants deducted from Plaintiff's wages 2.5 hours as lunchtime (30 minutes daily x 5 days = 2.5 hours). However, the Plaintiff was unable to take bonafide lunch hours. These 2.5 hours of wrongfully deducted lunchtime constitute 2.5 unpaid overtime hours. On April 19, 2022, the Plaintiff left her position to pursue better employment opportunities. At the time of her resignation, the Defendants allegedly did not pay Plaintiff her last week of work, says the suit. Optimum Point is a private health care clinic providing primary care to the community in Bradenton, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com R&L CARRIERS: Faces Millan Suit Over Unpaid Half-Time OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- CRISTOBAL MILLAN, and other similarly situated individuals v. R & L CARRIERS SHARED SERVICES, L.L.C. and ALEJANDRO G. PARDIEZ, individually, Case No. 0:22-cv-62224 (S.D. Fla., Nov. 28, 2022) seeks to recover money damages for unpaid half-time overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable Attorney's fees under Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was classified as a Mechanic Tractor Shop Class AX. However, Plaintiff had duties as maintenance and serviceman, whose activities did not directly affect the safety of operation of motor vehicles in transportation on the public highways in interstate or foreign commerce. The Plaintiff completed 57.5 working hours weekly and was unable to take bonafide lunchtime. He was paid weekly for an average of 50 hours at his regular rate. The remaining 7.5 overtime hours were not paid at any rate, not even at the minimum wage rate as required by law, the Plaintiff alleges. The Defendant allegedly employed the Plaintiff from May 19, 2018, to May 27, 2022. The Plaintiff's last wage rate was $32.30 an hour, and the Plaintiff's overtime rate should be $48.45 an hour. R & L CARRIERS is a freight shipping company providing complete logistic services, including air freight, ocean shipments, warehousing, and transportation services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com SOJOURN VENTURES: Fails to Pay Housekeepers' OT Wages, Hatcher Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Tamara R. Hatcher, and other similarly situated individuals v. Sojourn Ventures LLC, Leon Harbor LLC, Sunken Treasures LLC, and Mandy Thomas, individually, Case No. 6:22-cv-02202 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 28, 2022) seeks to recover overtime compensation under Fair Labor Standards Act and liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees. The Defendants employed Ms. Hatcher from May 18, 2022, through October 01, 2022. Ms. Hatcher was a non-exempted, full-time housekeeper and maintenance employee. She was paid a piece rate for every unit she cleaned and was paid an average of $1,075.00 weekly. During her employment with Defendants, Ms. Hatcher worked seven days from Monday to Sunday, 9 hours daily, or 63 hours weekly. She was unable to take bonafide lunchtime. She worked consistently and regularly more than 40 hours weekly, but she was not paid for overtime hours. On October 01, 2022, Ms. Hatcher left her position to pursue better employment opportunities because she was not getting paid correctly and suffering discrimination. At the time of her resignation, the Defendants refused to pay Plaintiff her last day of work, or approximately $153.57, the suit claims. Sojourn Ventures is a company dedicated to renting vacation homes and doing business in Cocoa Beach, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com TENGRAM CAPITAL: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Body Spray Products -------------------------------------------------------------- Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed class action alleges certain Brut- and Sure-brand body spray products contain benzene, a known human carcinogen, and are thus unsafe to use and "entirely worthless." The 23-page complaint says that although defendant Tengram Capital Partners lists on each Brut and Sure body spray the products' active and inactive ingredients, the presence of benzene is undisclosed. As such, the labeling of Sure Lasts All Day, Unscented and Brut Classic, 24-Hr Protection aerosol body sprays is "false, deceptive, and misleading," the suit alleges, claiming consumers bought the products in reliance on Tengram's "misrepresentations and omissions." "Consequently, Plaintiff and Class Members lost the entire benefit of their bargain when what they received was a body spray product contaminated with a known carcinogen," the complaint alleges. "That is because Defendant's products containing a known human carcinogen have no value." Per the case, consumers have become increasingly concerned about the effects of synthetic and chemical ingredients found in various products. Many companies, in response, have attempted to capitalize on consumers' desire for safe and healthy products, the lawsuit says, stressing that buyers do not possess the meaningful ability to test or independently verify whether an item contains an unsafe substance, such as benzene. It is therefore up to companies to truthfully and honestly report on a product's label what the item contains, the suit relays. The lawsuit says that consumers who view the packaging of the Brut and Sure body sprays at issue will see no mention of benzene. "Benzene is not listed in the ingredients section, nor is there any warning about the inclusion (or even potential inclusion) of benzene in the Products," the complaint reads, alleging that the non-disclosure has led reasonable consumers to believe the body sprays do not contain dangerous chemicals. Per the case, it has long been confirmed that there is no safe level of benzene exposure as the substance has been "recognized, acknowledged, and accepted" as a health hazard and human carcinogen for roughly a century. Benzene exposure, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, can cause health issues such as anemia, immune system damage and cancer, the lawsuit states, relaying that direct benzene exposure through the skin is of particular concern. Cited in the complaint is study published by online pharmacy Valisure LLC that found that benzene has been found in many body sprays, including Brut Classic, 24-hr Protection and Sure, Lasts All Day, Unscented. According to the lawsuit, benzene exposure in the manufacturing process can be specifically avoided so as to ensure the Brut and Sure body sprays "could have absolutely no benzene in them." The suit argues that Tengram's alleged concealment of benzene in the body sprays was material and intentional in light of the fact that consumers are concerned about what is in the products they purchase and put onto and into their bodies. "Consumers such as Plaintiff and the Class Members are influenced by the ingredients listed," the suit reads. "Defendant knows that if it had not omitted that the Products contained benzene, then Plaintiff and the Class would not have purchased the Products at all." The lawsuit looks to represent all consumers who bought the Brut or Sure body sprays in the United States during the applicable statute of limitations period. In addition to monetary relief, the plaintiff, a New York consumer, asks the court to injunctively compel Tengram to implement and fund a blood serum testing program for proposed class members to test for the presence of benzene in their blood, as well as medical monitoring to adequately track any harmful effects from benzene exposure. [GN] TIKTOK INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Privacy Law Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Puja J. Amin, Esq., of Troutman Firm, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that Happy Sunday CIPAWorld! Hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving! Data privacy lawsuits are EXPLODING and one of our country's most popular mobile app -- TikTok's privacy issues keep piling up. Following its recent $92 million class-action data privacy settlement for its alleged violation of Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), TikTok is now facing a California's Invasion of Privacy Act and Federal Wire Tap class action for collecting users' data via its in-app browser without Plaintiff and class member's consent. The complaint alleges "[n]owhere in [Tik Tok's] Terms of Service or the privacy policies is it disclosed that Defendants compel their users to use an in-app browser that installs JavaScipt code into the external websites that users visit from the TikTok app which then provides TikTok with a complete record of every keystroke, every tap on any button, link, image or other component on any website, and details about the elements the users clicked. " Despite being a free app, TikTok makes billions in revenue by collecting users' data without their consent. "The world's most valuable resource is no longer oil, but data." While we've discussed before, many companies do collect data for legitimate purposes with consent. However this new complaint alleges a very specific type of data collection practice without the TikTok user's OR the third party website operator's consent. TikTok allegedly relies on selling digital advertising spots for income and the algorithm used to determine what advertisements to display on a user's home page, utilizes tracking software to understand a users' interest and habits. In order to drive this business, TikTok presents users with links to third-party websites in TikTok's in-app browser without a user (or the third party website operator) knowing this is occurring via TikTok's in-app browser. The user's keystrokes is simultaneously being intercepted and recorded. "Specifically, when a user attempts to access a website, by clicking a link while using the TikTok app, the website does not open via the default browser. Instead, unbeknownst to the user, the link is opened inside the TikTok app, in [Tik Tok's] in-app browser. Thus, the user views the third-party website without leaving the TikTok app. " The Tik-Tok in-app browser does not just track purchase information, it allegedly tracks detailed private and sensitive information - including information about a person's physical and mental health. For example, health providers and pharmacies, such as Planned Parenthood, have a digital presence on TikTok, with videos that appear on users' feeds. Once a user clicks on this link, they are directed to Planned Parenthood's main webpage via TikTok's in-app browser. While the user is assured that his or her information is "privacy and anonymous," TikTok is allegedly intercepting it and monetizing it to send targeted advertisements to the user - without the user's or Planned Parenthood's consent. The complaint not only details out the global privacy concerns regarding TikTok's privacy practices (including FTC investigations, outright ban preventing U.S. military from using it, TikTok's BIPA lawsuit, and an uptick in privacy advocate concerns) it also specifically calls out the concerns around collecting reproductive health information after the demise of Roe v. Wade this year: "TikTok's acquisition of this sensitive information is especially concerning given the Supreme Court's recent reversal of Roe v. Wade and the subsequent criminalization of abortion in several states. Almost immediately after the precedent-overturning decision was issued, anxieties arose regarding data privacy in the context of commonly used period and ovulation tracking apps. The potential of governments to acquire digital data to support prosecution cases for abortions was quickly flagged as a well-founded concern." Esh. The allegations are alarming and the 76 page complaint can be read here: TikTok. In any event, the class is alleged as: "Nationwide Class: All natural persons in the United State whose used the TikTok app to visit websites external to the app, via the in-app browser. California Subclass: All natural persons residing in California whose used the TikTok app to visit websites external to the app, via the in-app browser." The complaint alleges California law applies to all class members - like the Meta CIPA complaint we will have to wait and see how a nationwide class can be brought related to a CA statute. On the CIPA claim, the Plaintiff - Austin Recht - seeks an unspecific amount of damages for the class but the demand is $5,000 per violation or 3x the amount of damages sustained by Plaintiff and the class in an amount to be proven at trial. We'll obviously continue to keep an eye out on this. Until next Sunday, stay safe CIPAWorld.[GN] TOMMY BAHAMA: Vazquez Suit Removed to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Beatriz Quintero De Vazquez, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act v. TOMMY BAHAMA R&R HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation; TOMMY BAHAMA GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation; TOMMY BAHAMA BEVERAGES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; OXFORD INDUSTRIES, INC., doing business in California as GEORGIA OXFORD INDUSTRIES, INC., a Georgia corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 37-2022-00041775-CU-OE-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on Nov. 29, 2022, and assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-01881-BAS-KSC. The Plaintiff's Complaint contains 11 causes of action. These causes of action are for: failure to pay overtime under Labor Code; failure to pay minimum wages under Labor Code; failure to provide meal periods under Labor Code; failure to authorize and permit rest periods under Labor Code; failure to provide compliant wage statements and failure to maintain payroll records under Labor Code; failure to timely pay wages upon termination under Labor Code; failure to timely pay wages during employment under Labor Code; unreimbursed business expenses under Labor Code; violation of the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"); violation of California Business & Professions Code Sections (unlawful business practices); and violation of California Business & Professions Code (unfair business practices).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew M. Sonne, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: 714.513.5100 Facsimile: 714.513.5130 Email: msonne@sheppardmullin.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Several Claims in Prius Bad Smell Class Suit Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Toyota Prius bad odor class action lawsuit is hanging on in court, but only after several claims were dismissed permanently. The Toyota class action lawsuit was filed by Florida plaintiff Jose Javier Perez who purchased a new 2020 Toyota Prius Prime in August 2019. The plaintiff contends he noticed a bad smell in the car within a week of buying the Prius. The lawsuit alleges the bad odor was emanating from the air conditioning vents. Alleged defects in the Toyota Prius heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system causes the bad odors and Toyota failed to warn consumers about the alleged defects. According to the Toyota lawsuit, bad smells in the following vehicles are caused by "[m]icrobes growing on the evaporator surface" and "small living bacteria . . . carried into the evaporator case [that] grow in the warm, moist environment." 2006-2020 Toyota Prius 2017-2020 Toyota Prius Prime 2010-2015 Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid 2012-2016 Toyota Prius c 2012-2017 Toyota Prius v Perez filed his first amended Prius class action in January 2022 and Toyota filed a motion to dismiss the suit. Judge Otis D.Wright, II, denied Toyota's motion with respect to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) claim, but granted Toyota's motion to dismiss implied and express warranty claims. However, the judge dismissed the two claims with leave to amend, meaning the plaintiff could change and refile those claims against Toyota. The plaintiff then filed a second amended Toyota Prius class action lawsuit for violations of the FDUTPA and breach of implied warranty. The plaintiff chose not to amend or refile a breach of express warranty claim. Motion to Dismiss Toyota Prius Bad Smell Warranty Claim Toyota filed a motion to dismiss the breach of implied warranty claim by arguing the claim can't hold up because the plaintiff didn't purchase his Toyota Prius directly from Toyota. The judge granted Toyota's motion by referencing other court cases. "Under Florida law, a plaintiff cannot recover economic losses for breach of implied warranty in the absence of privity." -- Mesa v. BMW (2005) "Consistent with the overwhelming weight of Florida law," courts have "repeatedly ruled that to establish contractual privity to state a breach of implied warranty claim, plaintiffs must purchase the product at issue directly from the defendant." -- Padilla v. Porsche (2019) "Although a consumer who purchases a product from a dealer[] is in privity with the dealer, the consumer is not in privity with [the] manufacturer for purposes of enforcing an implied warranty of merchantability." -- Varner v. Domestic Corp. (2017) According to Judge Wright, Perez purchased his Toyota Prius from a non-party dealership which does not place him in privity with Toyota for purposes of enforcing an implied warranty under Florida law. The judge once again dismissed the implied warranty claim, but this time without leave to amend. In the latest order from the judge, he set a February 22, 2023, deadline for the plaintiff to file a motion to certify a class action lawsuit, a March 15 deadline for Toyota to file its motion to deny class certification, a deadline of March 27 for the plaintiff to file a motion in support of certification and an April 12, 2023, deadline to hear the motion for class action certification. The Toyota Prius bad smell class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida: Jose Javier Perez, vs. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., et al. The plaintiff is represented by Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert, Gordon & Partners, and Edelsberg Law. [GN] TRANSAM TRUCKING: Class Cert Reply Filing Extended to Jan. 6, 2023 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Roberts, et al., v. TransAm Trucking, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-02073 (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge John W. Broomes entered an order granting unopposed motion for extension of time to file reply as to motion to certify class: -- Reply deadline is Jan. 6, 2023. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. TransAm is a long-haul trucking company that serves the Midwest, Mid-South, East Coast and Florida.[CC] TRISTATE NOTE: Faces Orr Suit Over Unpaid Wages & OT Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY ORR, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. TRISTATE NOTE REPURCHASE GROUP LLC, d/b/a WINGATE BY WYNDHAM FISHKILL,Case No. 7:22-cv-10070 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 28, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation, and unpaid spread of hours premium compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations, as well as liquidated damages, prejudgment and postjudgment interest; and attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid front desk worker and assistant manager from December 2014 through December 2021. The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per week. By way of example, during the week of January 22, 2021, the Plaintiff worked 49.57 hours. Although Plaintiff worked 49.57 hours, he was paid for a total of 40 hours at his base rate and for 9 hours at a rate of 1.5 times his base rate. Accordingly, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff for 0.57 hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiff regularly worked a spread of hours that exceeded ten. By way of example on Sunday, January 17, 2021, the Plaintiff worked for 16.38 hours. He was never paid spread of hours pay, the suit claims. Tristate Note operates a hotel based in Fishkill, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Conlon, Esq. Jason T. Brown, Esq. Eric Sands, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Pl Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) JTB-LAWS E-mail: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com jtb@jtblawgroup.com eric.sands@jtblawgroup.com UBIQUITI INC: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ubiquiti Inc. The case is styled as Mykayla Fagnani, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Ubiquiti Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10138 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 29, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ubiquiti -- https://ubiquiti.com/ -- technologies consolidate and transform all available data from across the enterprise, and enable value-creating solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: May Face Class Action Over Meals Plans ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sydney Amestoy, writing for The California Aggie, reports that when fourth-year political science major Sameer Syed canceled his meal plan halfway through the quarter earlier this year, the $200 of Aggie Cash he hadn't spent was voided. Syed said he believes this to have been a contract violation, and has been in a legal battle with UC Davis Housing and Dining services ever since. The saga began in March, when Syed, who was a resident at The Green at West Village at the time, canceled his meal plan for the next quarter, along with his roommates. Syed said that he thought the cancellation would only void unused Aggie Cash from previous quarters. However, after canceling, he and his roommates found that their Aggie Cash from the current quarter had also been voided. Aggie Cash is a declining balance account that students, faculty and staff use to purchase food at UC Davis Dining Services locations, and is commonly used by students living at on-campus locations, and is included in residential meal plans. Syed said that he then contacted Housing and Dining Services and requested a refund for his $200 of unused Aggie Cash, but was denied based on the argument that their contract warned students that unused Aggie Cash would be voided if their meal plan was canceled. "But after checking the contract, there was nothing like that," Syed said. "It does say that they void Aggie Cash for previous quarters, but [. . .] when I switched to no meal plan, it was still the middle of the current quarter." At this point, Syed took Housing and Dining Services to small claims court, where he won four provisions. Some of the provisions included Syed being refunded for his $200 and an amendment to the meal plan contract. "There's an Aggie Cash webpage [. . .] that doesn't say anything about [the voided cash]," Syed said. "So I said, 'One of the settlement provisions is that you make changes to the website to make it more clear to students.'" The current 2022-2023 residential housing contract, provided on the Housing and Dining Services website, now includes a revised statement about Aggie Cash in the meal plan section. "$200 Aggie Cash per quarter is included in the residential meal plan for students living in Residence Halls," the statement reads. "Students canceling their contract will be refunded for unused Aggie Cash for the current quarter and unused Aggie Cash from previous quarters will be forfeited." As of Nov. 21, Housing and Dining Services did not respond to a request for comment on whether the change in policy came as a result of the lawsuit. Syed also requested public record data from previous quarters regarding the total amount of Aggie Cash that had been voided because of a mid-quarter meal plan cancellation. However, according to Syed, only one previous quarter's information was provided. Housing and Dining Services provided information from winter quarter 2021. According to their data, the total amount of Aggie Cash forfeited from the quarter because of mid-quarter cancellations totaled $13,287.61. In 42 of these cases, the Aggie Cash forfeited ranged from $175 to $200. "In alignment with the terms of the agreement, we have provided Sameer with information regarding the total amount of unused Aggie Cash that was forfeited by students canceling their residential meal plan mid-year," Donelle Davis, executive director for Housing and Dining Services, said via email. "We have indicated that updates will be made to the housing contract and website for the upcoming academic year." However, according to Syed, he doesn't consider this information to be enough. "Now I'm looking at a class action [lawsuit], because all together it seems like this is a pretty extensive problem," Syed said. "They've voided 221 students' Aggie Cash. And just for this one quarter from those 221 students, they essentially unlawfully took a total of $13,287.61." [GN] VERU INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Potential Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Veru Inc. (NASDAQ: VERU) resulting from allegations that Veru may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Veru securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=9728 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On November 10, 2022, Veru issued a press release announcing that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee (the "Committee") voted against granting emergency use authorization ("EUA") for sabizabulin, Veru's product for treatment of hospitalized moderate to severe COVID-19 patients who are at high risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome. Specifically, the Committee voted 8-5 that the known and potential benefits of sabizabulin do not outweigh the known and potential risks. On this news, Veru's stock price plummeted by $8.04 per share, or over 53%, to close at $6.97 per share on November 10, 2022. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] WAKEFIELD AND ASSOCIATES: Jacobson Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Ill. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wakefield and Associates, LLC. The case is styled as John Jacobson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wakefield and Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-06655 (S.D. Ill., Nov. 29, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Wakefield & Associates -- https://www.wakeassoc.com/ -- has established itself as a leading provider of accounts receivable management and delinquent account recovery in the healthcare arena.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com WALGREEN CO: Bryant Sues Over Failure to Provide COBRA Notice ------------------------------------------------------------- Karima Bryant, Joshua Flanary, Dieuniphere Delcy, and Telisa Whaley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WALGREEN CO., Case No. 8:22-cv-02732-SCB-MRM (M.D. Pa., Nov. 30, 2022), is brought alleging the Defendant violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 ("COBRA"), by failing to provide them and the putative class members with a COBRA notice that complies with the law. COBRA is a remedial statute that should be interpreted in favor of the employee. Indeed, the legislative history shows that Congress enacted COBRA in 1986 as a result of the reports of the growing number of Americans without any health insurance coverage and the decreasing willingness of our Nation's hospitals to provide care to those who cannot afford to pay. The purpose behind its notice requirements is to facilitate and assist individuals in electing continuation coverage should they so choose, not discourage them from doing so as the Defendant's does. The Defendant has repeatedly violated ERISA by failing to provide participants and beneficiaries in the Plan with adequate notice, as prescribed by COBRA, of their right to continue their health coverage upon the occurrence of a "qualifying event" as defined by the statute. The Defendant's COBRA notice and process violates the law. Rather than including all information required by law in a single notice, written in a manner calculated to be understood by the average plan participant, Defendant's COBRA notification process instead offers only part of the legally required information in haphazard and piece-meal fashion. As a result of receiving the COBRA Enrollment Notice, and the subsequent document, Plaintiffs failed to understand the notice and, thus, the Plaintiffs could not make an informed decision about their health insurance. The Plaintiffs originally wanted to elect COBRA but due, at least in part, to the missing information identified herein were unable to do so. As a result, the Plaintiffs suffered a tangible injury in the form of economic loss, specifically the loss of insurance coverage and incurred medical bills due to Walgreens's deficient COBRA forms. In addition to a paycheck, health insurance is one of the most valuable things employees get in exchange for working for an employer like Walgreens. Insurance coverage has a monetary value, the loss of which is a tangible and an economic injury. Not only did Plaintiffs lose their insurance coverage, and also lose their ability to elect continuation coverage, after Plaintiffs lost their insurance they incurred medical bills resulting in further concrete economic injury, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendant. The Defendant is an Illinois corporation registered to do business in the State of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Amanda E Heystek, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 337-7992 Fax: (813) 229-8712 Email: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com gnichols@wfclaw.com WASHINGTON DC: Pappas Must File Class Cert. Bid by Jan. 9, 2023 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAPPAS v. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02800 (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Rudolph Contreras entered an order granting the parties' joint motion for extension of time as follows: -- The Plaintiffs shall file their January 9, 2023 motion for class certification on or before: -- The Defendants shall file their February 17, 2023 opposition on or before: -- The Plaintiffs shall file any March 3, 2023 reply on or before: The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, more commonly known as the Metropolitan Police Department, the DC Police, and, colloquially, the DCPD, is the primary law enforcement agency for the District of Columbia.[CC] WONDER WORKS: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wonder Works and Wonder Workshops, Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Wonder Works and Wonder Workshops, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10172 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Wonder Workshop -- https://www.makewonder.com/ -- is teaching children to code by integrating cutting-edge hardware and software experiences.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com XCEL ENERGY: Must Face Class Action Over Marshall Fire's Origins ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Wills, writing for FOX31 News, reports that a recent ruling from a Boulder judge has allowed a class action lawsuit regarding the Marshall Fire's origins to proceed against a large energy company. The class action lawsuit was filed against Xcel Energy by a Boulder business owner who alleges that downed power lines in the area near Eldorado Springs Drive and Foothills Highway may have sparked up the blaze. Who is named in Xcel Energy lawsuit? According to court documents from Boulder, Xcel had filed a motion to have the lawsuit thrown out but Judge Christopher Clayton Zenisek denied the request. The lawsuit mentioned that a witness videotaped sparks flying out of a malfunctioning powerline located near a Shell gas station. "They believe that they have sufficient evidence at this time to meet their claims and they also probably believe that as the investigation matures and we get more information that will only support their claims," FOX31 legal analyst Chris Decker said back in April when this case was initially filed. There is no official cause of the Marshall Fire, but if it's determined that malfunctioning equipment owned by Xcel Energy contributed to this fire, which destroyed roughly 1,000 homes, scorched 6,000 acres and caused over $2 billion in damages, the energy company could face some hefty financial pressure. "[The plaintiffs] will be in the driver's seat of all the litigations," Decker said. A review was scheduled for Wednesday, Nov. 30, and would be followed by another court date after the new year. FOX31 will bring you updates on this lawsuit as they are released. Community reacts One woman who spoke to FOX31 said that the community needs answers. "I think having a resolution on this is the only way to get forward without more fear, more stress. I just hope that can bring some resolution to the lawsuit," Boulder resident Sarah Sager said. "They absolutely need as much evidence and to be as honest as they possibly can, because it's the only way that there could be that we could potentially avoid this in the future. If people are rebuilding and there's more risk of this or for the rest of the city and other neighborhoods, well anywhere really." The anniversary of the fire is Dec. 30. [GN] YALE UNIVERSITY: Elis Sues Over Discrimination Against Students --------------------------------------------------------------- Elis For Rachael, Inc., Alicia Abramson and Hannah Neves, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v. YALE UNIVERSITY and THE PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF YALE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 3:22-cv-01517 (D. Conn., Nov. 30, 2022), is brought seeking to remedy Yale University's systemic discrimination against students with mental health disabilities, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; the Fair Housing Act; and Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Section 1557"). Yale University and the President and Fellows of Yale have treated unequally and failed to accommodate students with mental health disabilities, including by modifying policies in violation of federal law. Yale's withdrawal policies and practices push students with mental health disabilities out of Yale, impose punitive consequences on students who have withdrawn, and place unreasonable burdens on students who, after a withdrawal, seek reinstatement. Yale also imposes on all students, regardless of disability, requirements that make it almost impossible to attend the university for any less than full-time enrollment and refuses or makes it unreasonably difficult to secure accommodations for disabilities in coursework or housing. The impact of Yale's discriminatory policies is harshest on students with mental health disabilities from less privileged backgrounds, including students of color, students from poor families or rural areas, and international students. Yale's discriminatory policies leave students with mental health disabilities from less privileged backgrounds at risk of losing their health insurance coverage. They have no option to continue coverage when they withdraw, despite their need to attend to their mental health disability, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Elis for Rachael is a nonprofit organization incorporated in Connecticut whose mission is to advocate for and support students in crisis or who have a mental health disability, to increase awareness of mental health as a disability, and to advocate for better access and accommodations at Yale. Yale offers undergraduate and graduate academic programs that are highly competitive and consistently rated among the top in the country.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kasey Considine, Esq. Deborah Dorfman, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS OF CONNECTICUT, INC. 846 Wethersfield Ave. Hartford, CT 06114 Phone: (860) 297-4300 Email: kasey.considine@disrightsct.org deborah.dorfman@disrightsct.org - and - Ira Burnim, Esq. Monica Porter, Esq. BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW 1090 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 220 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 467-5730 Email: irab@bazelon.org monicap@bazelon.org - and - Maia Goodell, Esq. Susanna Barron, Esq. VLADECK, RASKIN & CLARK, P.C. 565 Fifth Avenue, 9th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 403-7300 Email: mgoodell@vladeck.com sbarron@vladeck.com ZERO OTTO NOVE: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zero Otto Nove, Inc. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Zero Otto Nove, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07272 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Zero Otto Nove -- https://zeroottonove.com/ -- is a Neapolitan restaurant with traditional Italian food & drink served in a warm setting with an old-world vibe.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2022. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***