/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221220.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, December 20, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 247 Headlines ADT COMMERCIAL: Faces Rodriguez Wage-and-Hour Suit in California ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Hilario Suit APPLE INC: AirTags Become Weapon of Choice for Stalkers, Suit Says AVIATOR NATION: Faces Etri Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages AVIS BUDGET: Records Web User Data Without Consent, Suit Alleges BIO-TECHNE CORPORATION: Denies Religious Accommodation, Shane Says BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Y.H. Suit BRP US: Can-Am Ryker's DESS Advertising "Misleading," Maiolo Says CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Anders Appeals Denied Class Cert. Bid CARIB'S CABLE: Lambel Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime CE MYRTLE: Doll Labor Suit Removed to D. South Carolina CE SOLUTIONS: Faces Halliday Suit Over Flaggers' Unpaid Wages CMR CONSTRUCTION: Jesus Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation COMPOUND DAO: Gerstein Harrow Discloses Securities Class Action CORRECT CHOICE: Everett Sues Over Direct Care Workers' Unpaid OT DELAWARE DOC: Crichlow Loses Bid for Class Certification DEPAUL UNIVERSITY: Powell Appeals BIPA Suit Ruling to 7th Cir. DICK'S SPORTING: Siegfried Sues Over Disclosed Subscribers' Data DYNATA LLC: Seeks More Time for "Prediscovery Motion" Response EARTHEFFICIENT LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Diversion of Trust Funds EATSTREET INC: Seeks Relief From Court's Dec. 1 Order ECCO RETAIL: Amort Case Remanded to San Mateo County Superior Court ENERGY TRANSFER: Vega Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas EXPRESS MESSENGER: Misclassifies Delivery Drivers, Kelley Claims FIRST ADVANTAGE: Wilson Must File Class Cert Bid by March 1, 2023 FIRST NATIONAL: Lebovits Alleges Illegal Debt Collection Practices FORBES MEDIA: Passariello Sues Over Disclosure of Information G&A FLAGGERS: Holder Sues Over General Workers' Unpaid Wages GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Moore Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class GOLDEN APPLE: Initial Case Mng't Conference Set for Jan. 11, 2023 GOLDWATER BANK: Court Narrows Claims in Feins Suit GOOD SAM ENTERPRISES: Bailey Files Suit in N.D. Illinois GRAVITY DEFYER: Hernandez Files Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages HEALTH INSURANCE: Court Modifies Class Cert. Deadlines in Lomas HEWLETT PACKARD: Final Settlement OK Hearing Set for April 27, 2023 HOSPITALS CORP: Sumpter Seeks to Certify Medical Personnel Class HOSPITALS CORPORATION: Bid for Class Cert Junked w/o Prejudice HP INC: MEIPF Class Suit Remains Stayed HP INC: Settlement in Principle Reached in EWPF Securities Suit IMMIGRANT ELDER: Akter Class Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge ISG 1 INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ventura Suit Alleges JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Berry Sues Over Deceptive Debt Collection Letter JOHNS HOPKINS: Boots Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement JOLIET, IL: Faces Suit Over Illegal Trucker Ticketing Practices JONES AND VIATOR: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Brown Says JVK OPERATIONS: Montiel-Flores, et al., Seek to Certify Class Suit KANAWAY SEAFOODS: Class Cert. Deadline Amended to March 21, 2023 KHAYLIE HAZEL: Bid to Conduct Class Cert Discovery Partly Granted KPS AFFILIATES: Must File Opposition to Class Cert by Jan 9, 2023 KRAFT HEINZ: Juice Drinks Contains Toxic Chemicals, Toribio Says KROGER CO: Scheduling Order Entered in Solano Class Action KROGER CO: Seeks Denial of Solano Class Certification Bid L'OREAL USA: Faces Holmes Suit Over Defective Hair Care Products LANGUAGE LINE: Parties Seek to Certify Class of Specialists LENDING FORCE: Kauffman Sues Over Unauthorized Recording of Calls LIBERTY MUTUAL: Vonbergen Suit Alleges Illegal Website Wiretapping LOUIS VUITTON: N.Y. Court Refuses to Dismiss Biometrics Suit MARCUS MYERS: Judge Endorses Denial of Thibodeaux Class Cert Bid MCCARTHY BURGESS: Goldberger Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection MDL 1917: DPPs' Class Certification Granted in Part in CRT Suit MEDICUS HEALTHCARE: McCarthy Files Conditional Certification Bid MIDLAND CREDIT: Pierni Files Suit Over Deceptive Collection Letters MIKE'S PLACE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sanchez Suit Alleges MILLIMAN INC: Deadline to Complete Mediation Extended to Feb. 2023 MODANI FORT: Hindi Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Robbins Sues Over Stockholders' Voting Rights MURRY'S DINNER: Fails to Properly Pay Servers, Holt Suit Claims NADI LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Batista Suit Says NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Smart Suit Seeks Pay for Volunteer Coaches NATURAL GROCERS: Continues to Defend FLSA Class Action in CO NIO INC: Tan Must File Class Cert Reply by December 23 NOOM INC: Guidera Sues Over Home Health Aides' Unpaid Wages NORTH OAK: Fails to Pay Cooks Proper Wages, Hoaglan Suit Says NUTANIX INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit OOMA INC: Continues to Defend Chiu Class Suit in Canada ORVIS COMPANY: Farris Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. OSCEOLA COUNTY: Pagan Seeks Unpaid Manual Workers' Overtime Wages OSWALD HOME: Aguilar Sues Over Construction Workers' Unpaid Wages PP&G INC: Faces Morris Suit Over Exotic Dancers' Unpaid Wages PUBLISHING CONCEPTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hartfield Claims REALPAGE INC: Silverman Suit Alleges Housing Lease Monopoly RENAISSANCE FOOD: Padilla Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices RENT THE RUNWAY: Continues to Defend Sharma Putative Class Suit RICOLA USA: Throat Drops' Front Label "Deceptive," Singo Claims RIO GRANDE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Vilorio Suit Alleges SHANDA GAMES: Astor BK Appeals Entry of Final Judgment SNAP FINANCE LLC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Tanner Alleges SODEXO SA: Platt Sues Over Illegal Collection of Nicotine Surcharge SODEXO SA: Worker Files Suit Over Health Plan Nicotine Penalties SOUTHERN GLAZER'S: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Winn Suit Alleges STITCH FIX INC: Faces Federal Securities Class Action in California STITCH FIX: 9th Circuit Affirms Federal Class Suit Dismissal STONEBRIDGE GLOBAL: Appeals Remand of Simpson Suit to Jackson Cty. SYNGENTA CROP: Reduced Competition in CPPs Market, Sayler Suit Says TILLY'S INC: Continues to Defend Gonzales Labor Putative Class Suit TILLY'S INC: Continues to Defend Johnson Labor Putative Class Suit TWITTER INC: Strifling Sues Over Female Employees' Mass Termination ULTA SALON: Faces Wright Suit Over Illegal Wiretapping UNIFIN INC: Friedman Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Security Face Scans UNITED STATES: Johnson Must File Class Cert Bid by Feb. 24, 2023 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: Afro-American Employees Lose Class Cert Bid UVALDE CONSOLIDATED: Faces J.P. Class Suit Over School Shooting VIMEO.COM INC: Cantu Sues Over Video Privacy Act Violation WALT DISNEY: Fendelander Sues Over Anticompetitive Practices WHITEFISH, MT: Seeks More Time to file Class Cert. Response YUGA LABS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due February 7 YUGA LABS: Real Sues Over Unlawful Celebrity Promotions ********* ADT COMMERCIAL: Faces Rodriguez Wage-and-Hour Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE A. RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADT COMMERCIAL, LLC and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22CV023389 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., December 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay wages for all hours worked at the legal minimum wage, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to timely pay earned wages during employment, failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements, failure to timely pay all earned wages and final paychecks due at time of separation of employment, and unfair business practices. Mr. Rodriguez was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee from February 27, 2022 until August 2022. ADT Commercial, LLC is a provider of commercial security and fire monitoring services, doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Pooja V. Patel, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com ppatel@lelawfirm.com ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Hilario Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Tisha Hilario, Plaintiff, v. Allstate Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-05459-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this case is about how Allstate calculates the square footage of houses for homeowners' insurance, specifically its alleged double counting of built-in garage space due to a faulty transition to new insurance software. The dispute arises from homeowners' insurance policies covering houses in California, including the home that Hilario owns in San Francisco. In the First Amendment Complaint ("FAC"), Hilario alleges she has held homeowners' insurance through Allstate since 2004. She alleges that in 2019, she received "a purposefully vague form letter" from Allstate that her policy information might be changing. She asserts that she discovered that this change ended up double counting the square footage of her garage, causing her to pay more in insurance premiums. She says that this "double counting" affected 43,265 people holding homeowners' insurance policies through Allstate. Hilario filed her initial complaint and Allstate moved to dismiss, which Judge William H. Orrick granted with leave to amend. Hilario filed her first amended complaint on Jan. 22, 2021, alleging negligence and breach of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). Allstate filed an answer on Feb. 19, 2021, and pre-certification discovery ensued. Hilario filed her motion for class certification on July 1, 2022, and after briefing was completed, Judge Orrick held a hearing on Nov. 16, 2022. Hilario sought certification of the following class: "All Allstate California policyholders from 2019 to the present with at least one built-in garage who paid premiums for homeowners or renters' insurance to Allstate." On Nov. 22, 2022, the Court granted Hilario's motion for class certification. Judge Orrick narrowed the class definition to: "All Allstate California homeowners' insurance policyholders as of March 2019, who paid premiums and had at least one built-in garage, and whose garage square footage was counted twice in calculating insured square footage and premiums." The appellate case is captioned Tisha Hilario v. Allstate Insurance Company, Case No. 22-80138, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 6, 2022. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent TISHA HILARIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: David Russel Shane, Esq. SHANE & TAITZ 1000 Drakes Landing Rd. Greenbrae, CA 94904 Telephone: (415) 464-2020 Defendant-Petitioner ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by: Mark L. Hanover, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5900 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 876-8000 - and - Sonia Martin, Esq. DENTONS US, LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1300 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 882-2476 APPLE INC: AirTags Become Weapon of Choice for Stalkers, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Corrado Rizzi at classaction.org reports that Apple faces a proposed class action that alleges the company's AirTags have "revolutionized the scope, breadth, and ease of location-based stalking." The 41-page lawsuit, filed in California on December 5, says that although the stated purpose of the roughly quarter-sized AirTags is to transmit a precise location signal to help a consumer locate a missing item, the product has, in reality, "become the weapon of choice of stalkers and abusers." As the case tells it, this is not surprising to Apple as, prior to the release of AirTags, advocates and technologists "urged the company to rethink the product and to consider its inevitable use in stalking." "In response," the suit says, "Apple heedlessly forged ahead, dismissing concerns and pointing to mitigation features it claimed rendered the devices 'stalker proof.'" Immediately after the $29 product's 2021 release, and consistently since, the lawsuit says, reports have surfaced of people "finding AirTags placed in their purses, in or on their cars, and even sewn into the lining of their clothes" by stalkers looking to track their movements. According to the filing, at least two murders have occurred for which the culprit used an AirTag to track the victim. Although the tech giant touted AirTags as "stalker proof," the company has spent the last two years "scrambling to address its failures in protecting people from unwanted, dangerous tracking," the complaint says, calling Apple's purported protections "totally inadequate" and essentially useless as far as warning individuals that they are being tracked. Though stalking can manifest in numerous ways, one of the most common is through unwanted and repeated behaviors such as phone calls, texts, visits, gifts, internet posts or any other act that would create fear in a reasonable person, the case begins. The filing stresses that this fear "undermines and erodes a victim's autonomy" while drastically disrupting their daily life. Per the case, technology has given stalkers more tools, such as real-time location trackers, with which to track victims. What separates the AirTags from competitor products is the device's "unparalleled accuracy," ease of use and affordability, the complaint relays. The device works by emitting signals that are detected by Bluetooth sensors in Apple devices, with the sensors comprising Apple's "FindMy" network nationwide, the suit says. When a device on the network detects a signal from a missing AirTag, it sends the location data to Apple, who then shows the AirTag's owner on a map exactly where the device is, the case relays. According to the lawsuit, the ubiquity of Apple products and their link to the FindMy network means an AirTag can more reliably transmit location data than any competitor. "Indeed, in all metropolitan areas, and even many rural areas, one is never more than 100 yards away from an Apple device," the filing says. "Thus, one is never more than 100 yards away from having location data transmitted back to Apple." Each plaintiff in the case is a victim of stalking. One began to be stalked online in late August 2021 after the breakup of a three-year relationship, the case says. When the plaintiff ignored her stalker's escalating behavior, eventually prompting the woman to move as she feared for her safety, she one day received a notification on her iPhone stating that "an unknown AirTag was traveling in her vicinity," according to the complaint. The plaintiff searched her car and found the AirTag, placed by the stalker, in the rear passenger tire wheel well, the lawsuit states. The device was "colored with a sharpie marker and tied up in a plastic bag," according to the suit. Although the plaintiff moved, her stalker in March 2022 posted on social media a picture of a taco truck in the woman's new neighborhood, with hashtags referencing the streets in the neighborhood and a winking emoji with the hashtag "#airt2.0," the lawsuit states. "[The plaintiff] continues to fear for her safety -- at minimum, her stalker has evidenced a commitment to continuing to use AirTags to track, harass, and threaten her, and continues to use AirTags to find her location," the suit says. The second plaintiff, who filed the suit under Jane Doe, claims to have first encountered an unwanted AirTag amid a "contentious divorce" last summer. According to the case, the plaintiff's former spouse "harass[ed] her, challenging her about where she went and when, particularly when she was with the couple's child." One day, the plaintiff found an AirTag in her child's backpack, the complaint says. Although she attempted to disable the AirTag, "another one soon showed up in its place," according to the complaint. The lawsuit looks to cover all persons in the United States who own iOS or Android devices and were tracked, without consent, by Apple's AirTag, or are at risk of being stalked.[GN] AVIATOR NATION: Faces Etri Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------------- BOBBY ETRI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AVIATOR NATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-08644 (C.D. Cal., November 28, 2022) brings this complaint as a class action against the Defendant to secure redress for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant began sending telemarketing text messages to his cellular telephone number ending in 4449 over the past year. Despite the Plaintiff's use of clear opt-out language on May 31, 2022, the Defendant ignored his opt-out demand and sent him dozens more telemarketing text message up through November 2022. The Defendant's text messages allegedly constituted telemarketing because they encouraged the future purchase or investment in its clothing and apparel by advertising various discounts and promotions. The Plaintiff also claims that the Defendant caused other text messages to be sent to individuals residing within the judicial district. As a result of the Defendant's unsolicited text messages, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals were harmed. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks for an award of actual and statutory damages for himself and all other similarly situated individuals, as well as an injunction requiring the Defendant to cease all unsolicited text messaging activity, an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief as the Court deems necessary. Aviator Nation, Inc. sells clothing and apparel. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park E #1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com AVIS BUDGET: Records Web User Data Without Consent, Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey at lassaction.org reports that Avis Budget Group has been hit with a proposed class action that claims the rental car company "intentionally intercepted" online visitors' electronic communications by utilizing "session replay" spyware on its websites. According to the 21-page case, the web-tracking technology captured and recorded users' interactions with the pages on Budget.com, Avis.com and BudgetTruck.com and allowed for playback as well as real-time monitoring. The recorded visitor communications included "how they interacted with the websites, their mouse movements and clicks, keystrokes, search terms, information inputted into the websites, and pages and content viewed while visiting the websites," the complaint says. The suit alleges that the recording and storage of this data was done "in a manner that was undetectable" by web users and performed without their knowledge or consent. Per the case, the collection of data communications by Avis Budget Group violates the privacy rights of website visitors under Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (WESCA). Further, by storing users' data, the defendant risks the exposure of this sensitive information to outside parties and puts web visitors in danger of "identity theft, online scams, and other unwanted behavior," the suit stresses. Though the stated objective of "session replay" spyware is ostensibly to monitor the functionality of websites that use it, the lawsuit contends that "the level and detail of information surreptitiously collected by Defendant indicates that the only purpose was to gain an unlawful understanding of the habits and preferences of users to its Websites, and the information collected was solely for Defendant's own benefit." According to the proposed case, Avis Budget Group knowingly utilized the Quantum Metric and Microsoft Clarity software to monitor and record user interactions with its websites as soon as they entered the pages. As the plaintiff describes, the spyware program not only allowed for real-time monitoring and storage of her interactions with the sites but also made it possible for the defendant to play back the data later. The suit alleges that one of the objectives of using such technology to intercept users' communications was to gain insight into the "personal preferences and likes" of consumers, which Avis Budget Group could then use to tailor its advertising. The lawsuit looks to represent anyone residing in Pennsylvania who visited Budget.com, Avis.com or BudgetTruck.com and whose data communications were recorded by the defendant without consent.[GN] BIO-TECHNE CORPORATION: Denies Religious Accommodation, Shane Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ RYAN SHANE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIO-TECHNE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 0:22-cv-03039 (D. Minn., December 7, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Minnesota Human Rights Act and discrimination based on regarded disabled or physically impaired under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case arises from the Defendant's refusal to consider the Plaintiffs' requests for exemptions from COVID-19 vaccination because of their sincere religious beliefs. In September 2021, Bio-Techne announced that it would discriminate between employees who had been vaccinated for COVID and those who had not, regardless of the reason or the employee's motivation for not being vaccinated. On October 5, 2021, Bio-Techne announced that all U.S. employees who work at its offices or facilities (that is, not from home) were required to be vaccinated against COVID by November 1, 2021. Bio-Techne did not consider requests for religious accommodation in good faith. As a result of Bio-Techne's unlawful actions, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered and continue to suffer economic and other damages in amounts to be proven at trial, including front pay, back pay, emotional distress damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees, says the suit. Bio-Techne Corporation is a manufacturer of medical materials headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel W. Diehl, Esq. Nicholas J. Nelson, Esq. CROSSCASTLE PLLC 333 Washington Avenue N., Ste. 300 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 429-8100 Facsimile: (612) 234-4766 Email: sam.diehl@crosscastle.com nicholas.nelson@crosscastle.com BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Y.H. Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for mootness or, in the alternative, to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Y.H., by and through her Guardian Nathan Harris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 8:22-cv-00998-SSS-ADS, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Orange County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 17, 2022, is brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for its unlawful, deceptive, and misleading trade practices. The Plaintiff asserts three causes of action: (1) declaratory judgment on minors' rights to disaffirm, (2) unlawful and unfair business practices in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, and (3) restitution or unjust enrichment. On July 1, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint for mootness or, in the alternative, to compel arbitration, which the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes on Nov. 29, 2022. The appellate case is captioned Y.H. v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 22-56145, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 5, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire was due December 12, 2022; -- Appellant Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. opening brief is due on January 30, 2023; -- Appellee Y.H. answering brief is due on March 1, 2023; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Y.H., by and through her Guardian Nathan Harris, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW PC 55 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 Defendant-Appellant BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC. is represented by: Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 1177 Avenue of the Americas, 41st Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 248-3191 BRP US: Can-Am Ryker's DESS Advertising "Misleading," Maiolo Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL MAIOLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRP US INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-01770-AJS (W.D. Pa., December 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment, violations of Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and State Consumer Fraud Acts, and breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability/fitness for a particular purpose and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of the Can-Am Ryker, a street legal three-wheel motorcycle. The Defendant marketed the product with an anti-theft system known as DESS, or digitally encoded security system, a battery-less key containing an electronic circuit. However, numerous purchasers of the 2022 model did not receive a DESS with their vehicles even though they were promised this. As a result of the Defendant's false and misleading representations, the product is sold at a high price, says the suit. BRP US Inc. is a manufacturer of recreational vehicles, with a principal place of business in Sturtevant, Racine County, Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, PC 60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 412 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Anders Appeals Denied Class Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ TAYLOR ANDERS, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Taylor Anders, et al., Plaintiffs, v. California State University, Fresno, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00179-AWI-BAM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs filed this class action (as members of Fresno State's women's varsity lacrosse team) against Fresno State and certain Fresno State administrators (collectively, "Defendants") alleging that the Defendants violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. Section 1681 et seq. and implementing regulations by failing to provide female students an equal opportunity to participate in varsity athletics (the "effective accommodation" claim); failing to provide female athletes with an equal allocation of financial aid (the "financial aid" claim); and failing to provide female athletes with benefits comparable to those provided to male athletes (the "equal treatment" claim). On May 3, 2021, a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") was filed, adding Courtney Walburger as a sixth Plaintiff. On May 15, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the FAC in its entirety -- including the effective accommodation claim, the financial aid claim, and the equal treatment claim. The motion was granted, with leave to amend, as to the financial aid claim and denied as to the effective accommodation claim and the equal treatment claim. The Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on Aug. 12, 2021, seeking to state a financial aid claim, and on Oct. 29, 2021, the Court granted, with prejudice, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the financial aid claim on a finding that, properly construed, data cited by the Plaintiffs showed that female student-athletes received a disproportionate share of athletic scholarships at Fresno State. The Defendants answered the SAC on Nov. 19, 2021, and on Feb. 25, 2022, the Plaintiffs brought the instant motion for class certification. In this motion, they seek certification under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure of a class defined as follows: "All present and future women students and potential students at Fresno State who participate, seek to participate, and/or are deterred from participating in intercollegiate athletics there." On Aug. 16, 2022, Judge Anthony W. Ishii denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court determined that the proposed class representatives do not satisfy the Rule 23(a)(4) adequacy requirement because there are evidently conflicts between the interests of the class representatives, as former members of the women's varsity lacrosse team, and current and future female students at Fresno State who were not members of the women's varsity lacrosse team and who are not able and ready to play lacrosse. Similarly, the record plainly indicates that the principal purpose of this action is to protect (or restore) women's varsity lacrosse and that other considerations are secondary to that, ruled the court. On Aug. 30, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification, which the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge Ishii on Nov. 22, 2022. The appellate case is captioned Taylor Anders, et al. v. California State University, Fresno, et al., Case No. 22-80137, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 6, 2022. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners TAYLOR ANDERS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Arthur Bryant, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 660 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 272-8000 - and - Michael Allen Caddell, Esq. Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq. Amy E. Tabor, Esq. CADDELL & CHAPMAN 628 East 9th St. Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (713) 751-0400 - and - Joshua Ian Hammack, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Defendants-Respondents CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO, et al. are represented by: Scott Eldridge, Esq. MILLER CANFIELD PADDOCK AND STONE, PLC 120 N. Washington Square 1 Michigan Avenue, Suite 900 Lansing, MI 48933 Telephone: (517) 483-4918 - and - Jennifer L. Santa Maria, Esq. AGCA - OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 600 W. Broadway, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 738-9099 CARIB'S CABLE: Lambel Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- TERESA LAMBEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARIB'S CABLE AND FIBER, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:22-cv-06123-SOH (W.D. Ark., Nov. 30, 2022) is a class action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other piece-rate paid employees lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a ground hand lashing fiber during part of the three years prior to the filing of this lawsuit. She asserts that she and other similarly situated employees did not receive time and one-half their regular rate of pay for each hour worked over 40 in a week, plus their full piecework earnings. Carib's Cable and Fiber, LLC is a telecommunications and consulting company that installs and services cable, Internet, and home entertainment systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stewart Whaley, Esq. Chris Burks, Esq. WH LAW | WE HELP 1 Riverfront Pl. - Suite 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Telephone: (501) 891-6000 E-mail: stewart@wh.law chris@wh.law CE MYRTLE: Doll Labor Suit Removed to D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------- The Defendants in the case, MADISON DOLL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CE MYRTLE BEACH, LLC d/b/a Walk-On's Bistreaux & Bar, DOUG HORNSBY, individually, KEITH BURKETT, individually, PJ BOE, individually, TODD HUTCHINSON, individually, SAMANTHA FISK, individually, JASON SADOWSKI, individually, and AMY SADOWSKI, individually, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Court of Common Pleas for Horry County, State of South Carolina (Case No. 2022-CP-26-04537) to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Florence Division. The clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-04289-JD. The case alleges violation of the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act. CE Myrtle Beach, LLC d/b/a Walk-On's Bistreaux & Bar operates a restaurant. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Cherie W. Blackburn, Esq. Christina L. Rogers, Esq. Mary Stuart King, Esq. NEXSEN PRUET, LLC 205 King Street, Suite 400 (29401) P.O. Box 486 Charleston, SC 29402 Tel: (843) 577-9440 E-mail: cblackburn@nexsenpruet.com crogers@nexsenpruet.com mking@nexsenpruet.com CE SOLUTIONS: Faces Halliday Suit Over Flaggers' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID HALLIDAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CE SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC, CE SOLUTIONS, INC., CE FLAGGING PLUS CORP., CE RESERVE CORP., ARGANI, INC., HASSAN SABLINI, and JEANNINE NAPOLEONE-COLBERT, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-10131 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 29, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The lawsuit also seeks unpaid overtime, prevailing wage, minimum wage and benefits pursuant to the New York Labor Law, the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations, and the New York State and New York City paid leave statutes. The Plaintiff has worked as a flagger for CE Solutions and has received his paychecks from CE Solutions from August 2018 through the present. He asserts that he has been misclassified by CE Solutions as an exempt, independent contractor. CE Solutions is a collection of companies, including, but not limited to, CE Solutions Group, LLC, CE Solutions, Inc., CE Flagging Plus Corp, CE Reserve Corp., and Argani, Inc. CE Solutions specializes in providing flaggers and traffic equipment at jobsites operated by Con Edison on or near roadways (including interstate roadways) in New York City and Westchester County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catherine E. Anderson, Esq. GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP 90 Broad Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 847-8315 E-mail: canderson@gslawny.com CMR CONSTRUCTION: Jesus Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation ----------------------------------------------------------- Vrany Jesus, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. CMR Construction & Roofing, LLC, Umana Construction LLC, and Ervin Umana, individually, Defendants, Case No. 9:22-cv-81856 (S.D. Fla., Nov. 29, 2022) is an action against the Defendants to recover monetary damages for Plaintiff's unpaid regular and overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempted, full-time roof installer from approximately July 25, 2022, to October 5, 2022, or 10 weeks. CMR Construction and Umana Construction are construction and roofing contractors specializing in commercial and residential roof installations, maintenance, and repairs.[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 COMPOUND DAO: Gerstein Harrow Discloses Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Gerstein Harrow LLP and Fairmark Partners LLP announce that a securities class action, captioned Houghton v. Compound DAO, et al., No. 22-CV-7781 (N.D. Cal.) is pending against Compound DAO, a California general partnership, and its partners, Robert Leshner, Geoffrey Hayes, AH Capital Management LLC, Polychain Alchemy LLC, Bain Capital LLC, Gauntlet Networks Inc., and Paradigm Operations, LP. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Action asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and California securities laws on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased COMP tokens on or after December 8, 2021. The Action seeks rescission and damages. The Action alleges that Compound DAO offered and sold COMP, a digital token that is an unregistered security. If you purchased COMP since December 8, 2021, either by using the Compound protocol, purchasing COMP on a decentralized exchange, or purchasing COMP on a centralized exchange, you are a member of the proposed class. A lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for members of a class. Lead plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York no later than 60 days after the date on which this notice is published. Should the Court certify a class in the Action, your ability to share in any potential recovery is not dependant upon you serving as lead plaintiff. A class has not yet been certified in this Action. You are not represented by counsel unless you retain a lawyer. You may retain counsel of your choice.[GN] CORRECT CHOICE: Everett Sues Over Direct Care Workers' Unpaid OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- KHALEELAH EVERETT, on behalf of herself and all employees/former employees similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CORRECT CHOICE HOME CARE, LLC and JOSHUA WALKER, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-04765 (E.D. Pa., Nov. 30, 2022) arises from the Defendants' failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a direct care worker from September 2021 through September 23, 2022. She asserts that despite consistently working over 40 hours per week, she worked approximately three and a half months between December 2021 and April of 2022, and was not paid time and one half for any hours that she worked over 40 hours in one week. Correct Choice Home Care, LLC is a home health care service in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari R. Karpf, Esq. KARPF, KARPF & CERUTTI, P.C. 3331 Street Road Two Greenwood Square, Suite 128 Bensalem, PA 19020 Telephone: (215) 639-0801 DELAWARE DOC: Crichlow Loses Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENIO CRICHLOW, v. DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00272-RGA (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge Richard G. Andrews entered an order that the Plaintiff Kenio Crichlow's request for counsel is denied without prejudice to renew, and Crichlow's motion for class certification is denied. Crichlow requests counsel on the grounds that he is unable to afford counsel, he has been unsuccessful in his attempts to retain pro bono counsel, the case is complex, he has filed a motion for class certification, he has limited access to legal materials and no ability to investigate, the case will require discovery and expert medical testimony, and he is hampered by medical problems arising from his contraction of COVID-19 in April 2020. Judge Andrews said, "Based on my review of the complaint, which centers on a two block march by 21 inmates, who had tested positive for COVID-19, in the pouring rain on April 30, 2020, the case is not complex, and Crichlow appears to have the ability to present his claims. In addition, this case is in its very early stages. Finally, I will deny Crichlow's motion for class certification, which, if granted, could have added to the complexity of the case." A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UQxaBK at no extra charge.[CC] DEPAUL UNIVERSITY: Powell Appeals BIPA Suit Ruling to 7th Cir. -------------------------------------------------------------- CODY POWELL is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Cody Powell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DePaul University, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-03001, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff, initially proceeding anonymously as a "John Doe," commenced this action against DePaul on March 3, 2021 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, by filing a lawsuit captioned John Doe v. DePaul University, Case No. 2021-CH-1027. Prior to serving DePaul, Plaintiff Cody Powell filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) in the State Court Action on May 7, 2021 in which he dropped the John Doe designation and identified himself by name. The FAC in the State Court Action alleges that DePaul violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by utilizing an online remote proctoring tool called Respondus Monitor. On June 4, 2021, the DePaul filed a notice to remove the case from the Circuit Court of Cook County, State of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The appellate case is captioned Cody Powell v. DePaul University, Case No. 22-3187, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on December 6, 2022. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Docketing Statement for Appellant Cody Powell was due December 12, 2022; -- Transcript information sheet is due today, December 20, 2022; -- Appellant Cody Powell's brief is due on or before January 17, 2023. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant CODY POWELL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Brian K. Murphy, Esq. MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP 1114 Dublin Road Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 488-0400 Defendant-Appellee DEPAUL UNIVERSITY is represented by: Michael Damon Hayes, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 120 S. Riverside Plaza Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 655-1500 DICK'S SPORTING: Siegfried Sues Over Disclosed Subscribers' Data ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAVIN SIEGFRIED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-04877 (E.D. Pa., December 7, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of knowingly disclosing to a third party, Meta Platforms, Inc. (Facebook), data containing the Plaintiff's and other digital-subscribers Class members' personal viewing information. When a Dick's subscriber watches videos on its website, the Pixel installed by the Defendant on its own website sends to Facebook certain information about the viewer and what the viewer watched. The Plaintiff did not provide written consent to Dick's to disclose the personal information, says the suit. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. is a company that owns and operates www.dicksportinggoods.com, headquartered in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Zemel, Esq. ZEMEL LAW, LLC 660 Broadway Paterson, NJ 07514 Telephone: (862) 227-3106 Facsimile: (973) 282-8603 E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com DYNATA LLC: Seeks More Time for "Prediscovery Motion" Response -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YOLANDA DAVIS and TENESHIA BANKSTON, and TIFFANY TAYLOR, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated, v. DYNATA, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-01062-SVN (D. Conn.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending the time in which to respond to plaintiffs' "prediscovery motion for conditional certification and court-authorized notice." The Prediscovery Motion may be mooted or stayed if Dynata is entitled to compel Davis, Bankston, and Taylor to arbitrate their claims. If not mooted, the Prediscovery Motion is exceptionally important because it will determine whether this case expands dramatically. Dynata wishes to present the Court information that bears on whether the Prediscovery Motion should be granted or denied, but Dynata requires additional time to do so Dynata asks that the Court extend its deadline to respond to the Prediscovery Motion until 14 days after the Court rules on Dynata's planned motion to compel arbitration (if a response is at that time still necessary), or, if no motion to compel arbitration has been filed December 22, by January 14, 2022. This motion is Dynata's first request for additional time as to its time to respond to the Prediscovery Motion. Davis, Bankston and Taylor object to any extension of Dynata's time to respond to the Prediscovery Motion. In the Prediscovery Motion, Davis Bankston and Taylor ask the Court to arrange for notices to "All current and former Call Center Survey Agents (CCSAs) who worked for Dynata ("Defendant") at any time from three years prior to the date this motion was filed through the date of judgment in this case. Dynata is a first-party data platform for insights, activation and measurement. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UTnhDp at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: James E. Nealon, Esq. WITHERS BERGMAN LLP 157 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 Telephone: (203) 302-4078 Facsimile: (203) 302-6611 E-mail: James.nealon@withersworldwide.com - and - Patrick J. Bannon, Esq. Timothy J. Buckley, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Two Seaport Lane, Suite 1200 Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 946-4800 Facsimile: (617) 946-4801 E-mail: pbannon@seyfarth.com tbuckley@seyfarth.com EARTHEFFICIENT LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Diversion of Trust Funds ------------------------------------------------------------------ TOMMY TRUCKING NY, LLC t/a TOMMY TRUCKING, LLC, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated as trust fund beneficiaries of Lien Law trusts of which EarthEfficient LLC is a trustee, Plaintiff v. EARTHEFFICIENT LLC; MOOREGROUP CORPORATION; DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY; CORY E. WEISSGLASS and "JOHN DOE ONE" through "JOHN DOE TEN", Defendants, Case No. 725830/2022 (N.Y. Sup., Dec. 8, 2022) alleges violation of the Lien Law of the State of New York. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that from August 3, 2019 to date, EarthEfficient has received from the owners and/or general contractors of the projects, or others, monies in payment for the performance by EarthEfficient of its contracts which pursuant to the provisions of Article 3A of the Lien Law, are trust funds required to be held by EarthEfficient, as trustee for the benefit of the plaintiff and the class it represents pursuant to the provisions of Article 3A of the Lien Law of the State of New York. EarthEfficient has received monies from the owners, general contractors or others on the projects and has diverted trust funds received by it as trustee pursuant to Article 3A of the Lien Law in the performance of the contracts referred to above, for purposes other than those permitted pursuant to Article 3A of the Lien Law of the State of New York. The Defendants caused and knowingly consented to payments from the trust funds on the various projects for purposes not authorized as trust fund disbursements under Article 3A of the Lien Law and thereby caused a diversion of trust funds, says the suit. EARTHEFFICIENT LLC provides site investigation and characterization, resource management, and real estate development services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marshall M. Stern, Esq. MARSHALL M. STERN, P.C 17 Cardiff Court Huntington Station, NY 11746 Telephone: (631) 427-0101 EATSTREET INC: Seeks Relief From Court's Dec. 1 Order ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTOFFER MARTIN, SCOTT QUATTRUCCI, AND CALVIN JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EATSTREET, INC., JOHN DOE 1, AND JOHN DOE 2, Case No. 3:20-cv-00279-jdp (W.D. Wisc.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their Motion for relief and stay the deadlines in the December 1, 2022, Opinion and Order by at least 60 days. In the alternative, if the Court concludes that the relief requested by this Motion does not fall within the parameters of Rule 60(b), the Court nevertheless has discretion to provide the requested relief to extend or stay the time frames in its December 1, 2022, Order, the Defendants contend. By this Motion for Relief, EatStreet is notifying the Court it no longer has a good faith belief that it will be able to honor its payment obligations under the Parties' Settlement Agreement on the schedule contemplated by the Parties' Settlement Agreement and Release executed in December 2021 ("Settlement Agreement") and the Court's December 1, 2022, Opinion and Order. EatStreet has notified Plaintiffs' Counsel of the information contained in this Motion for Relief and remains committed to its financial obligations in the Settlement Agreement. To the extent possible, EatStreet will make a good faith effort to work with Plaintiffs' Counsel to attempt to reach an interim resolution that helps the Parties continue to move toward settlement. On August 22, 2022, the Parties filed their Renewed Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Rule 23 Class and Collective Action Settlement, Renewed Stipulated Motion to Conditionally Certify a Collective Action Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), and Renewed Joint Stipulation to Rule 23 Class Certification. Unfortunately, over the last three months, EatStreet's financial circumstances have deteriorated rapidly due to multiple factors. On September 2, 2022, EatStreet's primary secured creditor called EatStreet in default of a loan covenant. However, EatStreet had negotiated an understanding with its lender that has allowed it to continue operating. Throughout August, September, and October of 2022, EatStreet continued to engage in discussions with a national entity that expressed interest in purchasing or funding EatStreet. In October of 2022, EatStreet shut down its HungerHub, LLC operations resulting in the layoff of a number of employees, given its continued inability to generate a profit. EatStreet Inc. is an American online food ordering service that acts as a centralized marketplace, where diners can order delivery and takeout from restaurants in their area. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PjqU4g at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Benjamin T. Johnson, Esq. Paul E. Benson, Esq. Mitchell W. Quick, Esq. Emi M. Passini, Esq. MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP 444 West Lake Street, Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 222-0800 Facsimile: (312) 222-0818 E-mail: btjohnson@michaelbest.com pebenson@michaelbest.com mwquick@michaelbest.com empassini@michaelbest.com ECCO RETAIL: Amort Case Remanded to San Mateo County Superior Court ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM M. AMORT v. ECCO RETAIL, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-05812-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Donna M. Ryu entered an order granting plaintiff's motion to remand and denying defendants' motion to dismiss as moot: -- As Defendants have failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, the court lacks jurisdiction over this case under CAFA. -- The Plaintiff's motion to remand is granted. -- As the court lacks jurisdiction over this case, Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint 15 is denied as moot. -- The case is remanded to San Mateo County Superior Court. In sum, the Defendants have not supported their estimates of the amounts in controversy pertaining to the meal period and rest break claims or the waiting time penalties claim. Moreover, the parties agree that the amount in controversy for attorneys' fees is 25% of the overall claimed amount in controversy. Therefore, Defendants have established only the following amounts: -- unpaid minimum wages and liquidated damages of $716,134.00 and wage statement penalties of $906,150.00, for a total of $1,622,284. An award of attorneys' fees equivalent to 25% of the supported amount in controversy (25% of $1,622,284) equals $405,571.00, for a total supported amount in controversy of $2,027,855.00, which is far short of the $5,000,000 threshold required by CAFA. The Plaintiff filed this class action in San Mateo County Superior Court on July 27, 2022, alleging violations of the California Labor Code. He seeks damages for unpaid compensation, statutory penalties, and injunctive relief, among other forms of relief, on behalf of a putative class of the Defendants' current and former non-exempt employees in California. The Plaintiff defines the utative class as follows: "all California citizens currently or formerly employed by the Defendants as non-exempt employees in the State of California at any time between January 23, 2018 and the date of class certification." A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FNenms at no extra charge.[CC] ENERGY TRANSFER: Vega Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Mike Vega, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. ENERGY TRANSFER LP, KELCY L. WARREN, THOMAS E. LONG, MARSHALL S. MCCREA III, BRADFORD DICKERSON WHITEHURST, JOHN W. MCREYNOLDS, MATTHEW S. RAMSEY, Defendants; Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit, Josephine Dameyer, New Mexico State Investment Council, Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico, Movants; Case No. 1:22-cv-04614 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on Dec. 8, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-02735-K to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutes Securities/Commodities/Exchange for the Securities Exchange Act. Energy Transfer LP -- https://www.energytransfer.com/ -- is an American company engaged in natural gas and propane pipeline transport.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrea Farah, Esq. Yuanchen Lu, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Phone: 914-997-0500 Email: afarah@lowey.com ylu@lowey.com The Defendants are represented by: Christopher Emmanuel Duffy, Esq. VINSON & ELKINS LLP 1114 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 237-0000 Fax: (212) 237-0100 Email: cduffy@velaw.com - and - John T Cox, III, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 2001 Ross Ave. Ste. 2100 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 698-3256 Fax: (214) 571-2923 Email: tcox@gibsondunn.com - and - Meredith Lyons, Esq. VINSON & ELKINS 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700 Dallas, TX 75201-2975 Phone: (214) 220-7763 Fax: (214) 999-7763 Email: mlyons@velaw.com The Movants are represented by: Adam Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 524-4290 Email: aapton@zlk.com - and - Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM PA 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com - and - David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq. Mark Tamerlane Millkey, Esq. Robert M Rothman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: (631) 367-7100 Fax: (631) 367-1173 Email: drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com mmillkey@rgrdlaw.com - and - Debra J Wyman, Esq. Heather Grace Geiger, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 W Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 231-1058 Fax: (619) 231-7423 Email: dwyman@rgrdlaw.com hgeiger@rgrdlaw.com - and - Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450 Dallas, TX 75219 Phone: (214) 744-3000 Fax: (214) 744-3015 Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com EXPRESS MESSENGER: Misclassifies Delivery Drivers, Kelley Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tylor Kelley and Savannah Arteaga, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc., d/b/a OnTrac, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-02039-DGC (D. Ariz., Nov. 30, 2022) arises from the Defendant's willful misclassification of its delivery drivers as independent contractors, resulting in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and other delivery drivers were and are routinely denied payment of minimum wages and overtime premiums; reimbursement of business-related expenses; the protections of workers' compensation benefits and unemployment insurance; Social Security contributions; and other benefits to which they are entitled under federal law because of the misclassification scheme. Plaintiffs Kelley and Arteaga were employed by OnTrac as delivery drivers within the State of Utah from June 2020 until May 2021 and from January 2021 until May 2021, respectively. Express Messenger Systems, Inc. offers package delivery services to addresses in Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Utah, Colorado and Idaho.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas A. Verderame, Esq. PLATTNER VERDERAME, PC 316 E. Flower Street Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: (602) 266-2002 E-mail: NVerderame@PVAzLaw.com - and - Patrick S. Almonrode, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (201) 781-5701 E-mail: patalmonrode@jtblawgroup.com FIRST ADVANTAGE: Wilson Must File Class Cert Bid by March 1, 2023 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wilson v. First Advantage Background Services Corp., Case No. 5:21-cv-06071 (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order that: -- The Plaintiff shall file his March 1, 2023 motion for class certification on or before: -- The Defendant's opposition to March 31, 2023 class certification brief shall be filed on or before: -- The Plaintiff's reply brief for April 14, 2023 class certification shall be due on or before: -- Oral arguments for class April 25, 2023 certification shall be held on: The nature of suit states Other Statutes -- Consumer Credit. First Advantage is a global consumer reporting agency headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.[CC] FIRST NATIONAL: Lebovits Alleges Illegal Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ MOSES LEBOVITS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. FIRST NATIONAL COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., Defendant, Case No. 534753/2022 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., Nov. 29, 2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The suit asserts that the Defendant violated the law by failing to clearly provide the accurate amount of the debt and by overshadowing the disclosures with conflicting interest accrual representations, and in turn, continuing with its collection activities. By reason thereof, Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for judgment that the Defendant's conduct violated Section 1692g et seq. of the FDCPA, and that the Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages, statutory damages, costs and attorneys' fees, says the suit. First National Collection Bureau, Inc. is a debt collector.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Yusko, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com FORBES MEDIA: Passariello Sues Over Disclosure of Information ------------------------------------------------------------- Salomon Passariello, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FORBES MEDIA, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and Does 1-100, Case No. 2:22-cv-08908-PA-KS (C.D. Cal., Dec. 8, 2022), for violations of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act arising from the Defendant's practice of knowingly disclosing its readers' personally identifiable information, including but not limited to, their Facebook ID ("FID") and data files containing their reader's video viewing history and corresponding URL viewed. The Defendant develops, owns and operates Forbes.com, a business and technology website. Forbes.com employs the slogan "Home Page for the World's Business Leaders," and claims to be the world's most widely visited business website. Indeed, hundreds of millions of readers visit Forbes.com every month, and the website boasts an estimated annual revenue of between $100 to $200 million. The Forbes.com website contains articles contain Meta Tracking Pixels ("Pixel(s)"). Pixels are a type of code released by Meta Platforms, Inc. ("Facebook") that advertisers can integrate into their website, and which can be used to record and aggregate the personal identifiable information of individuals who visit that website. Specifically, the Defendant implemented Pixels that "track the people and type of actions they take," such as their unique Facebook ID in association to what video content that they viewed, while browsing the Forbes.com website. Those Pixels then transmitted a record of those tracked people and actions to Facebook, who processed, analyzed and assimilated it into their datasets. In implementing Pixels into the Forbes.com website, the Defendant knew or should have known that they were disclosing their customer's personally identifiable information--including a record of every article they view on the website--to Facebook, without consent. In doing so, Defendant violated the Video Privacy Protection Act, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been a subscriber to Forbes.com since 2019 and has viewed, on occasion, video content on the Forbes.com website throughout the duration of his ongoing subscription. Forbes Media LLC is a global media, branding and technology company with a focus on news and information about business, investing, technology, entrepreneurship, leadership and affluent lifestyles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Carolin K. Shining, Esq. Jonas P. Mann, Esq. Jennifer M. Leinbach, Esq. Jesse S. Chen, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com cshining@wilshirelawfirm.com jmann@wilshirelawfirm.com jleinbach@wilshirelawfirm.com jchen@wilshirelawfirm.com G&A FLAGGERS: Holder Sues Over General Workers' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Sir Richmond Holder, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in this proposed collective action, Plaintiff v. G&A Flaggers LLC, and Crystal T. Gomez, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-07227 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 29, 2022) seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and to recover unpaid minimum wages, 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 Labor Law, and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Plaintiff was employed as a general worker at Defendants' flagging business located in Queens, New York from approximately March 2022 through and including July 2022. G&A Flaggers LLC provides flagging services to construction companies.[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 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Moore Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA M. MOORE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS (US) LLC, and PFIZER, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-09077-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order for class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3): "All persons or entities who, during the Class Period, purchased one or more of the Products2 in California for purposes other than resale. Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendant, its assigns, successors, and legal representatives; (ii) any entities in which Defendant has controlling interests; and (iii) federal, state, and/or local governments, including, but not limited to, their departments, agencies, divisions, bureaus, boards, sections, groups, counsels, and/or subdivisions; and (iv) any judicial officer presiding over this matter and person within the third degree of consanguinity to such judicial officer." The Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint her as Class Representative and to appoint Ryan J. Clarkson, Katherine A. Bruce, and Kelsey J. Elling of Clarkson Law Firm, P.C., and Christopher D. Moon and Kevin O. Moon of Moon Law APC are appointed Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 7, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FaABNP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Katherine A. Bruce, Esq. Kelsey J. Elling, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com kbruce@clarksonlawfirm.com kelling@clarksonlawfirm.com - and - Christopher D. Moon, Esq. Kevin O. Moon, Esq. MOON LAW APC 228 Hamilton Ave., 3rd Fl Palo Alto, CA 94301 Telephone: (619) 915-9432 Facsimile: (650) 618-0478 E-mail: chris@moonlawapc.com kevin@moonlawapc.com GOLDEN APPLE: Initial Case Mng't Conference Set for Jan. 11, 2023 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANJAY SOOKUL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GOLDEN APPLE INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-09203-JMF-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah L. Cave entered an order scheduling initial case management conference on January 11, 2023 at 12:00 p.m. on the Court's conference line. The parties are directed to call: (866) 390-1828; access code: 380-9799, at the scheduled time. At the conference, the parties must be prepared to discuss the subjects set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and (c). The Court further ordered that counsel shall meet and confer in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) no later than 21 days before the Initial Case Management Conference. No later than one week before the conference, the parties shall file a Report of Rule 26(f) Meeting and Proposed Case Management Plan, via ECF, signed by counsel for each party. Golden Apple is an insurance holding company that acquires existing books of insurance from insurance companies that are restricted. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 8, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Br0vvs at no extra charge.[CC] GOLDWATER BANK: Court Narrows Claims in Feins Suit -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Feins, v. Goldwater Bank NA, Goldwater Bank NA, Case No. 2:22-cv-00932-JJT (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge John J. Tuchi entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Goldwater's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint: -- Counts 2 through 5 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are dismissed. -- The Defendant shall file an Answer to Count 1 of 5 the Amended Complaint within the time specified in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. -- The Court will set a case management conference by separate Order. The Court said, "Because the Court finds the defects in Plaintiffs' dismissed claims cannot be cured by amendment when considering the context and thoroughness of Plaintiffs' allegations in the Amended Complaint, the Court will dismiss Counts 2 through 5 without leave to amend." The Plaintiff raises at least two species of damages that may apply to his negligence claim: out-of-pocket expenses associated with the prevention, detection, and recovery from identity theft or other unauthorized use of PII (including monitoring services); and diminished value of his PII. As a basis for his negligence claim, the Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the Data Breach, he is experiencing an increased number of phishing emails and other fraudulent activity on his personal accounts, requiring him to pay for credit monitoring services beyond the one-year of service offered by the Defendant. The Plaintiff alleges the following facts. Plaintiff -- a citizen and resident of New Mexico -- was a customer of Defendant -- an Arizona bank with its principal office in Arizona. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uJ8wIv at no extra charge.[CC] GOOD SAM ENTERPRISES: Bailey Files Suit in N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Good Sam Enterprises, LLC. The case is styled as Ronald Bailey, Dena Kiger, and Jose Kiger, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Good Sam Enterprises, LLC, CWI, Inc., and CWGS Group, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-06897 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 8, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Good Sam Enterprises -- http://www.goodsam.com/-- is a provider of membership clubs, as well as subscription-based products, services and publications, targeted toward recreational vehicle and other outdoor enthusiasts in the United States and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael N. Hanna, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 55 E Monroe St. Ste. 3800 Chicago, IL 60603 2000 Town Center, Suite 1900 Southfield, MI 4807 Phone: (313) 739-1950 Email: mhanna@forthepeople.com GRAVITY DEFYER: Hernandez Files Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- RUTH HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff v. GRAVITY DEFYER MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION; ALEXANDER ELNEKAVEH; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV37154 (Cal. Sup. Ct., November 28, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated aggrieved employees against the Defendants pursuant to the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid and non-exempt employee from on or around July 2, 2014 until on or around January 12, 2022 when she was forced to quit her employment due to covid-19 pandemic. The Plaintiff asserts these claims: -- The Defendants failed to pay minimum wages for the time she and other similarly situated aggrieved employees spent performing off-the-clock work; -- The Defendants failed to properly compensate them for all hours they have worked due to its disproportionately rounding down hours policy; -- The Defendants failed to pay them the correct amount of overtime despite working more than 40 hours per week throughout their employment; -- The Defendants failed to provide them with uninterrupted rest break and meal periods, and did not compensate them for those rest breaks and meal periods performing duties; -- The Defendants failed to provide them with accurate itemized wage statements; -- The Defendants failed to keep accurate and complete payroll records showing the actual hours worked per day and the wages paid to them; and -- The Defendants failed and refused to pay all wages earned and due immediately upon separation. Gravity Defyer Medical Technology Corporation operates a shoe store. Alexander Elnekaveh is the owner of the Corporate Defendant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harout Messrelian, Esq. MESSRELIAN LAW INC. 500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840 Glenda, CA 91203 Tel: (818) 484-6531 Fax: (818) 956-1983 E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com HEALTH INSURANCE: Court Modifies Class Cert. Deadlines in Lomas --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lomas v. Health Insurance Associates LLC, Case No. 6:22-cv-00679 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an endorsed order granting joint motion to continue class certification related deadlines: The deadlines related to class certification are modified as follows: 1) The deadline to disclose expert March 10, 2023 reports regarding class certification for the plaintiff is changed to: 2) The deadline to disclose expert April 7, 2023 reports regarding class certification for the defendant is changed to: 3) The discovery cut off for class April 28, 2023 certification is changed to: 4) The deadline for moving for March 10, 2023 class certification, if applicable, is changed to: 5) The deadline for responding to April 7, 2023 motion for class certification is changed to: 6) The deadline for replying to April 28, 2023 motion for class certification is changed to: The nature of suit states restrictions of use of telephone equipment. Health Insurance Associates, established in 1998, has been a local insurance agency located in North Haven, Connecticut.[CC] HEWLETT PACKARD: Final Settlement OK Hearing Set for April 27, 2023 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ended October 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2022, that the final class settlement final approval hearing in a putative class suit set for April 27, 2023. On November 8, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara alleging that HPE pays its California-based female employees "systemically lower compensation" than HPE pays male employees performing substantially similar work. The complaint alleges various California state law claims, including California's Equal Pay Act, Fair Employment and Housing Act, and Unfair Competition Law, and seeks certification of a California-only class of female employees employed in certain "Covered Positions." The complaint seeks damages, statutory and civil penalties, attorneys' fees and costs. On April 2, 2019, HPE filed a demurrer to all causes of action and an alternative motion to strike portions of the complaint. On July 2, 2019, the court denied HPE's demurrer as to the claims of the putative class and granted HPE's demurrer as to the claims of the individual plaintiffs. The parties have reached an agreement to resolve this litigation. The terms of the class settlement are reflected in Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Certification of Settlement Class, which was filed with the Court on September 26, 2022. On November 3, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion and preliminarily approved the terms of the class settlement, which defines the settlement class as all "[w]omen actively employed in California by Defendant at any point from November 1, 2015 through the date of Preliminary Approval" who were employed in a covered job code. The settlement class excludes certain individuals, including those who previously executed an arbitration agreement with HPE or an agreement that resulted in a release or waiver of claims. The hearing on final approval of the class settlement is scheduled for April 27, 2023. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (NYSE: HPE) provides solutions that allow customers to capture, analyze, and act upon data seamlessly in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Asia Pacific, and Japan. The company offers general purpose servers for multi-workload computing and workload-optimized servers; HPE ProLiant rack and tower servers; HPE BladeSystem and HPE Synergy; and solutions for secondary workloads and traditional tape, storage networking, and disk products, such as HPE Modular Storage Arrays and HPE XP. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. HOSPITALS CORP: Sumpter Seeks to Certify Medical Personnel Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNINE SUMPTER, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. HOSPITALS CORPORATION d/b/a NYC HEALTH + HOSPITALS, Case No. 1:22-cv-08176-PAE-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. conditionally certifying the action as a collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): "All medical industry personnel working for, or on behalf of, H+H who were, at any point in the past three years classified as independent contractors and paid "straight time for overtime" (the Putative Class Members);" 2. directing H+H to provide the names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, work locations, and dates of employment of all Putative Class Members; 3. permitting Sumpter to distribute notice; Ms. Sumpter filed this class and collective action on behalf of herself and other medical personnel who worked for H+H that were classified as independent contractors, and paid the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including for those hours worked over 40 in a single week. Sumpter claims H+H subjected her and other medical personnel to a common and illegal practice of misclassifying them as independent contractors and compensating them with less than the required "time and a half" for those hours worked over 40 in a week. H+H provides access to health services for a large portion of New York City inhabitants, across eleven hospitals and 35 other healthcare facilities. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FnKB6j at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Alyssa J. White, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com awhite@mybackwages.com - and - Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq. Dana M. Cimera, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com HOSPITALS CORPORATION: Bid for Class Cert Junked w/o Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sumpter v. Hospitals Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-08176 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer E. Willis entered an order denying without prejudice the motion to certify class: -- The motion is denied without prejudice for failure to comply with this Court's Individual Practice II(A). The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act involving minimum wage or overtime compensation.[CC] HP INC: MEIPF Class Suit Remains Stayed --------------------------------------- HP Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2022, that the MEIPF class suit remain stayed York County decision appeal is exhausted. On November 5, 2020, York County, on behalf of the County of York Retirement Fund, filed a putative class action complaint against HP, Dion Weisler, and Catherine Lesjak in federal court in the Northern District of California. The court appointed Maryland Electrical Industry Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint, which additionally names as defendants Enrique Lores and Richard Bailey. The complaint alleges, among other things, that from November 5, 2015 to June 21, 2016, HP and the named current and former officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material information and making false statements about HP's printing supplies business. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and other relief. HP and the named officers filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On March 3, 2022, the court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice. Plaintiffs are appealing the decision. On May 17, 2021, stockholder Scott Franklin filed a derivative complaint against certain current and former officers and directors in federal court in the District of Delaware. Plaintiff purports to bring the action on behalf of HP, which he has named as a nominal defendant, and he makes substantially the same factual allegations as in the York County securities complaint, bringing claims for breach of fiduciary duty and violations of securities laws. The derivative plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, governance reforms, and other relief. By court order following stipulations by the parties, the case was transferred to the Northern District of California, and the case was stayed pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss in York County. The derivative actions will remain stayed until any appeal related to the York decision has been exhausted. HP Inc. provides computing, imaging and printing systems, mobile devices, solutions, and services for business and home. HP INC: Settlement in Principle Reached in EWPF Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- HP Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2022, that the parties involved in the Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103 securities suit reached settlement in principle. On February 19, 2020, Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. filed a putative class action complaint against HP, Dion Weisler, Catherine Lesjak, and Steven Fieler in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California. The court appointed the State of Rhode Island, Office of the General Treasurer, on behalf of the Employees' Retirement System of Rhode Island and Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds as Lead Plaintiffs. Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which additionally named as defendants Enrique Lores and Christoph Schell. HP and the named officers filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court granted HP's motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs' second amended complaint, which no longer names Christoph Schell as a defendant, alleges, among other things, that from February 23, 2017 to October 3, 2019, HP and the named officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making false or misleading statements about HP's printing supplies business. It further alleges that Dion Weisler and Enrique Lores violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act by allegedly selling shares of HP common stock during this period while in possession of material, non-public adverse information about HP's printing supplies business. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and other relief. HP and the named officers filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. ' On September 15, 2021, the court granted HP's motion. Plaintiffs appealed the decision. An appellate hearing scheduled for December 5, 2022 was cancelled as the parties have reached a settlement in principle. HP Inc. provides computing, imaging and printing systems, mobile devices, solutions, and services for business and home. IMMIGRANT ELDER: Akter Class Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAPNA AKTER and MUHAMMAD ALAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. IMMIGRANT ELDER HOME CARE LLC and GIASH AHMED, Case No. 1:22-cv-09868-RA-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ronnie Abrams entered an order referring the action to Magistrate Judge Netburn for the following purpose: -- General Pretrial (includes scheduling,discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement); -- Specific Non-Dispositive Motion/Dispute; and -- Motion to certify class, if any. Immigrant Elder provides home healthcare programs at flexible schedules and cost-friendly service rates. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3P6XndX at no extra charge.[CC] ISG 1 INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ventura Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- NELSON CANALES VENTURA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ISG 1 INC.; CHRISTINE AMOROSO; and VINCENT AMOROSO, JR., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-07450 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 8, 2022) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Ventura was employed by the Defendants as laborer. ISG, INC. was founded in 1997. The company's line of business includes providing management consulting services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yale Pollack, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF YALE POLLACK, P.C. 66 Split Rock Road Syosset, NY 11791 Telephone: (516) 634-6340 Email: ypollack@yalepollacklaw.com JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Berry Sues Over Deceptive Debt Collection Letter ------------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM BERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01977 (D. Nev., November 28, 2022) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff has an alleged debts incurred to an original creditor Exeter primarily for personal, family or household purposes. Unfortunately, the Plaintiff has defaulted on the alleged debt and sometime thereafter, it was assigned, transferred, or otherwise placed with the Defendant for collection of the alleged debt. Consequently, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a letter via US Mail on June 17, 2022. However, the Defendant's letter failed to inform the Plaintiff that the letter was from a debt collector, that the communication was an attempt to collect a debt, and that any information obtained would be used for the purpose of the collection of a debt. Allegedly, the Defendant's letter misrepresented and deceived the Plaintiff regarding the Plaintiff's statutory rights under the FDCPA, says the Plaintiff. As a result of the Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff has been misled, suffered mental anguish and emotional distress, inconvenience, frustration, and stress. Thus, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff seeks to recover actual damages and statutory damages, litigation costs and reasonable attorney's fees, as well as an order enjoining the Defendant from continuing use of collection communications substantially in the form of the collection communications at issue, and all other relief that this Court deems just and proper. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC is a debt collector. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gustavo Ponce, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 6069 S Fort Apache Road, Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89148 Tel: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: gustavo@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com JOHNS HOPKINS: Boots Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Elena Botts, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01335-JRR (D. Md.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting preliminary approval of class settlement and for directing notice. She also moves the Court for certification of the Settlement Class, appointment of Class Counsel and Class Representative, approval of the proposed class notice and notice plan, appointment of the settlement administrator, and scheduling of a final fairness hearing. Johns Hopkins is a private research university in Baltimore, Maryland. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Pm13IQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. Jordan M. Sartell, Esq. Kevin Mallon, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com consumer.esq@outlook.com - and - Courtney L. Weiner, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF COURTNEY WEINER PLLC 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 827-9980 E-mail: cw@courtneyweinerlaw.com JOLIET, IL: Faces Suit Over Illegal Trucker Ticketing Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- Chuck Robinson at landline.media reports that a recently filed class action lawsuit alleges the city of Joliet, Ill., has crafted a snare to entrap and fine truck drivers. Attorneys filing the civil lawsuit want it certified as a class action lawsuit on behalf of thousands of truck drivers. At issue is the practice of the city to issue tickets to truckers for overweight and overlength vehicles. The city adjudicates the cases itself, sidestepping a legal requirement that commercial truck moving violations and offenses must be judged by and reported to the state. The alleged scheme has generated millions of dollars of revenue for the city, according to a lawsuit filed Nov. 29 by Joliet attorney Frank Andreano and two attorneys with a Chicago law firm, Karl Leinberger and Paul Markoff of Markoff Leinberger LLC. Intermodal terminal Joliet is the state's third-largest city and is 40 miles from Chicago. It straddles the junction of Interstate 55 and Interstate 80. The city also is home to the Joliet Intermodal Terminal. The terminal is the lure drawing truck drivers into the city's trap, according to Andreano. "One of the streets connecting the intermodal (terminal) to a truck route (and the most direct way to the truck route) is down a street that is weight restricted. For drivers unfamiliar with the area it is very confusing," Andreano told Land Line. "I have found that drivers relying on personal GPS (and not the commercial trucker version, i.e., Qualcomm/Garmin, etc.) turn and then realize they are on a weight/size restricted roadway. The roadway is very narrow and there is nowhere to turn around, and the cops are sitting waiting." The lawsuit alleges the city has overstepped its authority by setting up a streamlined administrative adjudication process to collect fines from commercial truck drivers. The state has that authority. What's more, this class action lawsuit was preceded by a similar one filed on behalf of four other truck drivers. Three days before the class action lawsuit was filed, the court of appeals in the other case decided in favor of the truck drivers that the city had overstepped its legal authority in judging the cases pertaining to the regulation of moving vehicles. Background The city set up its alleged trucker-ticketing scheme in two moves, one in 2015 and the other in 2017. First, in 2015, Joliet enacted ordinances limiting the length of vehicles on nondesignated streets to 55 feet, with a few exceptions, including tow trucks, school busses, emergency vehicles or trucks headed for an address on the street. The city also enacted an overweight ordinance making it unlawful to operate any vehicle over 24,000 pounds on any nondesignated city road. The city's ordinances largely mirror the Illinois vehicle code, which the lawsuit points out has jurisdiction over the issues. The city is working to circumvent using state courts by administratively adjudicating the cases. In the second maneuver by Joliet, in 2017 it established a commercial truck enforcement unit in its police force to issue more tickets to truckers. "In the first 14 months after this new unit was created, Joliet issued tickets totaling over $2.2 million," according to the lawsuit. "Joliet retains all of the funds generated through its scheme. If these tickets were adjudicated in an Illinois court, Joliet would have to share the proceeds from the fines with other units of government." Four plaintiffs In this lawsuit, four professional truck drivers are listed as plaintiffs. Three are U.S. residents and one resides in Canada. All were ticketed by city police from 2019 through 2022. All four men paid the fines to avoid penalties being added to the amount. The four plaintiffs: -- California resident Iuri Culev, who was ticketed on Jan. 6, 2021 for driving an overlength vehicle on a nondesignated city street and fined $500. -- Missouri resident Richard Bagley, who was ticketed Sept. 17 for driving an overlength vehicle on a nondesignated city street. He was fined $250. -- Ontario, Canada, resident Vasan Tharamalingham, who was ticketed June 2 for an overweight vehicle. He paid a $250 municipal fine. -- Illinois resident Maciej Gasienica Sobczak, who was ticketed Nov. 4, 2019, for driving an overlength vehicle on a nondesignated city street. He paid a $500 municipal fine. Problems with the city's administrative adjudication The administrative adjudication process is a streamlined process that deprives ticketed truck drivers of due process, the lawsuit claims. "For the purposes of these so-called hearings in Joliet's administrative system, the Illinois rules of civil procedure and Illinois rules of evidence do not apply," reads the lawsuit. An administrative law officer presides over the cases. The ticket itself is considered prima facie evidence of guilt. There is no testimony from police officers, so they cannot be cross-examined. However, officers are almost always the only witness for the prosecution, and no corroborating video or the evidence admitted. The city's end-around to avoid the cases being judged in state court allow the city to keep all the proceeds from fines and not share the money with other units of government. "In gaming terms, Joliet stacks the deck in its favor and then keeps all of the winnings," the lawsuit explains. The administrative adjudication process also means the state does not assess points for violations, which can affect driving privileges, and it also does not report the violations to federal authorities. City of Joliet and truckers The city has a long history of antagonism toward truck drivers. Staff Writer Tyson Fisher says Joliet may be the most written about city in the history of his regular Land Line Magazine feature The Parking Zone. Fisher has documented the city's battle against a QuikTrip truck stop there this year. A Love's Travel Stop ran into NIMBY resistance there. Last year, Joliet residents complained of trucks parking in strip mall parking lots.[GN] JONES AND VIATOR: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Brown Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- LAMAR BROWN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jones and Viator, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-10165 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2022) arises from the Defendant's failure to maintain, and operate its website https://www.cootersplace.com/ to be fully accessible for the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant engaged in acts of intentional discrimination due to the inaccessibility of its website, and seeks a permanent injunction to cause Defendant to change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. Jones and Viator, Inc. operates the commercial website that offers products and services for online sale. The online store allows the user to view die-cars, apparel and souvenirs, make purchases, and perform a variety of other functions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC 108-26 64th avenue, Second Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (929) 324-0717 Facsimile: (929) 333-7774 E-mail: mars@khaimovlaw.com JVK OPERATIONS: Montiel-Flores, et al., Seek to Certify Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENIA MONTIEL-FLORES and ALMANELLY RIVERA ZUNIGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JVK OPERATIONS LIMITED and VINOD SAMUEL, Case No. 2:19-cv-03005-JS-SIL (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the action as a class action; 2. designating their counsel as class counsel; and 3. directing the parties to disseminate notice to the class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). By contrast, the class action device presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefits of unitary adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court. Concentrating this litigation in one forum will promote judicial economy, efficiency and consistency, as well as parity among individual Class members’ claims. Further, a class action will reduce Defendants’ litigation costs so that class members are able to recover more of any potential award as opposed to paying attorneys’ fees and costs in duplicative litigation. The Plaintiffs initiated this putative class and collective action against the Defendants to recover damages for unpaid minimum and overtime wages for themselves and current and former employees of Defendants pursuant to New York Labor Law (the NYLL), the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL), the New Jersey Wage Payment Law (NJWPL), and the New Jersey Wage Theft Act (NJWTA). As a result of Defendants' unlawful timekeeping policies, Plaintiffs and the collective members were deprived of wages for the hours they worked, including minimum wages for hours worked up to forty 40 per week and overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as clothing sorters at 130 New Highway. JVK Operations a leading provider of linen and garments laundry services for healthcare facilities on the East Coast. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3USHcC8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Frank R. Schirripa, Esq. John A. Blyth, Esq. HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP 112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 213-8311 E-mail: fschirripa@hrsclaw.com - and - Kenneth Katz, Esq. Adam Sackowitz, Esq. KATZ MELINGER PLLC 280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 460-0047 E-mail: ajsackowitz@katzmelinger.com KANAWAY SEAFOODS: Class Cert. Deadline Amended to March 21, 2023 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Flaherty, et al., v. Kanaway Seafoods, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-00155 (D. Alaska), the Hon. Judge Sharon L. Gleason entered an order on motion for extension of time to complete discovery: -- The dispositive motions deadline, motions to certify questions on Phase I issues, and a motion for class certification deadline is amended to March 21, 2023. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Kanaway Seafoods, doing business as Alaska General Seafoods, operates as a seafood processing company. The Company engages in acquiring, canning, freezing, and supplying seafood products.[CC] KHAYLIE HAZEL: Bid to Conduct Class Cert Discovery Partly Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW MARTIN ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. KHAYLIE HAZEL YEARNING LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00176-SA-JMV (N.D. Miss.), the Hon. Judge Jane M. Virden entered an order granting in part and denying in part motion to conduct class certification and damages discovery. The Plaintiff's motion for leave to conduct class certification discovery shall be and is hereby granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff shall have 90 days from the date of this Order to conduct the discovery outlined above. The Plaintiff shall have 30 days after expiration of the discovery period to file a motion for class certification. The Plaintiff seeks discovery beyond that relevant and proportional to the issues pertinent to a decision on class certification. In particular, Plaintiff in his original motion and memorandum sought discovery of the identity of the members of the classes and to determine the amount of damages those identified members are entitled to recover. In particular, Plaintiff seeks to have certified two nationwide classes certified as follows: The Plaintiff brings this action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of the "DNC Class" and "Time Class" defined as follows: "Plaintiff and all persons within the United States (1) to whose telephone number Defendant placed (or had placed on its behalf) two or more text messages, (2) from four years prior to the filing of the Compliant to the date of certification, (3) for the purpose of encouraging the purchase of Defendant's CBD Oil Products (4) in a 12-month period (5) when the telephone number to which the text messages were sent was on the National Do-Not-Call Registry at the time of the messages." A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YjspmT at no extra charge.[CC] KPS AFFILIATES: Must File Opposition to Class Cert by Jan 9, 2023 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONALISA JOHNSON-CRADLE, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. KPS AFFILIATES INC., PPB INC., and TERRY ENGLISH, Case No. 1:22-cv-01052-PGG-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah L. Cave entered an order granting the Defendants' request for a further 30-day extension of time to file their opposition to Plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification as follows: 1. The Defendants shall file the January 9, 2023 Opposition by: 2. The Plaintiff shall file her January 17, 2023 reply, if any by: The statute of limitations for the putative opt-in plaintiffs' claims is equitably tolled from November 10, 2022 to January 9, 2023. The Court reserves judgment on Plaintiff's request in the Motion for equitable tolling "until such time that [she] is able to send notice to potential collective action members." KPS Affiliates is a well-respected and very organized security agency that has provided security services in the New York City and New Jersey area. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 8, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VKCfwL at no extra charge.[CC] KRAFT HEINZ: Juice Drinks Contains Toxic Chemicals, Toribio Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDRA TORIBIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE KRAFT HEINZ COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-06639 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 29, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, fraud, constructive fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the New York Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The Plaintiff brings this consumer class action lawsuit on behalf of similarly situated consumers who purchased for personal, family, or household use, Capri Sun(R) Strawberry Kiwi juice drink, which is a prominently labeled as containing "All Natural Ingredients." In reality, Plaintiff's testing has revealed that the Product contains per- and polyfluoralkyl substances, a category of synthetic chemicals that are, by definition, not "natural." The Defendant's uniform marketing is intentionally designed to drive sales and increase profits by targeting health-conscious consumers -- and specifically, conscientious parents and caregivers -- who reasonably believe that the Product is free from ingredients which are artificial or otherwise unnatural, says the Plaintiff. However, despite Defendant's consistent and pervasive marketing representations to consumers that their Product is a healthy, all-natural juice drink, Plaintiff's independent testing has determined that the Product actually contains PFAS -- a category of man-made chemicals with a toxic, persistent, and bioaccumulative nature which are associated with numerous health concerns, the suit asserts. The Kraft Heinz Company is a multi-national food and beverage company and the producer of numerous consumer brands, including Capri Sun. Kraft's corporate headquarters is located in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 221 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com - and - Erin Ruben, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 E-mail: eruben@milberg.com - and - J. Hunter Bryson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 405 E 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (630) 796-0903 E-mail: hbryson@milberg.com - and - Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Daniel Markowitz, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C. 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com KROGER CO: Scheduling Order Entered in Solano Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Solano, et al v. The Kroger Co., Case No. 3:18-cv-01488 (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey Armistead entered a scheduling Order as follows: -- Motion to Certify the Class, Motion to Deny Class Certification shall be taken under advisement as of March 3, 2023. -- Requests for oral argument shall be considered in due course. The nature of suit states Other Statutes -- Other Statutory Actions. Kroger is an American retail company that operates supermarkets and multi-department stores throughout the United States.[CC] KROGER CO: Seeks Denial of Solano Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELISHA SOLANO, et al., individually and on behalf of other customers, v. THE KROGER CO., dba FRED MEYER, Case No. 3:18-cv-01488-AR (D. Or.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order denying certification of any class because Plaintiffs Solano, Conroy, and Zach lack standing to bring their claims and thus cannot represent a class. The Defendant contends that despite naked allegations to the contrary, Plaintiffs could, in fact, have recovered the 10 cents they were charged for their Florida's Natural Orange Juice, irrespective of whether the containers were "redeemable." The Plaintiffs admit they simply failed to seek the refund from Fred Meyer. In doing so, they created a self-inflicted injury that cannot support Article III standing to bring their claims. These cases all embrace two core propositions: (1) plaintiffs who could have mitigated their alleged harm by obtaining a refund of the very amount by which they claim they were harmed have no Article III injury; and (2) plaintiffs who lack Article III injury cannot sue (and thus cannot represent a class). Here, the Plaintiffs could have obtained a refund of the 10-cent charges they claim constitutes their sole harm in this case; they just never pursued a refund. The Plaintiffs lack standing and cannot represent any class. Plaintiff Solano made three different purchases of orange-juice containers at issue in this lawsuit from Fred Meyer's Market Street store to "check if there was a deposit" being charged. The Kroger Co. is an American retail company that operates supermarkets and multi-department stores throughout the United States. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uITt1k at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Kevin H. Kono, Esq. Frederick B. Burnside, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400 Portland, OR 97201-5610 Telephone: (503) 241-2300 E-mail: kevinkono@dwt.com fredburnside@dwt.com L'OREAL USA: Faces Holmes Suit Over Defective Hair Care Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERTA HOLMES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L'OREAL USA, INC.; L'OREAL USA PRODUCTS, INC.; SOFT SHEEN-CARSON, LLC; SOFT SHEEN/CARSON, INC.; and SOFT SHEEN/CARSON (W.I.), INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-04336-JD (D.S.C., Nov. 30, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself, and all similarly situated consumers who purchased for normal household use Hair-Straighteners and/or Hair Relaxers products that are defective because they contain chemicals that increase the risk of cancer, and which were formulated, designed, manufactured, marketed, advertised, distributed, and sold by the Defendants. According to the complaint, the products are defective because each contains the presence of chemicals that increase the risk of cancer identified in product testing by the National Institute of Health. Despite the presence of these chemicals that increase the risk of cancer, Defendants represent that the products are safe and effective for their intended use. Because Plaintiff and Class Members purchased worthless and, worse, they purchased and used products that are dangerous to their health, they have suffered losses, says the suit. Plaintiff Roberta Holmes is a resident and citizen of Loris, South Carolina who purchased and used Defendants' products within the relevant time period. L'Oreal USA, Inc. manufactures and markets cosmetic products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Doolittle, Esq. Blake G. Abbott, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 614-8888 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: pauld@akimlawfirm.com blake@akimlawfirm.com LANGUAGE LINE: Parties Seek to Certify Class of Specialists ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEREK ROUSE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-00204-DGK (W.D. Mo.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: a. Conditionally certifying the case as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), consisting of: "current and former Implementation Specialists who were employed by Defendant in the role of Implementation Specialists from July 22, 2019 to the present ("Putative Class Members");" b. approving the agreed Notice, related notice procedures and an appropriate opt-in form to the Court by December 22, 2022; c. authorizing that such Notice be sent to all Putative Class Members, and that they will have 60 days to consider and Opt-In to the class; Th Plaintiff brought this case as a collective action to recover unpaid overtime under the FLSA. The Plaintiff and the members of the class he seeks to represent are Implementation Specialists who were classified by Defendant as exempt from overtime to provide on-site, out-of-town, technical and operational support to third parties who signed up to utilize Defendant's software programs. The Plaintiff contends that Defendant required Implementation Specialists to regularly work in excess of 40 hours a week performing job duties during out-of-town trips, that their job duties do not fit under any applicable exemption, and nevertheless the Defendant failed to pay wages or overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. The Defendant contends that Implementation Specialists, including Plaintiff, were properly compensated. Language Line provides telephone interpreting and language solutions for clients in government, healthcare, telecommunications, financial services, utilities, insurance and many other industries. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hfaVaZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin C. Koc, Esq. THE MEYERS LAW FIRM LC 503 One Main Plaza 4435 Main Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 444-8500 Facsimile: (816) 444-8508 E-mail: kkoc@meyerslaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Kyle B. Russell, Esq. Ariel L. Gutovitz, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 7101 College Blvd, Suite 1200 Overland Park, KS 66210 Telephone: (913) 981-1018 Facsimile: (913) 981-1019 E-mail: Kyle.Russell@jacksonlewis.com Ariel.Gutovitz@jacksonlewis.com LENDING FORCE: Kauffman Sues Over Unauthorized Recording of Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID KAUFFMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LENDING FORCE MORTGAGE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-01945-AJB-JLB (S.D. Cal., December 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of recording telephone conversations with the Plaintiff and Class members without any notification or warning and without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the constitutionally protected privacy rights of the Plaintiff and the Class have been violated, says the suit. Lending Force Mortgage, LLC is a mortgage broker company, with its headquarters in Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S., Ste. 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (866) 219-3343 E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY 2221 Camino del Rio S., Ste. 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 E-mail: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Vonbergen Suit Alleges Illegal Website Wiretapping ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRITTANY VONBERGEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-04880 (E.D. Pa., Dec. 8, 2022) alleges violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant utilized "session replay" spyware, namely Clicktale and Datadog, to intercept the Plaintiff's and the Class members' electronic computer-to-computer data communications with Defendant's websites, including how they interacted with the websites, their mouse movements and clicks, keystrokes, search terms, information inputted into the websites, and pages and content viewed while visiting the websites. The Defendant intercepted, stored, and recorded electronic communications regarding the webpages visited by the Plaintiff and the Class members, as well as everything the Plaintiff and the Class members did on those pages, says the suit. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY operates provides insurance services. The Company offers car, motorcycle, boat, life, property, landlord, and flood insurance. Liberty Mutual Insurance serves clients in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari H. Marcus, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 Fascimile: (732) 298-6256 Email: Ari@marcuszelman.com LOUIS VUITTON: N.Y. Court Refuses to Dismiss Biometrics Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Judy Greenwald at businessinsurance.com reports that a federal district court in New York has refused to dismiss a putative class-action lawsuit filed under Illinois' Biometric Privacy Act against fashion designer Louis Vuitton in connection with its website's eyeglass "Virtual Try-On" feature. Illinois residents Paula Theriot and Cheryl Doyle charged that the Paris-based luxury fashion designer, whose U.S. headquarters is in New York, violated the BIPA by collecting customers' "facial geometry" information via its try-on tool without providing them with a written notice of the collection, its purpose, and its length of time, according to the ruling by the U.S. District Court in New York in Paula Theriot and Cheryl Doyle v. Louis Vuitton North America Inc. The court said even though the website's technology was developed by another company that is not a party to the litigation, "at bottom" the precise roles of kinds of data each company receives "are fact questions to be resolved later in the litigation." The court did agree to dismiss a charge that the company had violated BIPA by not having a written biometric policy, ruling the plaintiffs "have failed to allege a particularized harm." Attorneys in the case did not respond to requests for comment. In October, a U.S. District Court in Seattle dismissed putative class actions filed by Chicago residents against Microsoft Corp. and Amazon.com Inc., accusing them of violating BIPA, in similar rulings. Meanwhile, in Illinois, observers are awaiting Illinois Supreme Court rulings as to whether every unauthorized fingerprint scan amounted to a separate violation of the statute, and whether a one- or five-year statute of limitations period for privacy actions applies.[GN] MARCUS MYERS: Judge Endorses Denial of Thibodeaux Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KARL THIBODEAUX, v. MARCUS MYERS, ET AL., Case No. 1:20-cv-01630-DCJ-JPM (W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes recommends that Thibodeaux's motions to certify class and appoint counsel be denied. Further, Judge Perez-Montes recommended that Thibodeaux's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint be denied. Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), parties aggrieved by this Report and Recommendation have 14 calendar days from service of this Report and Recommendation to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court. Thibodeaux's claim to enjoin Defendants from selling tobacco products fails to state a claim cognizable under section 1983, and Thibodeaux will not be able to establish a factual basis for his claim that the prison officials at RLCC have been deliberately indifferent to the effects ETS is having on his health. Because Thibodeaux has not met the prerequisites for certification of a class, his motion to certify class, and motion to appoint counsel should be denied. Thibodeaux filed a pro se Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. The named Defendants are all employed at the Raymond Laborde Correctional Center ("RLCC") in Cottonport, Louisiana, and are sued in both their individual and official capacities: Warden Marcus Meyers; Deputy Warden Rodney Thibodeaux paid his filing fee and is not proceeding in forma pauperis. A copy of the Court's recommendation dated Dec. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FgysQs at no extra charge.[CC] MCCARTHY BURGESS: Goldberger Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection -------------------------------------------------------------- JOEL GOLDBERGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MCCARTHY, BURGESS & WOLFF, INC., Defendant, Case No. 534752/2022 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., Nov. 29, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of New York consumers, for damages arising from the Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant's deceptive, misleading, and unfair representations with respect to its collection efforts were material misrepresentations that affected and frustrated Plaintiff's ability to intelligently respond to Defendant's demand for payment of the debt. The Defendant's letter failed to include all necessary information including failing to provide an actual charge-off date and further failed to provide the necessary information in a manner reasonably expected to be understood by Plaintiff, says the suit. As a result of Defendant's deceptive, misleading, and false debt collection practices, Plaintiff has been damaged, alleges the suit. McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff, Inc. is a debt collector based in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christofer Merritt, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201)-282-6501 E-mail: cmerritt@steinsakslegal.com MDL 1917: DPPs' Class Certification Granted in Part in CRT Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 1917), Case No. 4:07-cv-05944-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge JON S. TIGAR entered an order granting in part and denying in part motion to disseminate notice of direct purchaser class certification. The Court granted Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' ("DPPs") motion for class certification as to Defendants Irico Group Corporation and Irico Display Devices Co., Ltd. On August 1, 2022. The proposed notice and plan mirror a prior notice and plan regarding DPPs' settlement with Defendants Mitsubishi Electric 18 Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc., and Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc. The exception is that DPPs propose identifying six new affiliates in the notice currently before the Court. Irico does not oppose the motion except for DPPs' proposal to include the six new affiliates. DPPs rely on the Court's earlier conclusion, when approving the notice as to the Mitsubishi settlement, that "the merits of the DPPs' allegations [concerning whether a particular entity is an affiliate or subsidiary] are irrelevant on a motion to disseminate notice. Indeed, the point of a notice to class members is, in part, to inform them about the nature of the allegations being asserted on their behalf, including, in this case, the identity of alleged co-conspirator affiliates and subsidiaries." The disputed entities for the Mitsubishi settlement were alleged to be "affiliates or subsidiaries of the co-conspirator defendants" in the second amended complaint. That situation differs from the facts here, where DPPs propose to name in the class notice entities that have not been alleged to be affiliates or subsidiaries. In the absence of any such authority, the Court declines to grant DPPs' request to include in the class notice entities as to which no allegations have been made and about the inclusion of which the parties do not agree. DPPs' motion is otherwise granted. PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FpeIdQ at no extra charge.[CC] MEDICUS HEALTHCARE: McCarthy Files Conditional Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES MCCARTHY, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. MEDICUS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00668-JL (D.N.H.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for conditional certification, judicial notice, and for disclosure of the names and contact information of potential "opt-in" plaintiffs. The action arises from Medicus Healthcare utilization of a violative "generally applicable rule, policy, or practice" pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). In support of this motion, McCarthy relies on the arguments set forth in the attached memorandum in support. Medicus Healthcare Solutions delivers medical staffing services to healthcare facilities and matches providers with exceptional opportunities nationwide. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PoxDd7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP , LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Heather M. Burns, Esq. UPTON & HATFIELD, LLP 10 Centre Street Concord, NH 03301 Telephone: (603) 224-7791 Facsimile: (603) 224-0320 E-mail: hburns@uptonhatfield.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Pierni Files Suit Over Deceptive Collection Letters ------------------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA PIERNI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:2-cv-12021-LTS (D. Mass., November 28, 2022) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant to challenge its alleged unlawful and abusive collection practices in violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff has an alleged debt incurred to Capital One, N.A. primarily for personal, family or household purposes, but allegedly fell behind in the payments. Subsequently, but before March 17, 2022, the alleged debt was assigned, placed, or otherwise transferred to the Defendant for collection. Consequently, on March 17, 2022, the Defendant mailed a dunning letter to the Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the alleged debt. However, the Defendant made a false, deceptive, or misleading representations or means by stating in its letter that any such oral request would only be valid for 10 days unless the Plaintiff provided a written confirmation of the request postmarked or delivered to the Defendant within seven days of such request, thereby violating 15 U.S.C. Section 1692c(a). The Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading statement has attempted to diminish the Plaintiff's rights under the FDCPA by placing psychological pressure on her and having her believe that a vital source of income for her, employment, might be in jeopardy if she failed to pay the money demanded by the Defendant. Moreover, the Defendant's false, deceptive and misleading statement has caused the Plaintiff an additional and unnecessary actual damages in the form of financial harm, says the Plaintiff. Midland Credit Management Inc. is a debt collector. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicola Yousif, Esq. Matthew A. McKenna, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF NICK YOUSIF 157 Belmont St. Brockton, MA 02301 E-mail: nick@yousiflaw.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Pamela E. Prescott, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: (800) 400-6808 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com MIKE'S PLACE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sanchez Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- GILBERTO SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated Plaintiff v. MIKE'S PLACE AT OAKWOOD, INC.; and MICHAEL MOUDATSOS, JR., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-07498 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 9, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Sanchez was employed by the Defendants as busboy. MIKE'S PLACE AT OAKWOOD, INC. owns and operates a restaurant at Staten Island, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nolan Klein, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A. 5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500 Telephone: (954) 745-0588 Email: klein@nklegal.com MILLIMAN INC: Deadline to Complete Mediation Extended to Feb. 2023 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES HEALY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MILLIMAN, INC., d/b/a INTELLISCRIPT, Case No. 2:20-cv-01473-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John C. Coughenour entered an order granting the stipulated motion to extend deadline to send class notice so that the parties can conduct mediation as follows: Event Current Proposed Deadline Deadline -- Deadline to complete Feb. 7, 2023 mediation -- Deadline for the parties Feb. 10, 2023 to submit a joint status report informing the court of the outcome of mediation: -- Administrator sends Dec. 9, 2022 Feb. 14, 2023 notice after performing reverse lookups for email addresses and performing an NCOA update: -- Deadline to opt out of Jan 24, 2023 Mar. 20, 2023 class: -- Deadline to file list Feb. 7, 2023 Mar. 24, 2023 of opt outs with Court: -- Deadline to complete fact Mar 9, 2023 Mar. 24, 2023 discovery After the classes were certified and discretionary review denied, the parties have worked cooperatively to assemble the list of individuals to whom notice of the class action will be sent and to prepare the notices. Defendant produced the data necessary to assemble the class list, Plaintiff's expert has analyzed it, the notice administrator has performed reverse lookups to obtain email addresses for each class member, and with the help of the notice administrator -- the parties have agreed on final forms of notice. The parties have agreed that now is a good juncture to try to resolve this matter through private mediation and good cause exists to extend the deadlines. Resolving the case now would save substantial time and money as the parties could send notice of the class action to the over 400,000 class members one time. Milliman is an international actuarial and consulting firm based in Seattle, Washington. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PkdhBU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beth E. Terrell, Esq. Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq. Adrienne D. McEntee, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com jmurray@terrellmarshall.com amcentee@terrellmarshall.com - and - James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. Lauren KW Brennan, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Rodney L. Umberger, Esq. Daniel Brown, Esq. Jeffery M. Wells, Esq. WILLIAMS, KASTNER & GIBBS PLLC 601 Union Street, Suite 4100 Seattle, WA 98101-2380 Telephone: (206) 628-6600 Facsimile: (206) 628-6611 E-mail: rumberger@williamskastner.com dbrown@williamskastner.com jwells@williamskastner.com MODANI FORT: Hindi Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------ JAMIL HINDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MODANI FORT LAUDERDALE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:22-cv-62219-WPD (S.D. Fla., November 28, 2022) brings this class action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA) and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant engages in telephonic sales calls using text messages to promote its loan products and services. The Plaintiff has received telephonic sales calls from the Defendant since on or about May 27, 2022 to his cellular telephone number. Allegedly, the Defendant used a computer software system that automatically selected and dialed the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' telephone numbers as demonstrated by the impersonal and generic nature of its text messages, coupled with their frequency, and the fact that they originated from a long-code, with automated responses. In addition, the Defendant did not obtain the Plaintiff's prior express written consent to receive such automated telephonic sales calls. Moreover, the Plaintiff has revoked any type of consent or permission the Defendant may have had to contact him on August 2, 2022 by replying STOP to the Defendant's text message, which the Defendant has received as it confirmed that the Plaintiff was unsubscribed through an automated response. However, the Defendant failed to honor or abide by the Plaintiff's opt-out requests and instead, it continued to repeatedly text message the Plaintiff, says the Plaintiff. Modani Fort Lauderdale, LLC is a furniture retailer owned by Modani Holdings, LLC. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 533-4092 E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com - and – Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Robbins Sues Over Stockholders' Voting Rights ---------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS ROBBINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAVID MICHERY, IGNACIO NOVOA, MARY WINTER, MARK BETOR, JOHN K. ANDERSON, WILLIAM MILTNER, KENT PUCKETT, JONATHAN NEW, and MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE INC., Defendants, Case No. 2022-1131 (Del. Ch., December 7, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of Title 8 of Delaware Code and for breach of fiduciary duty. The case arises from Mullen Automotive's Board's disregard for the voting rights of holders of shares of Mullen common stock. The Board manipulated the results of common stockholders' vote on a charter amendment through tabulation of votes that were not outstanding as of the record date for the annual meeting to change the number of shares of Mullen common stock authorized under the Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation. The Board has now proposed a de facto recapitalization of the Company and reincorporation in Maryland, to be predicated on votes in which two out of every three common shares to be voted are putative, unauthorized shares. Absent intervention and adjudication by the court, stockholders will find themselves owners of a Maryland-incorporated entity beyond the reach of this court, solely as a result of a series of breaches of Delaware statutory and fiduciary law, says the suit. Mullen Automotive Inc. is an automotive industry company, headquartered in Brea, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory V. Varallo, Esq. Daniel E. Meyer, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 364-3601 - and - Mark Lebovitch, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 - and - William J. Fields, Esq. Christopher J. Kupka, Esq. Samir Shukurov, Esq. FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP 1441 Broadway, 6th Floor, Ste. 6161 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 231-1500 MURRY'S DINNER: Fails to Properly Pay Servers, Holt Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- J'HAUN HOLT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MURRY'S DINNER PLAYHOUSE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-01217-JM (E.D. Ark., December 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a server from August 23, 2021 to June 23, 2022. Murry's Dinner Playhouse, Inc. is an owner and operator of a dinner theater in Arkansas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stewart Whaley, Esq. Chris Burks, Esq. WH LAW 1 Riverfront Pl., Suite 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Telephone: (501) 891-6000 E-mail: stewart@wh.law chris@wh.law NADI LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Batista Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN BATISTA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NADI LLC, Defendant, Case No. 725189/2022 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., Nov. 30, 2022) is a class-action lawsuit challenging Defendant's discriminatory business practices with regards to its website getnadi.com that allegedly contained access barriers that prevented Plaintiff and other visually impaired and/or legally blind individuals from purchasing products in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff uses the NVDA screen-reader to access the Internet, including to shop online. On each visit to Defendant's website, Plaintiff has found it difficult, if not impossible, for blind and/or visually impaired individuals, such as him, to purchase Defendant's goods, as a result of the access barriers that exist using screen readers. As a result of the existence of these access barriers, Plaintiff was repeatedly denied full and equal access to Defendant's website. These access barriers impede Plaintiff's ability to navigate the website and complete a purchase. As a result of the access barriers, Plaintiff was repeatedly denied, on each of his visits, the opportunity to purchase and to obtain the full enjoyment of the Happy Hearts Apple Chips, Granny Smith & Ida Red and the other wild rosehip beverages and apple chips, says the suit. Nadi, LLC is an online retail company, who owns and/or operates getnadi.com. Through the website, Defendant sells its products, such as wild rosehip beverages and apple chips.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. Daniela Mendes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 595-6200 Facsimile: (212) 595-9700 E-mail: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com dmendes@mizrahikroub.com NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Smart Suit Seeks Pay for Volunteer Coaches --------------------------------------------------------------- TAYLOR SMART AND MICHAEL HACKER, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated association; Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-02125-WBS-KJN (E.D. Cal., Nov. 29, 2022) arises from the Defendant's engagement in an illegal buyer's-side monopsony by conspiring to fix the compensation of an entire category of college baseball coaches at zero in violation of the of the Clayton Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act, and the California's Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, for years, Defendant and its member schools have agreed to a bylaw that has restricted NCAA Division I schools to three paid baseball coaches. At the same time, Defendant and its member schools have agreed in another bylaw to allow the member schools to hire an additional baseball coach. But the coach cannot be paid. The bylaw calls this coach a "volunteer" coach. In reality, that means that skilled coaches must provide very valuable services for free. These coaches generally perform many of the same job duties as the paid coaches and work alongside the paid coaches with the same players during the same practices and road trips and in the same set of offices. Yet, they cannot even receive health insurance, housing, or other benefits, much less an actual salary in exchange for work performed, says the suit. This suit seeks to recoup the damages sustained by these coaches as a result of these collusive and illegal practices. It seeks nationwide antitrust treble damages from the restricted competition for labor and resultant suppressed salaries. It also seeks to enjoin the NCAA and its members from engaging in this conduct again so that these talented coaches can be fairly compensated for the valuable work performed. And it seeks relief from other violations of law, as well as equitable relief, the suit adds. Plaintiffs Smart and Hacker worked as volunteer coaches at the University of Arkansas from 2018 to 2020 and at the University of California, Davis from 2019 to 2021, respectively. Defendant NCAA is an unincorporated association that maintains its principal place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana. It has around 1,100 member schools. Its membership includes the public and private universities and colleges that conduct major athletic programs in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen M. Tillery, Esq. Steven M. Berezney, Esq. Garrett R. Broshuis, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY, LLC 505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-4844 Facsimile: (314) 241-3525 E-mail: stillery@koreintillery.com sberezney@koreintillery.com gbroshuis@koreintillery.com NATURAL GROCERS: Continues to Defend FLSA Class Action in CO ------------------------------------------------------------ Natural Grocers by Vitamin Cottage Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself from the FLSA class action suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. In January 2020, a former assistant store manager filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of current and former assistant store managers alleging that the Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Colorado labor laws by misclassifying the assistant store managers as exempt. The alleged violations relate to failure to pay for overtime work. In November 2020, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification with regard to the FLSA claim. Currently, there are 101 opt-in plaintiffs in the FLSA collective action. The litigation is in the discovery stage. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to defend the matter vigorously. Natural Grocers by Vitamin Cottage, Inc. operates natural and organic grocery and dietary supplement stores. NIO INC: Tan Must File Class Cert Reply by December 23 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tan v. NIO Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01424 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis entered an order that the Plaintiffs' reply in further support of their motion for class certification is due December 23, 2022. Nio Inc. is a Chinese multinational automobile manufacturer headquartered in Shanghai, specializing in designing and developing electric vehicles. The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act.[CC] NOOM INC: Guidera Sues Over Home Health Aides' Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Guidera, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in this proposed collective action, Plaintiff v. Noom, Inc., and Mark Simon, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-10143 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2022) seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and to recover unpaid minimum wages, 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 Labor Law, and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Plaintiff was employed as a health coach and home health aide at Defendants' weight management company known as "Noom" from approximately July 2019 through and including June 2021. He was employed as a non-managerial employee for Defendants from July 2019 through and including June 2021. Noom, Inc. is a weight management company based in 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 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com NORTH OAK: Fails to Pay Cooks Proper Wages, Hoaglan Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JULIE HOAGLAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTH OAK SENIOR LIVING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-1414 (E.D. Wis., Nov. 29, 2022) is a collective and class action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws by Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees of Defendant, North Oak Senior Living, LLC, for purposes of obtaining relief for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid straight time (regular) and/or agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and declaratory and/or injunctive relief. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant in approximately August 2022 as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in the position of cook working primarily at Defendant's "Cornerstone of Oak Creek" location. North Oak Senior Living, LLC provides full-service management services for assisted-living facilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com NUTANIX INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Nutanix Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Beginning on March 29, 2019, several purported securities class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and two of its officers. The initial complaints generally alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. In July 2019, the court consolidated the actions into a single action, and appointed a lead plaintiff, who then filed a consolidated amended complaint (the "Original Complaint"). The action was brought on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock between November 30, 2017 and May 30, 2019, inclusive. The defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the Original Complaint, which the court granted on March 9, 2020, while providing the lead plaintiff leave to amend. On April 17, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), again naming the Company and two of its officers as defendants. The Amended Complaint alleges the same class period, includes many of the same factual allegations as the Original Complaint, and again alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5. The Amended Complaint sought monetary damages in an unspecified amount. On September 11, 2020, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint and held that the lead plaintiff adequately stated a claim with respect to certain statements regarding our new customer growth and sales productivity. On January 27, 2021, lead plaintiff, Shimon Hedvat, filed a motion to (i) withdraw as lead plaintiff and (ii) substitute proposed new lead plaintiffs and approve their appointment of a new co-lead counsel. On March 1, 2021, the court granted the lead plaintiff's motion to withdraw as lead plaintiff but denied without prejudice his motion to substitute proposed new lead plaintiffs. The court also reopened the lead plaintiff selection process, allowing any putative class member interested in serving as the new lead plaintiff to file a lead plaintiff application. Following the lead plaintiff selection hearing on April 28, 2021, on June 10, 2021 the court appointed California Ironworkers Field Pension Trust as lead plaintiff and approved its appointment of counsel. On May 28, 2021, one of the movants for lead plaintiff, John P. Norton on behalf of the Norton Family Living Trust UAD 11/15/2002, filed a separate class action complaint (the "Options Class Action Complaint") in the Northern District of California on behalf of a class of persons or entities who transacted in publicly traded call options and/or put options on Nutanix stock during the period from November 30, 2017 and May 30, 2019, containing allegations substantively the same as those alleged in the Amended Complaint (the "Options Class Action") and naming the same defendants. On September 8, 2021, the court appointed the John P. Norton on behalf of the Norton Family Living Trust UAD 11/15/2002 as the lead plaintiff in the Options Class Action. On April 26, 2022, the parties met for mediation, which did not result in a settlement. On September 1, 2022, California Ironworkers Field Pension Trust filed a third amended complaint (which amends the Amended Complaint, the "Third Amended Complaint") and John P. Norton on behalf of the Norton Family Living Trust UAD 11/15/2002 filed an amended complaint (which amends the Options Class Action Complaint, the "First Amended Complaint"). On November 14, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint and the First Amended Complaint. A hearing on the motion to dismiss has been scheduled for February 15, 2023. The Company plans to continue to vigorously defend against these actions. Nutanix Inc. provides a cloud platform, the Nutanix Cloud Platform, based in California. OOMA INC: Continues to Defend Chiu Class Suit in Canada -------------------------------------------------------- Ooma Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 9, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself from Chiu class suit in the Federal Court of Canada. On February 3, 2021, plaintiff Fiona Chiu filed a class action complaint against the Company and Ooma Canada Inc. in the Federal Court of Canada, alleging violations of Canada's Trademarks Act and Competition Act. The complaint seeks monetary and other damages and/or injunctive relief enjoining the Company to cease describing and marketing its Basic Home Phone using the word "free" or otherwise representing that it is free. On November 9, 2021, the Federal Court of Canada removed Ms. Chiu and substituted John Zanin as the new plaintiff in the proceeding. In connection with the substitution of Mr. Zanin as the new plaintiff, the Federal Court of Canada deemed the proceeding as having commenced on November 8, 2021 instead of February 3, 2021. In January 2022, the Federal Court of Canada heard arguments from counsel representing each of the Company and Mr. Zanin regarding jurisdiction and class action certification issues, and the parties are awaiting the Court to issue its ruling. The Company intends to continue to defend itself vigorously against this complaint. Ooma, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries provides leading communications services and related technologies based in California. ORVIS COMPANY: Farris Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN FARRIS, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss their lawsuit entitled Brian Farris, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The Orvis Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00007, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs bring this purported class action against Orvis for selling and renting its mailing lists, which included their names and other information, to third parties. They allege this violates their statutory rights under California, Illinois, and Ohio law. Orvis allegedly collects the Plaintiffs' and all other customers' names and addresses, as well as age, gender, income, ethnicity, religion, children's age, and information pertaining to their purchase of products from Orvis. It compiles this information and rents or sells the resulting "mailing lists," directly or through intermediaries, on the open market. The Plaintiffs assert Orvis does not obtain consent or provide "effective" notice before selling or otherwise distributing the mailing lists which they contend is a practice which put customers at risk of serious harm from scammers. They contend that, in distributing the mailing lists, Orvis has used their names, which allegedly have commercial value, on or in, or in connection with products, merchandise, goods, or services, or the sale or rental of such things. The Plaintiffs bring claims on behalf of three distinct classes, each consisting of "all state residents who, at any point in the relevant statutory period, had their names appear on or in a mailing list sold or rented, or offered for sale or rental, by Orvis." Mr. Farris seeks to represent California residents, Mr. Groff seeks to represent Illinois residents, and Mr. Theus seeks to represent Ohio residents. For each class, the Plaintiffs allege the crux of their claims is a misappropriation of their names as an aspect of their identity. On Jan. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint and on Feb. 24, 2022, they filed an Amended Complaint. Pursuant to a stipulated schedule, Orvis moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on April 11, 2022. On May 26, 2022, the Plaintiffs opposed Orvis' motion, and Orvis replied on June 27, 2022. After a hearing on July 11, 2022, the Court took the pending motion under advisement. Orvis argued that the Plaintiffs' claims must be dismissed because their names and information are not publicly associated with the mailing lists as no one would know their names were included in the lists unless one purchased a list. The Plaintiffs respond that their claims fall within the plain language of the relevant statutes. On Oct. 18, 2022, Judge Christina Reiss granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss and granted the Plaintiff's leave to amend their complaint. On Nov. 9, 2022, the Court entered judgment, and dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint. The appellate case is captioned Farris v. The Orvis Company, Inc., Case No. 22-3075, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on December 5, 2022. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants BRIAN FARRIS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Aaron T. Morris, Esq. MORRIS KANDINOV LLP 3391 Mountain Road Stowe, VT 05672 Telephone: (332) 240-4024 Defendant-Appellee THE ORVIS COMPANY, INC. is represented by: Stephen J. Soule, Esq. PAUL FRANK + COLLINS P.C. 1 Church Street P.O. Box 1307 Burlington, VT 05402 Telephone: (802) 658-2311 OSCEOLA COUNTY: Pagan Seeks Unpaid Manual Workers' Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, REINALDO O. PAGAN, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. OSCEOLA COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING, INC. d/b/a OSCEOLA COUNCIL ON AGING, Defendant, Case No. 6:22-cv-02201 (M.D. Fla. November 28, 2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempted, full-time, hourly paid handyman, construction, and maintenance employee from approximately April 23, 2020 to July 4, 2022. Throughout his employment with the Defendant, the Plaintiff regularly worked an average of 49 hours every week without taking a bona fide lunchtime. However, despite working more than 40 hours per week, the Defendant deprived him of his lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The Defendant paid him only for 40 regular hours weekly, and did not pay the remaining hours at any rate, not even at the minimum wage rate. Accordingly, the Defendant was in control of the Plaintiff's schedule, and therefore, could track the number of hours the Plaintiff has worked. In addition, the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff on a weekly basis. Instead, he was paid bi-weekly by direct deposits with paystubs that did not show the actual number of hours worked, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated manual workers seeking to recover actual damages in the amount shown to be due for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages in an equal amount of unpaid wages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit, and other relief as the Court deems equitable and just and/or available pursuant to Federal Law. Osceola County Council on Aging, Inc. d/b/a Osceola Council on Aging provides services to enable independence and self-sufficiency for seniors, disabled adults, the disadvantaged, and families in poverty. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 E. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Tel: (305) 446-1500 Fax: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com OSWALD HOME: Aguilar Sues Over Construction Workers' Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS AGUILAR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OSWALD HOME IMPROVEMENT INC., A&L HOME IMPROVEMENT INC., OSWALD WILLIAMSON, and ALTON WILLIAMSON, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-10105 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 29, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff seeking unpaid wages and unpaid overtime wages based upon Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the supporting regulations. The Plaintiff was employed as full-time non-exempt construction employee by Defendants for more than 20 years - from 1999 until July 2022, when he was abruptly fired by Defendants. The Defendants operate a home improvement/construction business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Harrison, Esq. HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES 110 State Highway 35, Suite 10 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Telephone: (718) 799-9111 Facsimile: (718) 799-9171 E-mail: dharrison@nynjemploymentlaw.com PP&G INC: Faces Morris Suit Over Exotic Dancers' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- RYAN MORRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PP&G, INC. D/B/A NORMA JEANS GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-03090-MJM (E.D. Md., Nov. 30, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff pursuant to the Maryland Wage Hour Law and the Maryland Wage Payment Act for the purpose of obtaining relief under Maryland law for unpaid minimum wages, recovery of unlawfully assigned or withheld tips, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff was employed by the Norma Jeans Club in Baltimore City, Maryland, as an exotic dancer working or performing for, in, or at Defendant's Norma Jeans Gentlemen's Club during the period 2006 through about 2010; 2014 through 2017; 2019 to mid-March 2020; and finally, during August 2020 through September 2021. PP&G, Inc. operates as a gentlemen's club, featuring female nude and semi-nude exotic dancers, in Baltimore City, Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 Facsimile: (240) 839-9142 E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com PUBLISHING CONCEPTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hartfield Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- DEIDRE HARTFIELD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PUBLISHING CONCEPTS, L.P., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-02644-S (N.D. Tex., November 28, 2022) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the federal Portal-to-Portal Pay Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an inside sales representative from approximately May 2016 to approximately December 2020. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated sales representatives routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week, and earned commission pay relative to work performed in workweeks that exceeded 40 hours. However, the Defendant failed to include commission pay in calculating their regular rate of pay for overtime pay computation purposes. Additionally, the Defendant failed to count as hours worked the excess time of the total amount of paid break time its sales representatives have spent performing duties for the benefits of the Defendant. As a result, despite working more than 40 hours per week, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated sales representatives were not paid accurate overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, says the suit. Publishing Concepts, L.P. sells directories for high schools, colleges, and/or service organizations, collects data from those entities, and sells products, such as school, organizations, or alumni hats, travel bags, and apparel. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. VAUGHT FIRM, LLC 1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150 Dallas, TX 75201 Tel: (972) 707-7816 Fax: (972) 591-4564 E-mail: avaught@txlaborlaw.com REALPAGE INC: Silverman Suit Alleges Housing Lease Monopoly ----------------------------------------------------------- SHAINA SILVERMAN; and TYLER KIMBROUGH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. REALPAGE, INC.; BROOKFIELD RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES LLC; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC.; EQUITY RESIDENTIAL; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC; AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC.; TF CORNERSTONE, INC.; and ROSE ASSOCIATES INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01740 (W.D. WA., Dec. 8, 2022) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. The Plaintiffs asserts in the complaint that throughout the Class Period, prices for rental units in the New York City-metro area, which is already among the most expensive housing markets in the United States, have been artificially higher than they otherwise would have but for the Defendants' conspiracy to fix, stabilize, or increase prices artificially. RealPage and participating Lessors have effectuated their anticompetitive agreement to hike prices by agreeing generally to set prices using RealPage's coordinated algorithmic pricing. Participating Lessors also agreed to provide RealPage with real-time access to their competitively sensitive and nonpublic data on their housing real estate leases. In the market RealPage and Lessors created, each Lessor had mutual assurances that other Lessors would also keep prices high, leaving renters with no choice but to pay what Lessors demanded, the suit added. REALPAGE, INC. provides products and services to the multifamily real estate industries. The Company offers applicant screening, accounting, budgeting, property management, and compliance reporting solutions. RealPage also develops and delivers proprietary web-based applications that enhance client information management capabilities. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Breanna Van Engelen, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0592 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com breannav@hbsslaw.com - and - Israel David, Esq. Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 17 State Street, Suite 4010 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 739-0622 Facsimile: (212) 739-0628 Email: israel@israeldavidllc.com blake.yagman@davidllc.com RENAISSANCE FOOD: Padilla Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ ERICKA PADILLA, as an aggrieved employee and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees under the Labor Code Private Attorney's General Act of 2004, Plaintiff v. RENAISSANCE FOOD GROUP, LLC, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV37402 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 29, 2022) is a representative action brought on behalf of Plaintiff and all other current and former non-exempt employees against the Defendants alleging claims for failure to comply with California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants had and have a policy or practice of failing to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees; failing to compensate with minimum wages for all hours worked; failing to provide 30-minute uninterrupted, timely, and complete meal and rest periods; failing to furnish with itemized wage statements and documents signed to obtain or hold employment; failing to timely pay, among other wages, all wages owed; failing to reimburse employees with business-related expenses; failing to comply with the notice requirements; and failing to provide with the amount of paid sick leave. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee, with duties that included, but were not limited to, packing food off of a conveyor belt from approximately October of 2018 through approximately November of 2021. Renaissance Food Group, LLC produces and distributes fresh perishable food.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. Alexander D. Wallin, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 RENT THE RUNWAY: Continues to Defend Sharma Putative Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Rent the Runway Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself from Sharma putative class suit in the Eastern District of New York. On November 14, 2022, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of its IPO, entitled Rajat Sharma v. Rent the Runway, Inc., et al. The complaint alleges that the Company violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by making allegedly materially misleading statements, and by omitting material facts necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs and such other relief as deemed just and proper by the court. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. Rent the Runway Inc. is an e-commerce platform that allows users to rent, subscribe, or buy designer apparel and accessories headquartered in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] RICOLA USA: Throat Drops' Front Label "Deceptive," Singo Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- LONISE SINGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RICOLA USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 7:22-cv-10369 (S.D.N.Y., December 7, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for unjust enrichment, violations of New York General Business Law and State Consumer Fraud Acts, and breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability/fitness for a particular purpose and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its throat drops based on "Green Tea With Echinacea" with a large pink echinacea flower next to a green lozenge. When consumers see the front label statement, "Green Tea With Echinacea," the prominent pink echinacea flower and the green lozenge, they will expect the product achieves its cough suppression and soothing effects from these components. In reality, neither echinacea nor green tea is responsible for the product's cough suppressant abilities as disclosed on the back panel. As a result of the Defendant's false and misleading representations, the product is sold at a premium price, the suit asserts. Ricola USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of lozenges, with a principal place of business in Parsippany, Morris County, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, PC 60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 412 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com RIO GRANDE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Vilorio Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- JESUS NOEL FLORES VILORIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RIO GRANDE FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-07443 (E.D.N.Y., Dec.8, 2022) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Vilorio was employed by the Defendant as truck driver. RIO GRANDE FOOD PRODUCTS, INC. is engaged in the manufacture and distribution of Hispanic grocery products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 Email: promero@romerolawny.com SHANDA GAMES: Astor BK Appeals Entry of Final Judgment ------------------------------------------------------ ASTOR BK REALTY TRUST is taking an appeal from the court's entry of final judgment in In Re Shanda Games Limited Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:18-cv-02463, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on Aug. 13, 2018, David Monk, the Lead Plaintiff, filed his Class Action Complaint asserting claims on behalf of a class of former stockholders and former owners of American Depository Shares ("ADS") against Shanda and Individual Defendants Yingfeng Zhang, Li Yao, Lijun Lin, Heng Wing Chan, Yong Gui, Shaolin Liang, and Danian Chen, alleging violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. On Sept. 30, 2019, the Court issued an Order granting Shanda and the Individual Defendants' motion to dismiss. On Oct. 2, 2020, the Court granted the Lead Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration to amend the complaint and cure the deficiencies identified in the Court's Sept. 30, 2019 Order. On Oct. 23, 2020, the Lead Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws (the "SAC") against Defendants Shanda, Capitalcorp Limited, and Capitalhold Limited (collectively, the "Capital Defendants") and the Individual Defendants, alleging violations of the Exchange Act. On March 31, 2022, the Court issued an Order (the "Order") dismissing Counts I and IV of the SAC as to all the Defendants and dismissing Counts II and III as to all the Defendants except Zhang. The only remaining claims are Counts II and III against Zhang. On Nov. 29, 2022, the Clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of the Dismissed Claims as to Defendants Shanda, Capitalcorp Limited, Capitalhold Limited, Li Yao, Lijun Lin, Heng Wing Chan, Yong Gui, Shaolin Liang, and Danian Chen. The Court held that the judgment of the Dismissed Claims against the Dismissed Defendants is final pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), there being no just reason for delay. The appellate case is captioned In Re Shanda Games Limited Securities Litigation, Case No. 22-3076, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on December 2, 2022. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ASTOR BK REALTY TRUST, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Carol C. Villegas, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Defendants-Appellees SHANDA GAMES LIMITED, et al. are represented by: Abby Rudzin, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 - and - David G. Trachtenberg, Esq. TRACHTENBERG & ARENA, LLP 420 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10170 Telephone: (212) 972-1375 SNAP FINANCE LLC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Tanner Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- TRACY TANNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SNAP FINANCE LLC; and SNAP RTO LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00761 (D. Utah, Dec. 9, 2022) arises out of Defendants' failure to implement and maintain adequate security and safeguards with respect to the collection and maintenance of highly sensitive and confidential personal information. According to the complaint, on December 1, 2022, the Defendants sent to Plaintiff and Class members a letter entitled "Notice of Security Incident" ("Notice"). The Notice stated that, between June 23, 2022 and September 8, 2022, an unauthorized actor had the ability to access certain information stored on Defendants' network (the "Data Breach"). The Data Breach exposed the Plaintiff's and Class members' personally identifiable information to criminals, including, but not limited to, their names, social security numbers, driver's license numbers, state identification numbers, and financial account numbers. Because the Defendants hold loans and collateral on those loans, the Plaintiff and Class members reasonably believe additional information concerning their finances, personal accounts, credit files, and property information, as well as all other types of information concerning themselves and their loans obtained by the Defendants, are also exposed, says the suit. SNAP FINANCE LLC provides financial services. The Company offers its services in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven A. Christensen, Esq. Cameron S. Christensen, Esq. CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 9980 South 300 West #200 Sandy, UT 84070 Telephone: (801) 255-8727 Facsimile: (888) 569-2786 Email: steven@christensenyounglaw.com cameron@christensenyounglaw.com - and - Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Jeffrey Blake, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 Email: firm@attorneyzim.com - and - Marc E. Dann, Esq. Brian D. Flick, Esq. DANNLAW 15000 Madison Avenue Lakewood, OH 44107 Telephone: (216) 373-0539 Email: notices@dannlaw.com SODEXO SA: Platt Sues Over Illegal Collection of Nicotine Surcharge ------------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT PLATT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SODEXO, S.A. and SODEXO, INC., Defendants, Case No. 8:22-cv-02211 (C.D. Cal., December 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for unlawful surcharge and breach of fiduciary duty in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The case arises from Sodexo's alleged unlawful collection of nicotine surcharge from its medical plan participants in violation of ERISA's anti-discrimination requirements. ERISA prohibits any health insurer or medical plan from discriminating against any participant in providing coverage or charging premiums based on a "health status-related factor," including the use of tobacco. Sodexo's nicotine surcharge violates this provision. The Plaintiff and similarly situated plan participants were required to pay an additional premium or contribution of $1,200 per year based on a health status-related factor, that being their use of nicotine products, says the suit. Sodexo, SA is a multinational food services enterprise, headquartered in France. Sodexo, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sodexo, SA, with its principal place of business in Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Hartley, Esq. Jason M. Lindner, Esq. HARTLEY LLP 101 West Broadway, Suite 820 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 400-5822 E-mail: hartley@hartleyllp.com lindner@hartleyllp.com - and - George A. Hanson, Esq. Alexander T. Ricke, Esq. Caleb J. Wagner, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com ricke@stuevesiegel.com wagner@stuevesiegel.com - and - Ryan L. McClelland, Esq. MCCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C. The Flagship Building 200 Westwoods Drive Liberty, MO 64068 Telephone: (816) 781-0002 E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com SODEXO SA: Worker Files Suit Over Health Plan Nicotine Penalties ---------------------------------------------------------------- news.bloomberglaw.com reports that a provision in Sodexo SA's health plan requiring employees who use nicotine products to pay an extra $1,200 per year violates federal law, a longtime California-based employee said in a proposed class action complaint. The Sodexo health plan doesn't give nicotine users an alternative program that would allow them to avoid paying the entire surcharge, plaintiff Robert Platt alleged in the complaint. The surcharge therefore violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act's anti-discrimination requirements, which mandate that any nicotine surcharge be accompanied by an alternative method allowing workers to avoid the penalty in its entirety, he claimed. [GN] SOUTHERN GLAZER'S: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Winn Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- NOAH WINN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHERN GLAZER'S WINE AND SPIRITS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00761 (D. Utah, Dec. 9, 2022) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Winn was employed by the Defendant as staff. SOUTHERN GLAZER'S WINE AND SPIRITS, LLC produces and supplies alcoholic beverages. The Company offers wines and spirits. Southern Glazer's Wine and Spirits serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Launa Adolph, Esq. Kayvon Sabourian, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 STITCH FIX INC: Faces Federal Securities Class Action in California ------------------------------------------------------------------- Stitch Fix Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 29, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2022, that the Company faces federal securities class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On August 26, 2022, a class action lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws was filed by certain of the Company's stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the Company, certain of its officers and directors and certain of its affiliated stockholders. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by the Company and its officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding its Freestyle offering between December 2020 and December 2021. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. Stitch Fix, Inc. operates as an online subscription and personal shopping platform. The Company offers shirts, jackets, sweaters, blazers, leggings, vests, scarfs, jeans, loafers, and boots for men and women. Stitch Fix serves customers in the United States. Stitch Fix, Inc. was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. STITCH FIX: 9th Circuit Affirms Federal Class Suit Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------ Stitch Fix Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 29, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2022, that the Ninth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California's dismissal of the consolidated federal securities class suits. On October 11, 2018, October 26, 2018, November 16, 2018, and December 10, 2018, four putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws were filed by certain of the Company's stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the Company and certain of its officers. The four lawsuits each make the same allegations of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by the Company and its officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding its active client growth and strategy with respect to television advertising between June 2018 and October 2018. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The four lawsuits have been consolidated and a lead plaintiff has been appointed. On September 18, 2019, the lead plaintiff in the consolidated class action lawsuits (the "Class Action") filed a consolidated complaint for violation of the federal securities laws. On October 28, 2019, the Company and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. The lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on December 9, 2019, and the Company and the other defendants filed our reply in support of our motion to dismiss on December 30, 2019. The court granted the defendants motion to dismiss on September 30, 2020 but allowed the lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint. On November 6, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed his amended complaint. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on December 7, 2020. The lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on January 8, 2021, and the defendants filed their reply in support of their motion to dismiss on January 22, 2021. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on October 1, 2021. On October 29, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On October 19, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint. Stitch Fix, Inc. operates as an online subscription and personal shopping platform. The Company offers shirts, jackets, sweaters, blazers, leggings, vests, scarfs, jeans, loafers, and boots for men and women. Stitch Fix serves customers in the United States. Stitch Fix, Inc. was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. STONEBRIDGE GLOBAL: Appeals Remand of Simpson Suit to Jackson Cty. ------------------------------------------------------------------ STONEBRIDGE GLOBAL PARTNERS, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to remand the lawsuit entitled Dorothy Simpson, Plaintiff v. Cloverleaf Apartments Investors, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00520, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against the Defendants for breach of the implied warranty of habitability and violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri on May 19, 2021, Case No. 2116-CV11060. On Aug. 10, 2022, the case was removed from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. On Sept. 9, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand, which the Court granted through an order entered by Judge Beth Phillips on Nov. 23, 2022. The case was remanded to the Circuit Court of Jackson County. The appellate case is captioned Stonebridge Global Partners, et al. v. Dorothy Simpson, Case No. 22-8019, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on December 2, 2022. [BN] Defendants-Petitioners STONEBRIDGE GLOBAL PARTNERS, LLC, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: James P. Martin, Esq. POLSINELLI, PC Suite 1000 100 S. Fourth Street Saint Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 231-1950 - and - Mark A. Olthoff, Esq. Lauren E. Tucker McCubbin, Esq. POLSINELLI, PC Suite 900 900 W. 48th Place Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 753-1000 - and - Alan L. Rupe, Esq. LEWIS & BRISBOIS Suite 150 1605 N. Waterfront Parkway Wichita, KS 67206 Telephone: (316) 609-7900 - and - Karly D. Weigel, Esq. LEWIS & BRISBOIS Suite 700 4600 Madison Avenue Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 299-4244 - and - Daniel R. Zmijewski, Esq. DRZ LAW FIRM Suite 305 8700 State Line Leawood, KS 66206 Telephone: (816) 333-4379 Plaintiff-Respondent DOROTHY SIMPSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Andrea M. Knernschield, Esq. Gregory Leyh, Esq. Nicholas Leyh, Esq. GREGORY LEYH, PC Suite I 104 N.E. 72nd Street Gladstone, MO 64118 Telephone: (816) 283-3380 SYNGENTA CROP: Reduced Competition in CPPs Market, Sayler Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- SAYLER FARMS, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, AG, SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, SYNGENTA CORP., and CORTEVA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01055 (M.D.N.C., December 7, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The case arises from the Defendants' use of restrictive agreements disguised as "loyalty programs" with large agricultural products distributors and retailers to block the availability of crop protection products (CPPs) to farmers containing lower-priced generic versions. The Defendants made this to maintain their market dominance after their patent and regulatory protection of their CPPs expired. The Defendants' anticompetitive scheme has reduced competition in the market for the CPPs containing the relevant active ingredients (Ais), thereby artificially inflating the prices of such CPPs and of the CPPs manufactured by the Defendants' generic competitors. The Plaintiff and the Class member farmers who purchased CPPs containing the relevant AIs have been and continue to be injured by paying artificially inflated prices for such CPPs, for which they are entitled to compensation, says the suit. Sayler Farms, LLC is a farming business based in Artas, South Dakota. Syngenta Crop Protection, AG is a chemical manufacturing company based in Basel, Switzerland. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC is an affiliate of Syngenta Crop Protection, AG based in Greensboro, North Carolina. Syngenta Corp. is an agriculture company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Corteva, Inc. is an agricultural chemical and seed company based in Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin G. Williams, Esq. Alan M. Ruley, Esq. BELL, DAVIS & PITT, P.A. P.O. Box 21029 Winston-Salem, NC Telephone: (336) 722-3700 E-mail: kwilliams@belldavispitt.com aruley@belldavispitt.com - and - Robert N. Kaplan, Esq. Matthew P. McCahill, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER, LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com mmccahill@kaplanfox.com TILLY'S INC: Continues to Defend Gonzales Labor Putative Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Tilly's Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 29, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Gonzales Labor-related putative class suit in the Superior Court of California. Juan Carlos Gonzales, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Tilly's Inc. et al, Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2017-00948710-CU-OE-CXC. In October 2017, the plaintiff filed a putative class action against the Company, alleging various violations of California's wage and hour laws. The complaint seeks class certification, unspecified damages, unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, interest and attorneys' fees and costs. In December 2017, the Company filed an answer to the complaint, denying all of the claims and asserting various defenses. In April 2018, the plaintiff filed a separate action under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") against the Company seeking penalties on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees for the same alleged violations of California's wage and hour laws. The Company requested the plaintiff to dismiss the class action claims based on an existing class action waiver in an arbitration agreement which plaintiff signed with its co-defendant, BaronHR, the staffing company that employed plaintiff to work at the Company. In June 2018, the plaintiff's class action complaint was dismissed. The parties mediated the PAGA case with a well-respected mediator in March 2020. The case did not settle during mediation nor during ensuing negotiations. The court has not yet issued a trial date. By agreement between co-defendant BaronHR and Tilly's, BaronHR is required to indemnify the Company for all of its losses and expenses incurred in connection with this matter. To reduce its indemnifiable losses and expenses in this matter, it has requested that BaronHR enforce its arbitration agreement in light of recent developments in applicable case law, and move to compel the individual PAGA claim to arbitration and dismiss the representative PAGA claims. The Company had defended this case vigorously, and will continue to do so. Tilly's is a destination specialty retailer of casual apparel, footwear, accessories and other goods based in California. TILLY'S INC: Continues to Defend Johnson Labor Putative Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tilly's Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 29, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2022, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Johnson Labor-related putative class suit in the Superior Court of California. Allison B. Johnson, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. World of Jeans & Tops, Inc. dba Tilly's et al, Superior Court of California, County of Fresno, Case No. 22CECG03658. In November 2022, the plaintiff filed a putative class action against the Company, alleging various violations of California's wage and hour laws. The complaint seeks class certification, unspecified damages, unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Company had also been served with a notice to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency regarding the plaintiff's intention to file a representative action pursuant to PAGA against the Company seeking penalties on behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees for the same alleged violations of California's wage and hour laws. The Company is at the preliminary stages of investigating the allegations made in the complaint and intend to defend this case vigorously. Tilly's is a destination specialty retailer of casual apparel, footwear, accessories and other goods based in California. TWITTER INC: Strifling Sues Over Female Employees' Mass Termination ------------------------------------------------------------------- CAROLINA BERNAL STRIFLING and WILLOW WREN TURKAL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TWITTER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-07739 (N.D. Cal., December 7, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for discrimination in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C., and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The case arises from the Defendant's termination, or constructive discharge, of female employees since Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter. The mass termination of employees at Twitter has impacted female employees to a much greater extent than male employees. Moreover, Elon Musk has made a number of publicly discriminatory remarks about women, further confirming that the mass termination's greater impact on female employees resulted from discrimination. Mr. Musk also quickly implemented new policies at Twitter that would have a disparate impact on women, thus forcing more women to leave the company. The Plaintiffs seek to ensure that Twitter not solicit releases of claims of any female employees without informing them of the pendency of this action and their right to pursue these claims, says the suit. Twitter, Inc. is a social media company, headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Thomas Fowler, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, PC 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com tfowler@llrlaw.com ULTA SALON: Faces Wright Suit Over Illegal Wiretapping ------------------------------------------------------ JOAN WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-01954-BAS-BLM (S.D. Cal., Dec. 9, 2022) alleges violation of the Federal Wiretap Act (the "Wiretap Act") and the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA") in relation to the Defendant's unauthorized interception, collection, recording, and dissemination to the Plaintiff's and Class Members' communications and data. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant made unauthorized interception and connection to the Plaintiff's and Class Members' electronic communications through the use of "session replay" spyware that allowed Defendant to read, learn the contents of, and make reports on the Plaintiff's and Class Members' interactions on Defendant's website. The Defendant utilized "session replay" spyware to intercept the Plaintiff's and the Class Members' electronic computer-to-computer data communications, including how the Plaintiff and Class Members interacted with the website, mouse movements and clicks, keystrokes, search items, information inputted into the website, and pages and content viewed while visiting the website. Defendant intentionally tapped and made unauthorized interceptions and connections to Plaintiff and Class Members' electronic communications to read and understand movement on the website. The Defendant never sought consent and the Plaintiff and Class Members never provided consent the for Defendant’s unauthorized access to their electronic communications, says the suit. ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC. operates as a beauty store. The Company sells cosmetics, fragrances, skin and hair care products, appliances, and accessories. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance also offers hair salon, manicures, pedicures, massages, and spa treatments. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (866) 219-3343 Email: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 Email: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com UNIFIN INC: Friedman Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- MENAHEN FRIEDMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIFIN INC., Defendant, Case No. 534911/2022 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., Nov. 30, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of New York consumers, for damages arising from the Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the law by providing conflicting amounts due, an untimely notice of dispute rights, and as a result, tainting and overshadowing of the information within the collection letters. Moreover, the letters failed to clearly and conspicuously provide the debt amount and dispute rights in a way that would provide clear notice, the complaint adds. For this reason, Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for judgment over Defendant's conduct which violates Section 1692g et seq. of the FDCPA, and that the Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages, statutory damages, costs and attorneys' fees, says the complaint. Unifin Inc. is a debt collector based in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Yusko, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Security Face Scans ------------------------------------------------------------ Mary Haydock at cookcountyrecord.com reports that a new class action lawsuit accuses United Airlines of violating Illinois' biometric privacy law by rolling out a system to scan people's faces, rather than their drivers' licenses or passports, when they are boarding aircraft. Illinois resident Summer Doxie, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and others against the Chicago-based United Airlines. According to the complaint filed in Cook County Circuit Court on Nov. 22, United is accused of violating the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) for improper facial recognition screening practices at its biometrics screening kiosks. United Airlines joins Pandora Jewelry and others alike facing nearly identical biometric lawsuits in courts in Illinois. United, the fourth largest airline in the world, is accused of multiple BIPA violations. Like others, this most recent lawsuit contends United violated the law by allegedly failing to obtain prior express consent, and by allegedly failing to provide BIPA law notices about why the airline needs to scan their faces and how the airline might use the stored facial scans. According to the complaint, Doxie boarded a United flight at O'Hare International Airport to Amsterdam in September. At that time, the complaint asserts a United employee took her photo at a kiosk, rather than ask her to scan her photo ID. United then allegedly uploaded the photo to be processed by a program which scanned her face to compare it against databases maintained by the airline and federal government, to verify her identity and confirm she was not listed as a security threat. However, the complaint says under the BIPA law, United was first required to obtain her consent and provide her with notices before taking her photo and scanning her face. This class action lawsuit is the latest such lawsuit reflecting a continuously growing wave of BIPA-related litigation. And like so many of the others, it carries the potential of massive payouts. The plaintiffs are demanding a trial by jury and is seeking damages of $1,000 to $5,000 per violation, as allowed by the BIPA law, plus attorney feels and court costs. Under the law, a business like United Airlines could face damages potentially amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars or more for these type of cases, as individual violations quickly multiply across thousands of passengers annually. As a result of such risk, many companies have chosen to settle out of court. Facebook and Google, for instance, famously opted to pay $650 million and $100 million, respectively, to end class action lawsuits accusing them of improperly scanning people's faces in photos uploaded to their photo and media sharing platforms. Plaintiffs have been represented by attorneys Carl V. Malmstrom and Benjamin Y. Kaufman, of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Hertz, of Chicago and New York, and the attorneys of Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Alec . Leslie and Mas S. Roberts of New York, NY, and Christopher R. Reilly, Miami, FL. [GN] UNITED STATES: Johnson Must File Class Cert Bid by Feb. 24, 2023 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHERINE JOHNSON, KATHERINE VACZI, and CARA BUNNELL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and NATIONAL MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY, v. XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as Secretary of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Health Human Services, Case No. 1:22-cv-03024 (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Trevor N. Mcfadden entered an order on motion for extension of time to file response/reply. The Plaintiff shall move for class certification on or before February 24, 2023. The Plaintiffs bring this class action to challenge the Secretary of Health and Human Services’ violation of their rights under the Medicare Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Specifically, the Plaintiffs challenge the Secretary's policies and practices that impede and restrict the availability, accessibility, and coverage of home health aide services for individuals with chronic, disabling conditions who qualify for such services under Medicare law. The United States Department of Health and Human Services is a cabinet-level executive branch department of the U.S. federal government created to protect the health of all Americans and providing essential human services.[CC] UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: Afro-American Employees Lose Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DERICK BROWN, ATIBA FLEMONS, & JEFFREY TAYLOR, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, Case No. 2:19-cv-02020-JBM-EIL (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Joe B. McDade entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: "all individuals identifying as Black and/or African American who are currently employed at UIUC, or who have been employed by UIUC at any point since January 1, 2014, and who have not held a supervisory position within System Human Resources, Illinois Human Resources, campus unit offices for human resources, or the Office of Access and Equity at any point since January 1, 2014." Because Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to prove commonality and typicality, the Court does not consider the parties' arguments relating to Rule 23(b)(2) or (c)(4)." In the Court's estimation, the experiences of the Plaintiffs and putative class members range from (1) those who experienced no racial discrimination or harassment to (2) those who experienced racial discrimination or harassment but did not report it to (3) those who experienced racial discrimination or harassment but reported it to a University official or unit other than the OAE to (4) those who experienced racial discrimination or harassment and reported it to the OAE. As these experiences vary wildly it cannot be said that Plaintiffs' experience is typical of the entire class; rather, it appears Plaintiffs' and the exemplars' experiences are an extreme minority. For these reasons, Plaintiffs have failed to adequately prove typicality, the Court says. The Plaintiffs Derick Brown, Atiba Flemons, and Jeffrey Taylor are three Black employees who currently work at Defendant's Urbana-Champaign campus (UIUC or the University). They charge Defendant with discrimination against Black employees in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. section 2000e et seq., and have filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and their colleagues to seek redress. According to Plaintiffs, the University's Nondiscrimination Policy (NDP) is discriminatory and the University's Office of Access and Equity (OAE) -- the unit tasked with investigating alleged violations of the NDP -- has engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination by systematically failing to promptly evaluate and ameliorate NDP complaints arising from alleged race-based misconduct. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FWg29z at no extra charge.[CC] UVALDE CONSOLIDATED: Faces J.P. Class Suit Over School Shooting --------------------------------------------------------------- J.P., a minor by and through Guardian Ad Litem, CRYSTAL P. and DANIEL P., individually and on behalf of a class of all similarly situated students; ANDREA V., individually and on behalf of a class of all similarly situated parents; ESTHER V., individually and on behalf of a class of all similarly situated teachers; SYLVIA U., individually and on behalf of a class of all similarly situated school support staff; Z.R., a minor by and through Guardian Ad Litem, CORINA R., individually; J.S., a minor by and through Guardian Ad Litem, JENNIFER C., individually; I.R., a minor by and through Guardian Ad Litem, ALMA R. and GEORGE R., individually; L.R., a minor by and through Guardian Ad Litem, LUCIENE A. and FRANK R., individually; Z.A., a minor by and through Guardian Ad Litem, ESTHER V.; M.C., a minor by a through Guardian Ad Litem, JASMINE C. individually; M.T., a minor by and through Guardian Ad Litem LOUANNA R.; B.G. and F.G., minors by and through Guardian Ad Litem, BEATRICE T., individually; J.L., a minor by and through Guardian Ad Litem, ASHLEY L., individually; J.D., a minor by and through Guardian Ad Litem, SANDRA V., individually; F.L., a minor by and through Guardian Ad Litem, VIRGINIA G., individually; A.P., a minor by and through Guardian Ad Litem, ARACELY P. and ROMAN P., individually; A.L., a minor by and through Guardian Ad Litem, CRYSTAL G., individually; D.J.Q. a minor by and through Guardian Ad Litem, YVETTE Q. and MANUEL Q., individually; J.P., a minor by and through Guardian Ad Litem, JASMIN P., individually; T.G., a minor by and through Guardian Ad Litem, JACKIE G., individually; R.F., a minor by and through Guardian Ad Litem, MONICA O., individually; A.V. and G.E., minors by and through Guardian Ad Litem, ANDREA V., individually; N.S., a minor by and through Guardian Ad Litem, ALIETA P., individually and grandmother, MARIA P., individually; A.L.A.T., a minor by and through Guardian Ad Litem, CASSANDRA B., individually; G.D.G.R., a minor by and through Guardian Ad Litem, CYNTHIA R., individually; J.M., a minor by and through Guardian Ad Litem, SANDRA M. and MARTIN M., individually; MARIA G.-R. individually; VANESSA G., individually, and DOES 1-3000, individually, Plaintiffs v. THE UVALDE CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ("UCISD"); UCISD SCHOOL PRINCIPAL MANDY GUTIERREZ; UVALDE CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICE DEPARTMENT ("UCISD-PD") CHIEF PEDRO ARRENDONDO; UCISD-PD OFFICER ADRIAN GONZALEZ; UCISDPD OFFICER JESUS "J.J." SUAREZ; CITY OF UVALDE; UVALDE POLICE DEPARTMENT ("UPD") LIEUTENANT MARIANO PARGAS; UPD SERGEANT EDUARDO CANALES; UPD LIEUTENANT JAVIER MARTINEZ; UPD SERGEANT DANIEL CORONADO; UPD OFFICER LOUIS LANDRY; UPD OFFICER DONALD PAGE; UPD OFFICER JUSTIN MENDOZA; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY ("TDPS") REGIONAL DIRECTOR VICTOR ESCALON; TDPS DIRECTOR STEVEN MCGRAW; CAPTAIN JOEL BETANCOURT; TDPS SERGEANT JUAN MALDONADO, and DOES 1-600, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01252 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 29, 2022) is a class/mass action complaint against the Defendants for municipal liability and liability for violation of Plaintiffs' substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment following the shooting that took place on May 24, 2022 at the Robb Elementary school, in Uvalde, Texas. The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated students, student parents and/or guardians, teachers, and school support staff who were in attendance, or had children in attendance, at Defendant Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District's Robb Elementary School, have sustained emotional and psychological damages as a result of Defendants' alleged conduct and omissions on that date. In administering the schools under its control, CISD employed its own police department (CISD-PD). Not only had CISD-PD undertaken a state sponsored and mandated active shooter response training, but that CISD had additionally promulgated its own required protocols and standards to employ in the event of an active shooter on one of its campuses. Despite such preparedness, the CISD police department, along with similarly trained law enforcement agencies including the City of Uvalde's police department, the Texas' Department of Public Safety, San Antonio Police Department's SWAT unit, Uvalde's Sheriff's office, and the United States Department of Homeland Security, fundamentally strayed from conducting themselves in conformity with what they knew to be the well-established protocols and standards for responding to an active shooter, says the suit. Thus, on account of such abject failure by such highly trained law enforcements agencies, the Plaintiffs and the putative Class members will now be forced to endure the indelible and forever-lasting trauma that Defendants immeasurably caused and amplified on account of their contemptible and flagrant affirmative conduct in failing to undertake prescribed courses of action. The Plaintiffs and Class members request that the Court to do its part in providing the framework for redressing the harms that no amount of money nor forgiveness can ever absolve, the suit added. Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District is a public school district based in Uvalde, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles A. Bonner, Esq. Cabral Bonner, Esq. Eric Seifert, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BONNER & BONNER 475 Gate Five Rd., Suite 211 Sausalito, CA 94965 Telephone: (415) 331-3070 Facsimile: (415) 331-2738 E-mail: cbonner799@aol.com cabral@bonnerlaw.come-mail eseifert00@hotmail.com - and - Jose Angel Gutierrez, Esq. WINSTEAD P.C. 2778 N. Harwood St. St. 500 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 745-5400 E-mail: joseangelgutierrez@yahoo.com - and - Jesse Ryder, Esq. RYDER LAW FIRM 6739 Myers Road E. Syracuse, NY 13057 Telephone: (515) 382-3617 E-mail: ryderlawfirm@gmail.com - and - Jerry Evans, Esq. EVANS LAW OFFICE P.P.L.C. 127 N. West Street Uvalde, TX 78801 Telephone: (830) 900-5021 E-mail: devanslawoffice@gmail.com - and - Victor Bonner, Esq. THE BONNER LAW FIRM, P.C. 4820 Old Spanish Trail Houston, TX 77021 Telephone: (832) 433-6565 E-mail: vicbonneresq@gmail.com - and - James M. Johnston, Esq. JOHNSON TRIAL LAW 100 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 700 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (424)-272-6680 E-mail: james@johnsontrial.com VIMEO.COM INC: Cantu Sues Over Video Privacy Act Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- Jesse Cantu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VIMEO.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-08888 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 8, 2022), is brought against the Defendants' violation the Video Privacy Protection Act by surreptitiously collecting and transmitting the Plaintiff personally identifiable information. Whenever someone watches a video on www.vimeo.com (the "Website"), Defendants secretly report all the details to Facebook: the visitor's identity, the titles watched, and more. When the Plaintiff watched videos on Vimeo.com, the Defendants disclosed event data, which recorded and disclosed the video's title and URL. Alongside this event data, the Defendants also disclosed identifiers for Plaintiff, including the c_user and fr cookies. In other words, the Defendants did exactly what the VPPA prohibits: they disclosed the Plaintiff's video viewing habits to a third party. Given the nature of the Defendants' business, visitors would be shocked and appalled to know that the Defendants secretly disclose to Facebook all of key data regarding a visitors' viewing habits." The Defendants' conduct is illegal, offensive, and contrary to visitor expectations: indeed, a recent study conducted by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a respected thought leader regarding digital privacy, found that: nearly 9 in 10 adults are "very concerned" about data privacy, and 75% of adults are unaware of the extent to which companies gather, store, and exploit their personal data. By disclosing his event data and identifiers, the Defendant disclosed the Plaintiff's personally identifiable information ("PII") to a third party. The Plaintiff discovered that Defendants surreptitiously collected and transmitted his personally identifiable information in December 2022, says the complaint. The Plaintiff visited Vimeo.com and watched a video. The Defendants are Delaware entities that own, operate, and/or control the Website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com WALT DISNEY: Fendelander Sues Over Anticompetitive Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ MICHELLE FENDELANDER, RONDA LEE HAINES, MICHAEL HUGHES, JOHN MANSO, and JASMINE MCCORMICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-07533 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 30, 2022) is an antitrust lawsuit against The Walt Disney Company to remediate and recover for Disney's alleged anticompetitive agreements with direct competitors in the market for streaming live pay television, which refer to live television streamed over the Internet to paying subscribers. Disney owns, operates, and controls the second largest SLPTV provider, Hulu, which provides an SLPTV product called Hulu + Live TV. Disney also controls ESPN, the largest cost input into every SLPTV product in the country. Disney operates these businesses (ESPN and Hulu) as a single economic entity, allowing it to negotiate horizontal, anticompetitive carriage agreements for ESPN and ESPN-related channels, which are the largest cost input to SLPTV products in the United States. According to the complaint, Disney's carriage agreements with its SLPTV competitors contain two terms that provide Disney pricing power over the entire market. First, Disney's carriage agreements contain language requiring that base or lowest-priced bundles offered by SLPTV providers must include ESPN. Second, Disney's carriage agreements include Most Favored Nation clauses that put upward price pressure on every rival SLPTV product. Together, these carriage agreement mandates -- which now cover all of Disney's leading competitors in the SLPTV Market -- allow Disney to use ESPN and Hulu to set a price floor in the SLPTV Market and to inflate prices marketwide by raising the prices of its own products. And this is exactly what Disney has done in the past three years, since it took operational control of Hulu, says the suit. As for DirecTV Stream, controlled by television giant DirecTV and majority-owned by telecommunications giant AT&T, DirecTV's carriage agreements with Disney have allegedly resulted in a near-100% price increase of DirecTV Stream's base package, from $35 to $69.99. The Plaintiffs, who are SLPTV direct purchasers from Disney's co-conspirator and counterparty DirecTV Stream, seek damages as well as injunctive relief to halt and unwind Disney's anticompetitive practices. The Walt Disney Company, commonly known as Disney, is an American multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate headquartered at the Walt Disney Studios complex in Burbank, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yavar Bathaee, Esq. Andrew C. Wolinsky, Esq. BATHAEE DUNNE LLP 445 Park Avenue, 9th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (332) 322-8835 E-mail: yavar@bathaeedunne.com awolinsky@bathaeedunne.com - and - Brian J. Dunne, Esq. Edward M. Grauman, Esq. BATHAEE DUNNE LLP 901 South MoPac Expressway Barton Oaks Plaza I, Suite 300 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (213) 462-2772 E-mail: bdunne@bathaeedunne.com egrauman@bathaeedunne.com WHITEFISH, MT: Seeks More Time to file Class Cert. Response ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFF BECK, individually; ROBERT ODENWELLER, individually; TERRI ODENWELLER, individually; AMY WEINBERG, individually, ZAC WEINBERG, individually, ALTA VIEWS, LLC; RIVERVIEW COMPANY, LLC; and on behalf of a class similarly situated persons or entities, v. CITY OF WHITEFISH, a Montana municipality, and DOES 1-50, Case No. 9:22-cv-00044-KLD (D. Mont.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending the time in which to file a response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification up to and including December 28, 2022. Counsel for the Plaintiffs have been contacted and they do not object to this motion, the Defendant says. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 9, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WaYfAr at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Todd A. Hammer, Esq. Marcel A. Quinn, Esq. Thomas A. Hollo, Esq. HAMMER, QUINN & SHAW PLLC 100 Financial Drive, Suite 100 P.O. Box 7310 Kalispell, MT 59904-0310 Telephone: (406) 755-2225 E-mail: toddhammer@attorneysmontana.com marcelquinn@attorneysmontana.com tomhollo@attorneysmontana.com YUGA LABS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due February 7 ------------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international securities and consumer rights litigation firm, announced that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Defendants Yuga Labs, Inc. ("Yuga" or the "Company"), Wylie Aronow, Greg Solano, Kerem Atalay, Zeshan Ali, Nicole Muniz, Jasmin Shoemaker, Patrick Ehrlund, Christopher Lyons (the "Executive Defendants"), Alexis Ohanian, Amy Wu, Maaria Bajwa, Dean Steinbeck (the "Ape DAO Board Defendants"), Guy Oseary, Mike Winkelmann, Madonna Louise Ciccone, Paris Hilton, James Fallon, Electric Hot Dog, Inc., Universal Television, LLC, Justin Bieber, Gwyneth Paltrow, Serena Williams, Thomas Pentz, Austin Richard Post, Calvin Broadus, Jr., Kevin Hart, Alexander Pall, Andrew Taggart, Wardell Stephen Curry II, Nayvadius Wilburn Cash, Abel Tesfaye, Khaled Mohammed Khaled, adidas America Inc., adidas Ventures B.V. (the "Promoter Defendants"), Ivan Soto-Wright, and MoonPay USA LLC. The action, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and captioned Real et. al. v. Yuga Labs. Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-08909, asserts claims under Sec5, 12(a)(1),15, and 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), as well as under Sec10(b) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and other California state consumer protection laws, on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the Yuga securities, which were sold as various non-fungible tokens (or "NFTs") and the native token Ape Coin on various cryptocurrency exchanges from April 23, 2021 through December 8, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and who were damaged thereby. Yuga is a cryptocurrency-related company that offers investors a suite of digital assets, including various collections of NFTs and the Company's native token ApeCoin). Yuga's brand and flagship NFT collection is referred to as the Bored Ape Yacht Club ("BAYC"). The complaint alleges that Defendants violated provisions of the Exchange Act by making false and misleading statements concerning Yuga's growth prospects, financial ownership, and financial benefits for Yuga securities investors, as well as using celebrity promoters to lure in unsuspecting investors so that Yuga insiders could sell the unregistered Yuga securities in violation of the Securities Act. On November 13, 2022, the price of the ApeCoin Token hit a low of $2.70 per token, an approximately 90% drop from its height during the Class Period, which it has not been able to recover. On November 14, 2022 the floor price of the Company's NFT collections including the BAYC, Mutant Ape Yacht Club, and Otherdeed virtual land fell to similar Class Period lows. Lead Plaintiff Deadline The Lead Plaintiff deadline in this action is February 7, 2023. Any member of the proposed Class may seek to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed Class. What You Can Do If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Plaintiff's counsel, Sean Masson of Scott+Scott, at (212) 519-0522, or via email at smasson@scott-scott.com. About Scott+Scott Attorneys Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and consumer rights actions throughout the United States, and is actively litigating several cryptocurrency cases. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices in New York, London, Amsterdam, Connecticut, California, Ohio, and Virginia. [GN] YUGA LABS: Real Sues Over Unlawful Celebrity Promotions ------------------------------------------------------- Adonis Real and Adam Titcher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. YUGA LABS, INC., WYLIE ARONOW, GREG SOLANO, KEREM ATALAY, ZESHAN ALI, NICOLE MUNIZ, JASMIN SHOEMAKER, PATRICK EHRLUND, CHRISTOPHER LYONS, ALEXIS OHANIAN, AMY WU, MAARIA GUY BAJWA, DEAN STEINBECK, OSEARY, MIKE WINKELMANN, MADONNA LOUISE CICCONE, PARIS HILTON, JAMES FALLON, ELECTRIC HOT DOG, INC., UNIVERSAL TELEVISION, LLC, JUSTIN BIEBER, GWYNETH PALTROW, SERENA WILLIAMS, THOMAS PENTZ, AUSTIN RICHARD POST, CALVIN BROADUS JR., KEVIN HART, ALEXANDER PALL, ANDREW TAGGART, WARDELL STEPHEN CURRY II, NAYVADIUS WILBURN CASH, ABEL TESFAYE, KHALED MOHAMMED KHALED, ADIDAS AMERICA INC., ADIDAS VENTURE B.V., IVAN SOTO-WRIGHT, and MOONPAY USA LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-08909 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 8, 2022), is brought on behalf of all investors who purchased Yuga's non-fungible tokens ("NFTs") or ApeCoin tokens between April 23, 2021 and the present (the "Relevant Period"), and were damaged thereby due to unlawful and undisclosed nature, source, and amount of any compensation paid for celebrity promotions. This case epitomizes these concerns as it involves a vast scheme between a blockchain start-up company, Yuga Labs, Inc., a highly-connected Hollywood talent agent (Defendant Guy Oseary), and a front operation (MoonPay), who all united for the purpose of promoting and selling a suite of digital assets. The executives at Yuga and Oseary together devised a plan to leverage their vast network of A-list musicians, athletes, and celebrity clients and associates to misleadingly promote and sell the Yuga Financial Products. Yuga's flagship NFT collection, the so-called Bored Ape Yacht Club ("BAYC"), and related brand rely heavily on the perception that "joining the club" (i.e., buying a BAYC NFT) brings investors status and provides them access to events, benefits, and other lucrative investment opportunities exclusive to BAYC holders. The exclusiveness of BAYC membership was entirely based on the inclusion and endorsements of highly influential celebrities. But this purported interest in, and endorsement of, the BAYC NFTs by high-profile taste makers was entirely manufactured by Oseary at the behest of the Executive Defendants. In order to make the promotion of, and subsequent interest in, the BAYC NFTs appear to be organic (as opposed to being solely the result of a paid promotion), the Company needed a way to discreetly pay their celebrity cohorts. To do this, Oseary tapped into a different part of his network: the MoonPay Defendants. Oseary's venture capital firm, Sound Ventures, was one of the early investors in MoonPay, along with, inter alia, Defendants Justin Bieber, Paris Hilton, Jimmy Fallon, Gwyneth Paltrow, Serena Williams, Austin Post, Thomas Pentz, Calvin Broadus, Jr., Kevin Hart, Alexander Pall, Andrew Taggart, Wardell Stephen Curry II, Nayvadius Cash, and Abel Tesfaye. MoonPay purports to be a white-glove service designed to help the super-rich and celebrities buy NFTs "'without all the hassle of setting up a wallet, buying crypto, using that crypto to purchase an NFT and then taking custody of it.'" In truth, the Executive Defendants and Oseary used their connections to MoonPay and its service as a covert way to compensate the Promoter Defendants for their promotions of the BAYC NFTs without disclosing it to unsuspecting investors. The Defendants' promotional campaign was wildly successful, generating billions of dollars in sales and re-sales. The manufactured celebrity endorsements and misleading promotions regarding the launch of an entire BAYC ecosystem (the so-called Otherside metaverse) were able to artificially increase the interest in and price of the BAYC NFTs during the Relevant Period, causing investors to purchase these losing investments at drastically inflated prices. The staggering profits of the BAYC NFTs were not enough for the Executive Defendants. Next, they cut out the artifice of the NFT altogether and went a more direct route to making money: they created their own out of thin air. The Executive Defendants minted digital assets called ApeCoins and promoted that BAYC NFT owners would receive an airdrop of ApeCoins for membership in the club. In doing so, the Executive Defendants, Oseary, and the Ape DAO Board Defendants sought to obscure their sales of their own massive ApeCoin allocations directly to retail purchasers. At no point did any of the Defendants register these securities with the SEC. In addition, Executive Defendants Aronow, Solano, Atalay, and Ali disguised their control of Yuga to avoid scrutiny and facilitate this scheme. This conspiracy among the Executive Defendants and Oseary, then carried out with assistance of the Promoter Defendants and the MoonPay Defendants, raked in millions for them all. Meanwhile, investors were left with staggering losses, says the complaint. The purchased the Yuga Financial Products between April 23, 2021 and the present. Yuga Labs is a cryptocurrency-related NFT project founded in February 2021 by a group of four friends: Defendants Aronow, Solano, Atalay, and Ali, along with Defendant Muniz.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John T. Jasnoch, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-233-4565 Fax: 619-236-0508 Email: jjasnoch@scott-scott.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 ***