/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230501.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, May 1, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 87
Headlines
A-1 COLLECTION: Bid to Continue Stay of Merit Discovery Filed
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: April 11, 2023 Order Vacated in Delaware Suit
ADC CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, De La Cruz-Ramos Says
ADORAMA INC: Cantu Sues Over Disclosure of Subscriber’s Info
ALLEGIANCE ADMINISTRATORS: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due May 22
ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 23
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to April 12, 2024
BALLAST POINT: Posadas Seeks Construction Workers' Overtime Pay
BIG CITY: Pineda Seeks to Certify Class Action for Overtime Claims
BLACK TIE: Kinnard Files Bid for FLSA Conditional Certification
BLUE CROSS: Court Stays C.P. Class Suit
BOXCOM INC: Wiretaps Website Visitors, Valenzuela Suit Alleges
BRIGHT SOLAR: Bales FTSA Suit Seeks Class Certification
BROCK PIERCE: Court Resets Class Certification Hearing to June 22
BROKERS DATA: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due May 12
BYER CALIFORNIA: Moore Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CALIFORNIA GASOLINE: Parties Seek to File Docs Under Seal
CALIFORNIA: Court Narrows Claims in Fisk Class Action
CANE BAY: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due April 12, 2024
CARAWAY HOME: Howell Sues Over Overcharged Tax Monies
CARE ACCESS: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Bennett Suit Alleges
CELSIUS NETWORK: Continues to Defend McCallion Class Suit
CENTRAL PLASTICS: Stout Sues Over Unlawful Wage Practices
CHARTER FOODS: Maguire-Hapgood Files Suit in E.D. Tennessee
CHECKMATE PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dimauro Alleges
CITY UNIVERSITY: General Pretrial Management Entered in Harriram
COLUMBIA RECYCLING: De La Fuente Seeks Collective Action Status
CONSTELATION CLEARSIGHT: Conditional Cert of FLSA Collective Sought
CORTEVA INC: Cockerill Allowed to Amend Complaint
CRACKER BARREL: Seeks Clarification of Arbitration Agreement
DRESSER LLC: More Time to File Class Cert Bid Sought in Barnes
EAGLE DISPOSAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bousquet Alleges
EXELA TECHNOLOGIES: Shamgunov Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
FATE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Johnson Suit Alleges
FCA US: Cranstoun Files Suit in D. Delaware
FEDERICI BRANDS: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FENIX INTERNET: Doe Suit Removed to C.D. California
FIVE GUYS: Final Approval of Class Settlement Sought in Lusk
FOUR TECHNOLOGIES: Ennis Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
GEICO INDEMNITY: Malcom, et al., Seek Class Definition Revision
GENERAL MOTORS: Seeks Partial Reconsideration of March 31 Order
GIVAUDAN SA: Sued Over Alleged Pricing Conspiracy on Fragrances
GIVENCHY CORP: Rodriguez Sues Over Disclosure of Web Visitor’s
Info
GOODLEAP LLC: Puskas File Bid to Certify Classes
GOOGLE INC: Class Certification Hearing Extended to Jan. 25, 2024
GREATBANC TRUST: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 22
GUARDIAN ANALYTICS: Christiani Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
GUARDIAN ANALYTICS: Sues Over Negligence and Data Breach
HARVARD MAINTENANCE: Filing of Class Cert Bids Due March 29, 2024
HEALTH RECOVERY: Class Cert Hearing in Frechette Set for July 14
HEARTHSIDE FOOD: Court to Set Rule 16 Scheduling Conference
HY-VEE INC: Rodriguez Suit Seek to Certify 401(k) Plan Class Action
IDT CORP: Shareholder Suit in Delaware Court Ongoing
INLINE NETWORK: Cline and Jepson Sue Over Data Breach
INSOMNIA COOKIES: Williams Sues Over Managers' Unpaid Wages
JOSE GARZA: More Time to Respond Sought in Fund Texas Class Suit
KANSAS CITY LIFE: Fine Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
LAMAS BEAUTY: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LOS ANGELES, CA: Millstein Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
MARRIOTT INT'L: Hall Seeks Reconsideration of March 30 Order
MARRIOTT INT'L: Seeks to Dismiss Branca Class Suit with Prejudice
MASON TENDERS: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Vandermark Says
MDL 3052: Panel Vacates Payne Suit Transfer Order
MDL 3067: Panel Denies Transfer of 3 Cases to C.D. Cal.
MDL 3068: Panel Denies Transfer of Six Actions
MDL 3070: Court Denies Centralization of Three Suits
MERCEDES-BENZ: Amended Class Action Claims Must be Filed by May 1
MIDLAND CREDIT: Pierni Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
MMM CONSUMER: Seeks Oral Argument in Eppes Lawsuit
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Settlement Class Gets Certification in Douglass
NABORS COMPLETION: Lopez to Recover Arbitration Award, Court Orders
NABORS COMPLETION: Murguia to Recover Arbitration Award, Court Says
NAMAN LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cunningham Alleges
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Class Settlement in Mostajo Gets Final Nod
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Court to Set Rule 16 Scheduling Conference
NEMACOLIN WOODLANDS: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Approval
NV PROPERTY: Final Approval of Class Settlement Sought in Merced
OCEANPARK APARTMENTS: McShane Seeks Proper Minimum & OT Wages
OHLA USA: Escobedo Sues Over Alleged Labor Law Violations
ONPOINT COMMUNITY: Filing of Class Cert Bid in Granados Due Oct. 1
ORLANDO HEALTH: Obie Sues Over Dispute Concerning Medical Bills
PAMPERED CHEF: Discloses Visitor’s Sensitive Info, Rodriguez Says
PLDT INC: Faces Olsson Shareholder Suit in California Court
POLARITYTE INC: Faces Richfield Shareholder Suit
PREMIUM CHOICE: More Time to File Class Status Bid Sought
PRINCIPAL NATIONAL: Filing of Class Cert Bids Due March 1, 2024
PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Rule 23 Class Certification Sought in Jones
QUALITY RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Servers' Minimum & OT Wages
RAIL DELIVERY: C.D. California Enters Final Judgment in Canava Suit
REGIONAL EXPRESS: Dixon Seeks to Certify Collective Action
RIBBON HOME: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due July 28
RITE AID: Class Cert Discovery Denied w/o Prejudice in Stafford
RUBY HOLLOW: McGowan, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
SAN JOSE, CA: Plaintiffs Seek Reconsideration of April 17 Order
SEPHORA USA: Femmer Seeks Final Nod of Class Action Settlement
SHARP HOLDING: Tipped Employees Win Class Certification
SILK AND SONDER: Slade Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
SOLAR TURBINES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Figueroa Alleges
SONUS NETWORKS: Class Certification Bid Filing Extended to June 28
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Filing of Class Status Bid Due June 20
STATE AUTOMOBILE: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due Jan. 22, 2024
STRYKER CORPORATION: Floyd Seeks Certification of Collective Action
SWCA INCORPORATED: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Cook Alleges
TD BANK: Parties in Nelipa Seek Adoption of Revised Sched Order
TMC THE METALS: Caper Shareholder Suit Ongoing
TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Briefing
UMASS MEMORIAL: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Nov. 30
UMPQUA BANK: Bid to Certify Interlocutory Appeal Nixed
UNITED MECHANICAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Cotton Alleges
UNITEDHEALTHCARE SERVICES: Bid to Dismiss Samson Class Suit Tossed
UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS: Valdez Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to D. Colo.
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: Ct. Directs Filing of Discovery Plan
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA: Discloses Users Info to FB, Yeisley Alleges
USAA FEDERAL: Must File Class Cert Bid Response by June 20
VALENTINO LOPEZ: Martinez-Morales Seeks FLSA Conditional Status
WASHINGTON COUNTY, AL: Bid to Certify Class Denied w/o Prejudice
WEXFORD HEALTH: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Brown
WHEELS UP: Lee Goodman Trust Sues Over Drop in Share Price
WHITEFISH, MT: Class Cert Oral Argument Sought in Beck Suit
WILLIAM LEE: Court Certifies Class of Tennessee Residents
WOW RESTAURANT: Chen, et al., Seek FLSA Collective Action Status
*********
A-1 COLLECTION: Bid to Continue Stay of Merit Discovery Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN FULLMER, SEAN
MCINTYRE, SABRINA PROVO, and all others similarly situated, v. A-1
COLLECTION AGENCY, LLC and MOAB VALLEY HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No.
4:20-cv-00143-DN-PK (D. Utah), the Parties file a joint motion to
continue stay of merit discovery until class certification is
resolved.
The Parties request that merit discovery remain stayed until class
certification has been resolved. Within 14 days of the Court's
order resolving Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the
Parties will submit a proposed scheduled order for merit
discovery.
On October 28, 2021, the Court adopted the parties' stipulated
scheduling order. As part of the Scheduling Order, discovery was
partitioned into two parts, class and merit discovery, with merit
discovery stayed until the Court decided class certification.
On May 27th, 2022, the Plaintiffs Sean McIntyre and Sabrina Provo
moved to certify a class.
On August 15th, 2022, Defendant A-1 Collection Agency filed a
motion for summary judgment challenging the merits of the claims.
In response, the Plaintiffs filed a Rule 56(d) Motion requesting an
opportunity to conclude merit discovery before the Court resolved
the Summary Judgment Motion.
On March 30, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Rule 56(d) Motion
and denied the Motion for Summary Judgment Motion without prejudice
with leave to refile upon completion of merit discovery.
The Court, recognizing the stay on merit discovery, ordered the
parties to meet and confer as to a schedule for merit discovery.
On April 13 and 14, the Parties conferred regarding merit
discovery.
A1 Collection specializes in collecting medical debt and overdue
fees.
A copy of the Parties motion dated April 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43LGTyK at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel M. Baczynski, Esq.
BACZYNSKI LAW, PLLC
12339 S. 800 E., Ste 101
Draper, UT 84020
Telephone: (708) 715-2234
E-mail: dan@bskilaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Spencer W. Young, Esq.
STRONG & HANNI
102 S 200 E STE 800
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 532-7080
- and -
Ronald F. Price, Esq
PRICE PARKINSON & KERR, PLLC
5742 W, Harold Gatty Dr.
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
Telephone: (801) 530-2900
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: April 11, 2023 Order Vacated in Delaware Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DELAWARE COUNTY EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, et al. V. ADAPTHEALTH CORP., ET AL., Case No.
2:21-cv-03382-HB (E.D. Pa.), Hon. Judge Harvey Bartle III entered
an order that:
(1) the Court's April 11, 2023 Order is vacated; and
(2) the court will hold an in-person status conference on June
13,
2023 at 10:15 AM concerning a non-deposition merits
discovery
deadline to be followed by oral argument on Lead Plaintiffs'
motion to certify class.
AdaptHealth provides home medical equipment. The Company sells and
leases mobility and oxygen equipment, wheelchairs, walkers, sleep
therapy supplies, and hospital beds. AdaptHealth serves the
hospitals, sleep labs, skilled nursing facilities, and clinics.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ozyAGg at no extra charge.[CC]
ADC CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, De La Cruz-Ramos Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
EDUARDO DE LA CRUZ-RAMOS, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADC CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC,
GNA CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., and ALEJANDRO DE LA CRUZ, jointly
and severally, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00046-TES (M.D. Ga.,
April 18, 2023) alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to pay Plaintiff the statutory minimum
wage and overtime premium.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a laborer from
approximately Jan. 3, 2021 to June 19, 2022. He worked as a
laborer, which entailed performing contractor and construction
services as directed by Defendants, including installing fixtures
and cabinets in homes, painting, and cleaning work sites.
Throughout Plaintiff's employment, Plaintiff was straight-time for
all hours worked and received no overtime wages, despite working
over 40 hours each week. Additionally, from approximately May 29,
2022, to June 19, 2022, Plaintiff worked for Defendants without
being paid any wages. As a result, Plaintiff was not paid minimum
wages and also did not receive overtime wages for this three-week
period, says the suit.
ADC is an active Georgia limited liability company engaged in the
construction industry, performing construction and renovation
services for their customers in Georgia, as well as in Tennessee,
Florida, and South Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon A. Thomas, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC
1 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 650
Atlanta, GA 30328
Telephone: (678) 862-9344
Facsimile: (678) 638-6201
E-mail: brandon@overtimeclaimslawyer.com
ADORAMA INC: Cantu Sues Over Disclosure of Subscriber’s Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
JESSE CANTU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ADORAMA INC., a New York Corporation; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02907
(C.D. Cal., April 18, 2023) arises out of Defendants' violations of
the Video Privacy Protection Act.
Allegedly, the Defendants disclosed to Google Plaintiff's
personally identifiable information, including identifying
information and the title of the videos viewed, despite the absence
of any form of consent. Moreover, the Defendants violated the VPPA
by disclosing Plaintiff's video viewing habits to a third party,
says the suit.
Adorama Inc. is a for-profit corporation with its principal place
of business in New York, NY. It owns, operates, and/or controls a
variety of websites and offers multiple videos for consumers to
view and play. [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
Telephone: (949) 706-6464
Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
ALLEGIANCE ADMINISTRATORS: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due May 22
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cohen et al v. Allegiance
Administrators, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-03411 (S.D. Ohio), Hon. Judge
Kimberly A. Jolson entered a notation order granting unopposed
motion for extension of time.
-- Dispositive Motions and Class Certification Motion due by
May 22, 2023.
-- No further extensions will be granted.
The nature of suit states Contract -- Other Contract.[CC]
ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 23
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAGGIWA CUMMINGS v.
ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
3:22-cv-00247-JWD-EWD (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes
entered a limited scheduling order as follows:
-- Filing all discovery motions and August 14, 2023
completing all discovery except
experts:
-- Expert reports must be submitted to
opposing parties as follows:
Plaintiff(s): June 14, 2023
Defendant(s): August 17, 2023
Rebuttal experts: September 21, 2023
-- Discovery from experts must be October 23, 2023.
completed by:
-- Filing of Motion for Class September 23, 2023
Certification:
-- Response to Motion for Class October 23, 2023
Certification:
-- Reply in Support of Motion for Class November 23, 2023
Certification:
-- Deadline to file dispositive motions December 27, 2023
and Daubert motions:
A copy of the Court's order dated April 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UVRsLy at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to April 12, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH FRAME-WILSON, et
al., v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-00424-RAJ (W.D. Wash.), the Parties file stipulated motion
and proposed order regarding class certification briefing schedule
as follows:
1. The current deadline for Plaintiffs' October 30, 2023.
motion for class certification is:
2. The Court ordered the parties to
Submit a proposed briefing schedule
for the Plaintiffs' class
certification motion. The Parties
have agreed to a briefing schedule
on that motion as follows:
Motion due: April 12, 2024
Opposition due: July 11, 2024
Reply due: September 10, 2024
3. The deadline for Plaintiffs to April 12, 2024.
file their class certification
motion is extended to:
4. The deadline for Amazon to respond July 11, 2024.
to Plaintiffs' motion is:
5. The deadline for Plaintiffs' September 10, 2024
reply brief is:
Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company focusing
on e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital
streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April13, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ld0Oyn at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq.
Anne F. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
barbaram@hbsslaw.com
annej@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101-3052
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
E-mail: Dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Zina G. Bash, Esq.
Warren D. Postman, Esq.
Albert Y. Pak, Esq.
Jessica Beringer, Esq.
KELLER POSTMAN LLC
111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500
Austin, TX, 78701
Telephone: (512) 690-0990
E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com
wdp@kellerpostman.com
albert.pak@kellerpostman.com
jessica.beringer@kellerpostman.com
- and -
Alicia Cobb, Esq.
Steig D. Olson, Esq.
David D. LeRay, Esq.
Nic V. Siebert, Esq.
Adam B. Wolfson, Esq.
Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
1109 First Avenue, Suite 210
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 905-7000
E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com
steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
davidleray@quinnemanuel.com
nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com
maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com
adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John A. Goldmark, Esq.
MaryAnn Almeida, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Telephone: (206) 622-3150
Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
E-mail: JohnGoldmark@dwt.com
MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com
- and -
Karen L. Dunn, Esq
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
Amy J. Mauser, Esq.
Martha L. Goodman, Esq.
Kyle Smith, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20006-1047
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com
wisaacson@paulweiss.com
amauser@paulweiss.com
mgoodman@paulweiss.com
ksmith@paulweiss.com
BALLAST POINT: Posadas Seeks Construction Workers' Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Posadas Matamoros, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ballast Point Construction, Inc.,
f/k/a Spectra General Contractors, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
4:23-cv-01438 (S.D. Tex., April 18, 2023) alleges that the
Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay
overtime premium.
Plaintiff Franklin Posadas Matamoros worked for Ballast as a
construction worker from March 2022 until March 2023. The
Plaintiff's duties included operating construction machinery on job
sites of Ballast's customers. During the time he worked for
Ballast, Posadas regularly worked more than 40 hours per week.
However, Ballast did not pay Posadas an overtime premium for the
excess in a workweek. Instead, it paid Posadas the same hourly rate
for all the hours he worked, says the suit.
Ballast Point Construction, Inc., formerly known as Spectra
Contractors, Inc. is a Texas corporation and an "employer" of
Plaintiff as defined by the FLSA. The Defendant may be served
through its registered agent, Incorp Services, Inc., 815 Brazos
Street, Suite 500, Austin, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 10099
Houston, TX 77206
Telephone: (713) 868-3388
Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
BIG CITY: Pineda Seeks to Certify Class Action for Overtime Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN PINEDA, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. BIG CITY REALTY
MANAGEMENT, LLC, CFF CONSULTING INC., 3427 BROADWAY BCR, LLC, 3440
BROADWAY BCR, LLC, 3660 BROADWAY BCR, LLC, 633 WEST 152 BCR, LLC,
605 WEST 151 BCR, LLC, 545 EDGECOMBE BCR, LLC, 535-539 WEST 155
BCR, LLC, 408-412 PINEAPPLE, LLC, 106-108 CONVENT BCR, LLC, 510-512
YELLOW APPLE, LLC, 513 YELLOW APPLE, LLC, 145 PINEAPPLE LLC, 2363
ACP PINAPPLE, LLC, 580 ST. NICHOLAS BCR, LLC, 603-607 WEST 139 BCR,
LLC, 559 WEST 156 BCR, LLC, 3750 BROADWAY BCR, LLC, KOBI ZAMIR, and
FERNANDO ALFONSO, Case No. 1:22-cv-05428-BMC (E.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying this action as a class action for those overtime
claims which allege violations of the New York Labor Law,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23;
2. designating Plaintiff as class representative; and
3. designating the Plaintiff's counsel as Class Counsel pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), and (iv) granting
the Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint pursuant to
Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a).
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 14, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ADkWEZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc A. Rapaport, Esq.
RAPAPORT LAW FIRM, PLLC
80 Eighth Avenue, Suite 206
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 382-1600
E-mail: mrapaport@rapaportlaw.com
- and -
Meredith R. Miller, Esq.
MILLER LAW., PLLC
167 Madison Avenue, Suite 503
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (347) 878-2587
E-mail: meredith@millerlaw.nyc
BLACK TIE: Kinnard Files Bid for FLSA Conditional Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY KINNARD,
individually, and on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
current and former employees, v. BLACK TIE MOVING, NASHVILLE, LLC,
a Tennessee Limited Liability Company, Case No. 3:22-cv-00719 (M.D.
Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. authorizing this case to proceed as a Fair Labor Standards
Act
(FLSA) collective action for overtime violations on behalf of
similarly situated hourly-paid movers and drivers;
2. directing Defendant to immediately provide the Plaintiffs'
counsel a computer-readable file containing the names (last
names first), last known physical addresses, last known email
addresses, social security numbers, dates of employment, and
last known telephone numbers of all putative class members;
3. providing that the Court-approved notice be posted at all of
the Defendant's locations where putative class members work,
as
well as be mailed and emailed to the putative class;
4. tolling the statute of limitations for the putative class as
of
the date this is fully briefed; and
5. requiring that the optin plaintiffs' Consent to Join Forms be
deemed "filed" on the date they are postmarked.
Black Tie is a Commercial/Residential Moving Company based out of
Louisville, Kentucky.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 17, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oqTzeb at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT
OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John R. Jacobson, Esq.
Katharine R. Klein, Esq.
Grace C. Peck, Esq.
RILEY & JACOBSON, PLC
1906 West End Avenue
Nashville, TN 37203
E-mail: jjacobson@rjfirm.com
kklein@rjfirm.com
gpeck@rjfirm.com
BLUE CROSS: Court Stays C.P. Class Suit
----------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as C. P., by and through his
parents, Patricia Pritchard and Nolle Pritchard, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated; and PATRICIA PRITCHARD, v.
BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF ILLINOIS, Case No. 3:20-cv-06145-RJB
(W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Bryan entered an order
that:
-- This case is stayed.
-- All deadlines are stricken.
-- The parties shall notify the Court within 10 days of the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Wit but, in any event, no
later than September 5, 2023, the parties shall file a status
report.
-- The parties' pending motions are stricken to be renoted for
consideration after a decision in Wit is issued or after the
stay
is lifted.
-- The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order
to
all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said
party's last known address.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40rn8K0 at no extra charge.[CC]
BOXCOM INC: Wiretaps Website Visitors, Valenzuela Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
SONYA VALENZUELA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BOXCOM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case
No. 37-2023-00016674 CU-MT-CTL (Cal. Super., Apr. 21, 2023) alleges
that the Defendant secretly enables and allows a third-party
spyware company to eavesdrop on the private conversations of
everyone who communicates through the chat feature at www.box.com,
in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act.
The spyware company exploits and monetizes that data by sharing it
with other third parties, who use the private chat data to bombard
the unsuspecting visitor with targeted marketing. The Defendant
neither informs visitors of this conduct nor obtains their consent
to these intrusions, the Plaintiff says.
The Third-Party Spyware Company's chat service is an Application
Programming Interface that is "plugged into" Defendant's Website.
The chat function is run from the Third-Party Spyware's servers but
allows for chat functionality on Defendant's Website. Thus,
whenever a chat message is sent from a member of the Class to the
Defendant, it is first routed through the Third-Party Spyware
Company's server. This enables the Third-Party Spyware Company to
analyze and collect customer-support agent interactions in real
time to create live transcripts of communications as they occur,
the Plaintiff alleges.
The Defendant's actions are not incidental to facilitating
e-commerce, nor are they undertaken in the ordinary course of
business. To the contrary, the Defendant's actions are illegal and
violate both industry norms and the legitimate expectations of
consumers.
The Plaintiff visited the Defendant's website using a smart phone
and conducted a brief conversation with an agent of the Defendant
through the website chat feature.
Boxcom is a California corporation that develops cloud management
software.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 706-6464
Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
BRIGHT SOLAR: Bales FTSA Suit Seeks Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FLOYD STEVE BALES,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BRIGHT SOLAR MARKETING LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-00496-MMH-PRL (M.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
-- certifying the class of:
"All persons in Florida who, (1) received an outbound call
from
Bright Solar, (2) using the Bright Pattern dialer, (3) from
July
1, 2021 through the present, and (4) for whom Bright Solar (a)
did not identify a trusted form or (b) identified a trusted
form
for a website with the same disclosure as the website
Plaintiff
Bales visited;"
-- appointing him as class representative;
-- appointing Kaufman P.A. and Coleman PLLC as class counsel; and
-- establishing a deadline for submitting a proposed notice
plan.
The Plaintiff Bales moves to certify a class of the thousands of
Florida consumers who Bright Solar called using an autodialer as
part of a single calling campaign in violation of the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act's autodialer provision, Fla. Stat.
section 501.059(8)(a).
The Plaintiff contends that the case is well-suited for class
certification because it involves a single campaign of calls made
using the same dialer to telephone numbers sourced in the same
manner.
The Plaintiff Bales seeks to certify the following class pursuant
to Rule 23(b)(3):
Bright Solar is a "call center" for a company called Forever
Freedom that provides solar products and services to consumers.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 17, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3owyRcV at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 S. Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
rachel@kaufmanpa.com
- and -
Stefan Coleman, Esq.
COLEMAN PLLC
201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (877) 333-9427
Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com
BROCK PIERCE: Court Resets Class Certification Hearing to June 22
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN ROWAN,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BROCK PIERCE, an individual, Case No. 3:20-cv-01648 (D.P.R.), Hon.
Judge Raul M. Arias-Marxuach entered an order resetting class
certification hearing for June 22, 2023.
The Plaintiff brings this instant lawsuit alleging he suffered
damages after receiving a single ringless voicemail from non-party,
the Brock Pierce for President, Inc. campaign on October 29, 2020
-- which he claims violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).[CC]
Brock Jeffrey Pierce is an American entrepreneur known primarily
for his work in the cryptocurrency industry. As a child actor, he
starred in Disney films The Mighty Ducks, D2: The Mighty Ducks, and
First Kid. He ran as an independent candidate in the 2020 United
States presidential election.
BROKERS DATA: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due May 12
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mark Fitzhenry, v. Brokers
Data, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-04043-RMG (D.S.C.), Hon. Judge Richard
Mark Gergel entered a fifth amended scheduling order as follows:
1. A Motion for Class Certification should be filed by May 12,
2023.
2. Mediation shall be completed in this case on or before May 5,
2023.
3. The parties shall appear for a Rule 16 conference to be
scheduled by the Court after the decision on Plaintiff'
motion
for Class Certification.
Brokers Data specializes in marketing solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41QZTdE at no extra charge.[CC]
BYER CALIFORNIA: Moore Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Byer California, et
al. The case is styled as Jonathan Moore, on behalf of himself and
all persons similarly situated v. Byer California, Does 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. CGC23605878 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., April 17, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Byer California -- http://www.byerca.com/-- manufactures and
designs apparels. The Company provides blouses, skirts, pants,
sweaters, dresses, and coats for junior, misses, and girls.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037-3107
Phone: 858-952-0354
Fax: 858-551-1232
Email: DeBlouw@bamlawca.com
CALIFORNIA GASOLINE: Parties Seek to File Docs Under Seal
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re California Gasoline Spot Market
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:20-cv-03131-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the
Parties move the Court, pursuant to the Order Modifying Sealing
Procedures for Class Certification Briefing, for an administrative
order to file under seal all or portions of:
-- Defendants' Joint Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification;
-- Exhibits 1 through 12 and 14 to the Declaration of Jeffrey M.
Davidson in Support of Defendants' Joint Opposition to Class
Certification Defendants are conditionally filing the above
documents under seal pursuant to the Stipulated Protective
Order
entered in this case and the Order Modifying Sealing
Procedures
for Class Certification Briefing.
-- Defendants' Joint Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification and Exhibits 1-12 and 14 contain or cite to
material designated or that may be designated by Plaintiffs,
Defendants, or third parties as "Confidential" or "Highly
Confidential" under the Stipulated Protective Order.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 14, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mVaMw4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Davidson, Esq.
Phillip Warren, Esq.
Amy S. Heath, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
Salesforce Tower
415 Mission Street, Suite 5400
San Francisco, CA 94105-2533
Telephone: (415) 591-6000
Facsimile: (415) 591-6091
E-mail: jdavidson@cov.com
pwarren@cov.com
aheath@cov.com
- and -
John S. Playforth, Esq.
Carol S. Weiland, Esq.
Jeffrey Cao, Esq.
Lori Parcel Taubman, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
One CityCenter
850 Tenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001-4956
Telephone: (202) 662-6000
Facsimile: (202) 662-6291
E-mail: jplayforth@cov.com
cweiland@cov.com
jcao@cov.com
ltaubman@cov.com
- and -
Michael E. Martinez, Esq.
Lauren Norris Donahue, Esq.
Clifford C. Histed, Esq.
Nicole C. Mueller, Esq.
Brian J. Smith, Esq.
John E. Susoreny, Esq.
K&L GATES LLP
70 W. Madison St., Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 372-1121
Facsimile: (312) 827-800
E-mail: michael.martinez@klgates.com
lauren.donahue@klgates.com
clifford.histed@klgates.com
nicole.mueller@klgates.com
brian.j.smith@klgates.com
john.susoreny@klgates.com
- and -
John B. Quinn, Esq.
Steven G. Madison, Esq.
Shon Morgan, Esq.
Benjamin Odell, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 443-3000
Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
E-mail: johnquinn@quinnemanuel.com
stevemadison@quinnemanuel.com
shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com
- and -
John M. Potter, Esq.
Christine W. Chen, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 875-6600
Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
E-mail: johnpotter@quinnemanuel.com
christinechen@quinnemanuel.com
- and -
Neal Manne, Esq.
Alex Kaplan, Esq.
Michael Craig Kelso, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
1000 Louisiana, Suite 5100
Houston, TX 77002-5096
Telephone: (713) 651-9366
Facsimile: (713) 654-6666
E-mail: nmanne@susmangodfrey.com
akaplan@susmangodfrey.com
mkelso@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Amanda K. Bonn, Esq.
Eliza Finley, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
Telephone: (310) 789-3100
Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
E-mail: abonn@susmangodfrey.com
efinley@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Genevieve Vose Wallace, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800
Seattle, WA 98101-3000
Telephone: (206) 516-3880
Facsimile: (206) 516-3883
E-mail: gwallace@susmangodfrey.com
CALIFORNIA: Court Narrows Claims in Fisk Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MADISON FISK, RAQUEL
CASTRO, GRETA VISS, CLARE BOTTERILL, MAYA BROSCH, HELEN BAUER,
CARINA CLARK, NATALIE FIGUEROA, ERICA GROTEGEER, KAITLIN HERI,
OLIVIA PETRINE, AISHA WATT, KAMRYN WHITWORTH, SARA ABSTEN, ELEANOR
DAVIES, ALEXA DIETZ, and LARISA SULCS, individually and on behalf
of all those similarly situated, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY and SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY, Case
No. 3:22-cv-00173-TWR-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Todd W.
Robinson entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
defendants' motion to dismiss counts I and III of the plaintiffs'
second amended complaint.
The Court grants the Plaintiffs leave to file a Third Amended
Complaint addressing the above-enumerated deficiencies within 30
days of the date this Order is electronically docketed, with the
exception that Plaintiffs may not make further attempts to allege
the Absent Plaintiffs have standing to bring a retaliation claim
because any amendment in that regard would be futile. Should
Plaintiffs elect not to file a timely amended complaint, this
action will proceed as to those Plaintiffs who have standing for
each cause of action.
The Court thus finds that Plaintiffs have failed to provide
sufficient factual and legal support for their allegation that the
Absent Plaintiffs have standing to pursue a retaliation claim.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendants' motion as to the
Absent Plaintiffs' lack of standing to assert a retaliation claim.
The Court therefore denies the Defendants' motion to the extent it
seeks dismissal of the Present Plaintiffs’ retaliation claim for
failure to state a claim.
In sum, the Court finds that the Absent Plaintiffs have failed to
allege standing to pursue a retaliation claim and that the Present
Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a retaliation claim. The Court
thus grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' claim for retaliation in the Second Amended
Complaint.
The Plaintiffs, "past and current female varsity student-athletes
at SDSU," initiated this lawsuit against Defendants on February 7,
2022, alleging Defendants, who receive federal funding, have
engaged in intentional discrimination based on sex in its athletics
programs in violation in Title IX.
The Plaintiffs specifically claim SDSU has violated Title IX and
its guiding regulations by "depriving its female varsity
student-athletes of equal athletic financial aid, denying them
equal athletic benefits and treatment, and retaliating against them
because some of them
sued SDSU for violating Title IX."
California State University is a public university in Fresno,
California. It is part of the California State University system.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GZSLU1 at no extra charge.[CC]
CANE BAY: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due April 12, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lindenberger, Deborah v.
Cane Bay Partners VI, LLLP, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00427 (W.D.
Wisc), Hon. Judge William M. Conley entered a class action
scheduling order as follows:
-- Jury selection and trial set for: April 28, 2025
-- Plaintiffs' class certification motion April 12, 2024
is due by:
-- All dispositive motions due by: October 15,
2024
-- Discovery is stayed until August 1, 2023 or until the court
rules
on the pending motions to dismiss and to compel arbitration,
whichever comes first.
Cane Bay is a consulting, analytics, and portfolio management
company.
The suit alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) Act.
CARAWAY HOME: Howell Sues Over Overcharged Tax Monies
-----------------------------------------------------
Stacy Howell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CARAWAY HOME INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-03174 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 17, 2023), is brought on behalf of herself and a proposed
class of Missouri residents who purchased products for personal,
family, or household use from Caraway through remote sales
channels, including its internet website, against the Defendant's
illegally and erroneously overcharged tax monies.
Missouri state law mandates that retailers charge a "use tax" on
sales of their products through remote means, including an internet
website, telephone, catalog or other remote communications system
(collectively, "remote sales channel(s)"), to Missouri purchasers
that are shipped from an out-of-state facility. The state use tax
rate for these sales is 4.225%. There are also additional local use
taxes that are imposed on sales made through remote sales channels
based on the delivery address of the Missouri purchasers.
The Defendant illegally and erroneously overcharges tax monies at a
higher tax rate than the correct applicable use tax rate on
products purchased through remote sales channels, including from
Caraway's internet website, that are shipped to Missouri customers
from an out- of-state facility, resulting in the overcollection of
monies from Missouri consumers. When the Plaintiff purchased the
product from Caraway's website on November 27, 2021, the Defendant
required the Plaintiff to pay an 8.6% tax rate, resulting in the
overcollection of monies, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased one Cookware Set and one Complete Bakeware
Set for personal, family or household use from the Defendant's
website.
Caraway Home Inc. is a Delaware corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Kopel. Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: ykopel@bursor.com
CARE ACCESS: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Bennett Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
AISHA BENNETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CARE ACCESS RESEARCH LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-10856 (D. Mass., April 20, 2023) is an action against
the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Plaintiff Bennett was employed by the Defendant as a clinical
researcher.
CARE ACCESS RESEARCH LLC provides clinical research and clinical
trial services. Care Access Research goal is to engage every
healthcare professional in clinical research and to make clinical
trials a care option for every patient. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip J. Gordon, Esq.
GORDON LAW GROUP LLP
585 Boylston St.
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 536-1800
Facsimile: (617) 536-1802
Email: pgordon@gordonllp.com
-and-
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
Email: 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
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
-and-
William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
TX Bar No. 24045189
ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
CELSIUS NETWORK: Continues to Defend McCallion Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Celsius Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K/A Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 18, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the McCallion class suit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
On March 16, 2022, Christian McCallion filed a class action lawsuit
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. Plaintiff McCallion asserts that
because of the Company's delay in filing its Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021, there was a decline in
the market value of the Company's securities and as a result, class
members suffered significant losses and damages. On June 6, 2022
Judge Middlebrooks appointed a lead class plaintiff and the Company
filed its Motion to Dismiss on August 5, 2022. As the Company has
previously disclosed in its periodic reports filed with the SEC,
prior to filing an application for an automatic fifteen (15) day
extension of the original filing date, the Company experienced
staffing limitations, unanticipated delays and identified material
errors in previous filings. The Company does not believe it has
committed any federal securities violations or made false and/or
misleading statements and/or material omissions as alleged in the
complaint. The Company intends to contest the claims vigorously on
the merits.
Celsius Network LLC -- http://www.celsius.network/-- is a
financial services company that generates revenue through
cryptocurrency trading, lending, and borrowing, as well as by
engaging in proprietary trading.
CENTRAL PLASTICS: Stout Sues Over Unlawful Wage Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
Jerrod Stout, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CENTRAL PLASTICS, INC., Case No. 6:23-cv-01057 (D.
Kan., April 17, 2023), is brought seeking redress against the
Defendant arising from unlawful wage practices by failing to pay
its employees for all hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA")'s overtime requirements and the Kansas Wage
Payment Act ("KWPA")'s requirements.
Defendant maintains a written policy, which employees are required
to acknowledge, stating that "Hours worked in excess of forty (40)
hours per week shall be paid at a rate of time and one-half the
employee's base rate of pay plus shift differential when it
applies." Defendant regularly suffers or permits Plaintiff to work
in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Defendant maintains a rounding
policy that results in Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees not receiving full legal compensation for all work in
excess of 40 hours per workweek. Despite reporting and working more
than 40 hours the week beginning Monday, March 13, 2023, Defendant
compensated Plaintiff for only 40 hours of work that week.
Defendant's rounding policy is not neutral. Defendant's rounding
policy results in employees not being paid for all hours worked,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is employed by Defendant as a material handler on the
first shift.
Central Plastics, Inc. is a McPherson, Kansas corporation that
extrudes plastic parts for the window and door plastic extrusions
industry, the garage door industry, the construction industry, the
medical industry, and the automotive industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Donald N. Peterson, Esq.
Sean M. McGivern, Esq.
Nathan R. Elliott, Esq.
GRAYBILL & HAZLEWOOD, LLC
218 N Mosley St
Wichita, KS 67202
Phone: 316-266-4058
Fax: 316-462-5566
Email don@graybillhazlewood.com
sean@graybillhazlewood.com
nathan@graybillhazlewood.com
CHARTER FOODS: Maguire-Hapgood Files Suit in E.D. Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Charter Foods North,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Molly Maguire-Hapgood,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Charter Foods North, LLC, Charter Foods, Inc., Case No.
2:23-cv-00040 (E.D. Tenn., April 17, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Charter Foods North LLC owns and operates as a restaurants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald Luke Widener, Esq.
MILBERG, COLEMAN, BRYSON, PHILLIPS, GROSSMAN
800 S. Gay St. Ste. 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Phone: (865) 247-0080
Fax: (865) 522-0049
Email: lwidener@milberg.com
CHECKMATE PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dimauro Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
GUY DIMAURO; and BRIAN POTTER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHECKMATE PIZZA, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-00866 (M.D. Fla., April 20, 2023) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as drivers.
CHECKMATE PIZZA, LLC operates a pizza company in Tampa, in
Hillsborough
County, Florida, and Hernando County, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
Sawyer N. Frescoln, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
Tampa, Florida 33602
Telephone: (813) 224-0431
Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
Email: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
Email: sfrescoln@wfclaw.com
desane@wfclaw.com
CITY UNIVERSITY: General Pretrial Management Entered in Harriram
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PRIYA HARRIRAM, v. CITY
UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-09712-RA-BCM
(S.D.N.Y.), Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding
general pretrial management as follows:
-- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related
to
scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or
for
judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary
judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23)
must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this
Court's
Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's
website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.
-- Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must
be
initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery
set
by the Court.
-- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting
discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need
for
such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil
Rule
37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices.
It
is the Court's practice to decide discovery disputes at the
Rule
37.2 conference, based on the parties' letters, unless a party
requests or the Court requires more formal briefing. Absent
extraordinary circumstances, discovery applications made later
than 30 days prior to the close of discovery may be denied as
untimely.
-- For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion
conferences
are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe
that
an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for
a
motion or narrow the issues.
-- Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court
proceeding
(including a telephonic court conference) or to extend a
deadline
must be made in writing and in compliance
City University is the public university system comprising 25
campuses: eleven senior colleges, seven community colleges, and
seven professional institution.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43LcYqm at no extra charge.[CC]
COLUMBIA RECYCLING: De La Fuente Seeks Collective Action Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Osvaldo de la Fuente and
Victor Hugo Tapia Romero, v. Columbia Recycling Corp. and Gold Pond
Corp., Case No. 4:22-cv-00256-WMR (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to enter an order:
1. Authorizing them to proceed conditionally as a collective
action
on behalf of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
employees
and former employees for the Defendants' failure to pay
overtime
premiums as mandated under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA);
2. Directing Defendants to provide the Plaintiffs' counsel with
contact information for the putative collective class so that
additional similarly situated current and former employees
can
be promptly notified of their right to participate in this
lawsuit; and
3. approving the form of notice to the putative collective
classes.
Columbia Recycling was founded in 1971. The company's line of
business includes the manufacturing of textile goods, including
linen goods and felt goods.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 14, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41Bi9rK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel Werner, Esq.
James Radford, Esq.
RADFORD & KEEBAUGH, LLC
315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 1080
Decatur, GA 30030
Telephone: (678) 271-0300
E-mail: dan@decaturlegal.com
james@decaturlegal.com
- and -
Brian J. Sutherland, Esq.
Rachel Berlin Benjamin, Esq.
BEAL, SUTHERLAND, BERLIN &
BROWN, LLC
945 East Paces Ferry Road, NE, Suite 2000
Atlanta, GA 30326
E-mail: brian@beal.law
rachel@beal.law
- and -
Chris B. Hall, Esq.
HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
300 Galleria Parkway, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (404) 876-8100
E-mail: chall@hallandlampros.com
CONSTELATION CLEARSIGHT: Conditional Cert of FLSA Collective Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAKOTA HALDEMAN,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, v.
CONSTELATION CLEARSIGHT, LLC f/k/a EXELON CLEARSIGHT, LLC, EXELON
BUSINESS SERVICES COMPANY, LLC, and EXELON CORPORATION, Case No.
2:22-cv-03367-MRP (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, to
certify this action as a collective action and to permit
Plaintiff's counsel to send notice to the potential members of the
collective.
Constellation Clearsight specializes in digital inspection
solutions to provide superior value to the clients.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 14, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N47mBC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter C. Wood, Jr., Esq.
MOBILIO WOOD
900 Rutter Ave., Box 24
Forty Fort, PA 18704
Telephone: (570) 234-0442
Facsimile: (570) 266-5402
E-mail: peter@mobiliowood.com
- and -
Alex A. Pisarevsky, Esq.
Erika R. Piccirillo, Esq.
COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN
& KNOPF LLP
Park 80 West-Plaza One
250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401
Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
Telephone: (201) 845-9600
Facsimile: (201) 845-9423
E-mail: ap@njlawfirm.com
ep@njlawfirm.com
CORTEVA INC: Cockerill Allowed to Amend Complaint
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT F. COCKERILL, et
al., v. CORTEVA, INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-03966-MMB (E.D.
Pa.), Hon. Judge Michael M. Baylson entered an order that the
motions to amend and further amend the complaint, as well at the
motion to modify scheduling order to postpone class certification
deadlines pending rulings on previously filed motions to amend are
granted.
The Defendants shall respond to the amended complaint within 21
days. If a motion to dismiss is filed, The Plaintiff’s response
shall be due within 10 days. Any reply brief can be filed within 7
days.
The Court will allow The Plaintiffs to amend their Class Action
Motion within 10 days, based on this ruling, allowing the amended
complaint. Responses shall be due within 30 days thereafter, and a
reply brief can be filed within 10 days after the Defendants
respond.
On December 2, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file an amended complaint, asserting that a former DuPont employee,
Mr. Oliver Major, had retained counsel to investigate whether he
had any Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)
claims arising out of his employment at DuPont.
The Plaintiffs filed this Motion to Amend to add Mr. Major as a
named The Plaintiff and to assert that, in view of the fact that
Mr. Major was over the age of 50 when he retired from DuPont, he
would have claims similar to those of the original The Plaintiffs.
Corteva provides agricultural products. The Company offers seeds
and crop protection products, as well as software solutions and
digital services.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 11, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UKY6V1 at no extra charge.[CC]
CRACKER BARREL: Seeks Clarification of Arbitration Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Andrew Harrington, Katie
Liammaytry, Jason Lenchert, and Dylan Basch, individually and
behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, v.
Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-00940-DJH
(D. Ariz.), the Defendant moves the Court for clarification or
reconsideration of order.
On multiple occasions, the Court has ordered that individuals bound
to arbitrate their Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims against
Cracker Barrel cannot join this litigation. In its most recent
Order, the Court clarified exactly who is and who is not bound by
the Arbitration Agreement.
The Court also acknowledged that the FLSA's statute of limitations
is a maximum of three years. Given these rulings from the Court,
Defendant seeks clarification to make sure FLSA conditional
certification notice is not sent to individuals whose FLSA claims
are already time-barred or who this Court has previously determined
cannot join this court action.
On November 12, 2021, the Court issued an Order holding that the
Named Plaintiffs—and any opt-in plaintiff whose claims were
subject to the arbitration agreement—were bound to resolve their
claims through arbitration, so their claims were dismissed. The
Court also granted leave for an amended complaint to be filed that
could include new Named Plaintiffs who might not be bound to
individual arbitration.
On January 21, 2022, in response to Plaintiffs Motion for
Clarification/Reconsideration, the Court issued an Order denying
Plaintiffs' request to mail Court facilitated notice to all Cracker
Barrel servers -- despite their arbitration signing status -- and
instructed that "Plaintiffs will have the opportunity to file
another motion for conditional certification if and when they
propose a class that is not subject to the Agreement."
Thes Court agrees, and instructed individuals in this matter who
signed the Agreement after turning 18 years old to "proceed with
arbitration. " The Court noted that "it is not necessary for the
Court to maintain an action with a split among Plaintiffs who are
subject to arbitration, and those who are not. "
The Defendants respectfully request the Court clarify its Order and
clarify that individuals who cannot participate (i.e. those who
signed the Agreement after turning 18 years old) should not receive
notice to participate.
Cracker Barrel is an American chain of restaurant and gift stores
with a Southern country theme.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 14, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41JotwK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
William W. Drury, Esq.
Miles M. Masog, Esq.
RENAUD COOK DRURY MESAROS, PA
One North Central, Suite 900
Phoenix, AZ 85004-4417
Telephone: (602) 307-9900
Facsimile: (602) 307-5853
E-mail: docket@rcdmlaw.com
mmasog@rcdmlaw.com
- and -
James M. Coleman, Esq.
Jason D. Friedman, Esq.
CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP
12500 Fair Lakes Circle, Suite 300
Fairfax, VA 22033-3804
Telephone: (571) 522-6111
Facsimile: (571) 522-6101
E-mail: jcoleman@constangy.com
jfriedman@constangy.com
DRESSER LLC: More Time to File Class Cert Bid Sought in Barnes
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB BARNES, et al. v.
DRESSER, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00024-DCJ-JPM (W.D. La.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their
expedited joint motion to extend deadline on motion for class
certification.
By Order of February 15, 2023, the Court directed that motions to
certify a class action, if any, be filed by April 17, 2023.
Barnes Plaintiffs, Barton Plaintiffs, Dresser Defendants, and
Halliburton are currently engaged in discussions regarding issues
pertaining to the class action allegations and request a short
continuance of the deadline -- 30 days -- to allow these
discussions to mature and potentially avoid the need for the Court
to address this issue.
These discussions have not and will not delay progression of
discovery or other progress in these proceedings. Expedited
consideration for this Motion is requested as deadlines are
approaching.
Barnes Plaintiffs, Barton Plaintiffs, Dresser Defendants, and
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. jointly move to extend all
deadlines related to class certification by 30 days.
Dresser designs, manufactures, and markets energy infrastructure
products and services. The Company offers products such as valves,
instruments, meters, natural gas fueled engines, retail fuel
dispensers, and related control systems.
A copy of the Parties motion dated April 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AmFgKC at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jimmy R. Faircloth, Jr., Esq.
Barbara Bell Melton., Esq.
Mary Katherine Price., Esq.
Richard F. Norem, III., Esq.
FAIRCLOTH MELTON SOBEL & BASH, LLC
105 Yorktown Drive
Alexandria, LA 71303
Telephone: (318) 619-7755
Facsimile: (318) 619-7744
E-mail: jfaircloth@fairclothlaw.com
bmelton@fairclothlaw.com
kprice@fairclothlaw.com
enorem@fairclothlaw.com
- and -
Lawrence J. Centola, III, Esq.
Scott R. Bickford, Esq.
Jeremy J. Landry, Esq.
Jason Z. Landry, Esq.
MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA
338 Lafayette Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 581-9065
Facsimile: (504) 581-7635
E-mail: srb@mbfirm.com
lcentola@mbfirm.com
jjj@mbfirm.com
jzl@mbfirm.com
- and -
Thomas B. Wahlder, Esq.
Stephen J. Hecker, Esq.
1740 Jackson Street
PO Box 7918
Alexandria, LA 71306
Telephone: (318) 442-9417
E-mail: twahlder@aol.com
sjheckerlaw@gmail.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Tracie J. Renfroe, Esq.
Andrew M. Stakelum, Esq.
Craig A. Stanfield, Esq.
Oliver P. Thoma, Esq.
Mitchell B. Bryant, Esq.
KING & SPALDING, LLP
1100 Louisiana St., Suite 4100
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: 713) 751-3200
Facsimile: (713) 751-3290
E-mail: trenfdroe@kslaw.com
astakelum@kslaw.com
cstanfield@kslaw.com
othoma@kslaw.com
mbbryant@kslaw.com
- and -
Eric E. Jarrell, Esq.
Robert J. Burvant, Esq.
KING & JURGENS, L.L.C.
201 St. Charles Avenue, 45th Floor
New Orleans, LA 70170
Michael J. Cerniglia, Esq.
E-mail: ejarrell@kingjurgens.com
rburvant@kingjurgens.com
mcerniglia@kingjurgens.com
- and -
Louis E. Layrisson, III, Esq.
Benjamin Gonsoulin, Esq.
J. Scott Janoe, Esq.
BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
910 Louisiana Street
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 229-1421
Facsimile: (713) 229-7721
E-mail: Louie.layrisson@bakerbotts.com
Ben.gonsoulin@bakerbotts.com
Scott.janoe@bakerbotts.com
- and -
Charles S. Weems, III, Esq.
Stephen A. LaFleur, Esq.
GOLD WEEMS BRUSER SUES & RUNDELL
PO Box 6118
2001 MacArthur Drive
Alexandria, LA 71307-6118
Telephone: (318) 445-6471
Facsimile: (318) 445-6476
E-mail: cweems@goldweems.com
slafleur@goldweems.com
EAGLE DISPOSAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bousquet Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
JEFF BOUSQUET, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EAGLE DISPOSAL, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-00504-JPS (E.D. Wis., April 19, 2023) seeks to recover from
the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Bousquet was employed by the Defendant as a front load
driver.
EAGLE DISPOSAL, INC. provides waste management services. The
Company offers dumpster rentals, waste disposal, and recycling
services. Eagle Disposal serves clients in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yingtao Ho, Esq.
THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C.
310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100 MW
Milwaukee, WI 53203
Telephone: (414) 271-4500
Facsimile: (414) 271-6308
Email: yh@previant.com
EXELA TECHNOLOGIES: Shamgunov Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BO SHEN, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. EXELA TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., RONALD COGBURN, JAMES G. REYNOLDS, and PAR CHADHA Case No.
3:20-cv-00691-D (N.D. Tex.), the Lead Plaintiff Insur Shamgunov
moves the Court for an Order:
1. Certifying this action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of
the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as a class action;
2. Defining the Class as:
"All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired
the securities of Exela Technologies, Inc. between March 16,
2018 and March 16, 2020, inclusive, and were damaged
thereby;"
Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendants; (ii) current and
former officers, employees, and directors of Exela; (iii)
blood
relatives and household members of any person excluded under
(i)
or (ii); and (iv) any entities affiliated with, controlled
by,
or more than 10% owned by, any person or entity excluded
under
(i) through (iii); and (v) the legal representatives, heirs,
successors, or assigns of any person or entity excluded under
(i) through (iv);
3. Appointing Insur Shamgunov as Class Representative for the
Class;
4. Appointing Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as Class Counsel and
The
Kendall Law Group, LLP as Local Counsel; and
5. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems
necessary and proper.
Exela is an American business process automation company. It was
created with the merger of SourceHOV LCC, Novitex Holdings, Inc.
and Quinpario Acquisition Corp.
A copy of the Lead Plaintiff's motion dated April 14, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40t19m4 at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kara M. Wolke, Esq.
Raymond D. Sulentic, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: kwolke@glancylaw.com
rsulentic@glancylaw.com
- and -
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
FATE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Johnson Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
DANNY JOHNSON; JINA CHUNG; and NAOMI BANKS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FATE INC.,
d/b/a CARTHAGE MUST BE DESTROYED; and DANIEL GOLDSTEIN, Defendants,
Case No. 1:23-cv-02898 (E.D.N.Y., April 19, 2023) is an action
against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate
wage statements.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as servers.
FATE INC., d/b/a CARTHAGE MUST BE DESTROYED owns and operates a
restaurant situated at Brooklyn, NY. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq.
THE KLEIN LAW GROUP PC
39 Broadway, Suite 1530
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 344-9022
Facsimile: (212) 344-0301
FCA US: Cranstoun Files Suit in D. Delaware
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FCA US LLC, et al.
The case is styled as David Cranstoun, Gary Eisner, Monica Lambert,
Erik Wolfmann, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FCA U.S. LLC, Stellantis, N.V., Case No.
1:23-cv-00436-UNA (D. Del., April 20, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Motor
Vehicle Product Liability.
FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.
The Company offers passenger cars, utility vehicles, mini-vans,
trucks and commercial vans, as well as distributes automotive
service parts and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ian Connor Bifferato, Esq.
THE BIFFERATO FIRM, P.A.
1007 N. Orange Street, 4th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 225-7600
Email: cbifferato@tbf.legal
FEDERICI BRANDS: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Federici Brands LLC.
The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Federici Brands LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-03379 (S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Federici Brands -- https://www.federicibrands.com/ -- (Federici
Brands LLC, US and Federici Brands LTD, UK) are privately-held
companies known for disruptive innovation in the beauty
industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
FENIX INTERNET: Doe Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as John Doe 2, John Doe 1, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fenix Internet, LLC,
Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV07094 was removed from
the Superior Court for the State of California, County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on April 20,
2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-03005 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.
Fenix Internet LLC -- http://fenixinternet.net/-- is a company
that provides internet and streaming services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Jacob Marcus Heath, Esq.
ORRICK HERRINGTON AND SUTCLIFFE LLP
Orrick Building
405 Howard Street
San Francsico, CA 94105-2669
Phone: (415) 773-5700
Fax: (415) 773-5759
Email: jheath@orrick.com
FIVE GUYS: Final Approval of Class Settlement Sought in Lusk
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned JEREMY R. LUSK, on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, v.
FIVE GUYS ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
ENCORE FGBF, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 1:17-cv-00762-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting final
approval of the Settlement and the requested attorneys' fees,
reimbursement of litigation costs, and enhancement award for
Plaintiff.
-- The Class Counsel request that the Court grant an enhancement
award of $15,000 to Plaintiff. The amount of the enhancement
award requested for Plaintiff is reasonable given the risks
undertaken by him. Taking the risk of filing a lawsuit against
an
employer deserves reward, especially in light of the
settlement
achieved by Plaintiff.
-- Additionally, Plaintiff was actively involved in the
litigation
and settlement negotiations of this Action.
-- The expenses for the Settlement Administrator, Phoenix, will
not
exceed $17,500.00. Phoenix's costs to administer this
settlement
are in line with the "reasonable" amount allocated in the
Settlement Agreement of an estimated $30,000.
The Plaintiff alleges that while working as an hourly, non-exempt
employee for Defendants, Plaintiff and class members were not
always permitted to take 30-minute meal breaks as it would be too
busy for them to do so.
The Plaintiff further alleges that Plaintiff and class members were
not always permitted to take 10-minute rest breaks for each 4-hour
work period or major fraction thereof as it would be too busy for
them to do so.
The Settlement Class
Pursuant to the Settlement terms and the Court's order granting
preliminary approval, the following Classes were certified:
1. Settlement Class:
"All persons who have been employed in California by the
Defendants as hourly-paid or "non-exempt" employees, whether
directly or through an employment agency or a professional
services organization, at any time during the period from
August
22, 2013 through May 24, 2019."
2. Waiting Time Penalty Subclass:
"All persons who have been employed in California by
Defendants
as hourly-paid or "non-exempt" employees, whether directly or
through an employment agency or a professional services
organization, at any time during the period from August 22,
2014
through May 24, 2019 and whose employment with Defendants has
been terminated at any time during this period."
3. Wage Statement/PAGA Penalty Subclass:
"All persons who have been employed in California by
Defendants
as hourly-paid or "non-exempt" employees, whether directly or
through an employment agency or a professional services
organization, at any time during the period from August 22,
2016
through May 24, 2019."
The Settlement creates a Gross Settlement Amount (GSA) of
$1,200,000.00. The GSA includes all Individual Settlement Payments
(including any employee share of payroll taxes), any Class
Representative Service Award, the PAGA Payment, Claims
Administration Costs, and the Class Counsel Payments for Fees and
Reimbursement of Costs.
Class Counsel are only seeking $ 16,657.41 in costs. After all
previously anticipated court-approved deductions from the GSA, a
Net Settlement Amount of $750,842.59 is estimated to be available
to pay the Class Members' Settlement Shares.
Five Guys is an American fast food chain focused on hamburgers, hot
dogs, and french fries.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 12, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41q1MhA at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
William M. Pao, Esq.
Jose Maria D. Patino, Jr., Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone (310) 888-7771
Facsimile (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
william@setarehlaw.com
jose@setarehlaw.com
FOUR TECHNOLOGIES: Ennis Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
BRYTON ENNIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FOUR TECHNOLOGIES INC. D/B/A PAY WITH FOUR
INC., Defendant, Case No. 171430993 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty.,
April 20, 2023) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.
FOUR TECHNOLOGIES INC. D/B/A PAY WITH FOUR INC. is a technology
company that focuses on buy now, pay later and purchase specific
financing options. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
Shannon E. Gilvey, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
shannon@jibraellaw.com
GEICO INDEMNITY: Malcom, et al., Seek Class Definition Revision
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KOSMOE MALCOM, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY,
and GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Maryland corporations, Case
No. 5:20-cv-00165-MTT (M.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs file an emergency
motion for amendment to class definition and notice.
The Plaintiffs request that the Court set an expedited briefing
schedule and/or set a hearing to address this issue and approve the
class definition amendment and revised notices GEICO has raised the
issue that on a small percentage of claims (Plaintiffs believe
approximately 3%), the vehicle FMV in the PDF manual (which is not
the proper source for FMV) had a higher valuation than in the TAVT
Assessment Manual from "Drives. "
The DOR Rule 30(b)(6) witness was clear that the DOR "Drives" data
(produced to Plaintiffs in Excel) is the proper data prepared and
maintained by the DOR pursuant to statute and is the proper data
for determining TAVT.
The Plaintiffs request a minor addition to the long form notice
clarifying this issue as follows:
The Plaintiffs seek damages based on the TAVT due on the total loss
vehicles based on the fair market value data maintained by the
Georgia Department of Revenue (DOR) pursuant to O.C.G.A. section
48-5-442.
These are the small percentage of claims for which the vehicle was
added to the TAVT Manual during the year. Because the DOR does not
record the dates that the vehicle was added to the TAVT Manual,
Plaintiffs stated in the Status Report that, in their view, it is
proper to exclude these claims from the class.
To that end, Plaintiffs believe that the class definition should be
revised as follows in redline (tracking changes from the present
definition):
"All insureds under a Georgia policy issued by GEICO covering a
private passenger auto for physical damage who submitted a
physical damage claim on a loss occurring during the period six
years before the filing of this lawsuit through December 31,
2019,
determined by GEICO to be a covered total loss claim, whose
total
loss vehicles were listed in the motor vehicle ad valorem
assessment manuals throughout the year of the in effect at the
time of loss, and whose claim's total loss payment did not
include
title ad valorem tax equal to or greater than the title ad
valorem
tax due based on the fair market value identified by the motor
vehicle ad valorem assessment manual.
In the Georgia Department of Revenue "Drives" database for the year
of loss. The class definition without changes tracked is:
All insureds under a Georgia policy issued by GEICO covering a
private passenger auto for physical damage who submitted a
physical damage claim on a loss occurring during the period six
years before the filing of this lawsuit through December 31,
2019,
determined by GEICO to be a covered total loss claim, whose
total loss vehicles were listed in the motor vehicle ad valorem
assessment manuals throughout the year of the loss, and whose
claim's total loss payment did not include title ad valorem tax
equal to or greater than the title ad valorem tax due based on
the
fair market value identified by the motor vehicle ad valorem
assessment manual in the Georgia Department of Revenue
"Drives"
database for the year of loss.
Even though such a small percentage (0.29%) of claims is affected,
Plaintiffs believe it is proper that the class definition should
reflect the resolution of this minor issue.
The Plaintiffs file this Motion to revise the class definition and
notice. Plaintiffs and Defendants (GEICO) have worked together to
finalize a class list. There remain approximately 188 claims (0.23%
of approximately 80,000 claims at issue) for which Plaintiffs are
waiting for GEICO to provide updated VINs to identify TAVT due on
the claim. GEICO's counsel has informed Plaintiffs' counsel of
their belief that this VIN production issue will be resolved in the
next several days. GEICO opposes this Motion.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 14, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KW4X9v at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher B. Hall, Esq.
HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
300 Galleria Parkway, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (404) 876-8100
Facsimile: (404) 876-3477
E-mail: chall@hallandlampros.com
- and -
W. Thomas Lacy, Esq.
LINDSEY & LACY, PC
200 Westpark Drive, Suite 280
Peachtree City, GA 30269
Telephone: (770) 486-8445
E-mail: tlacy@llptc.com
- and -
Bradley W. Pratt, Esq.
PRATT CLAY LLC
4401 Northside Parkway, Suite 520
Atlanta, GA 30327
Telephone: (404) 949-8118
E-mail: bradley@prattclay.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, PA
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
- and -
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
Facsimile (786) 623-0915
ashamis@shamsigentile.com
- and -
Rachel Dapeer, Esq.
DAPEER LAW, P.A.
300 S. Biscayne Blvd, #2704
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 610-5223
E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com
- and -
Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
Jacob L. Phillips, Esq.
NORMAND PLLC
Orlando, FL 32814-0036
Telephone: (407) 603-6031
E-mail: ed@ednormand.com
jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Seeks Partial Reconsideration of March 31 Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK D. CHAPMAN, et al.,
v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-12333-TGB-DRG (E.D. Mich.),
the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion
for partial reconsideration of March 31, 2023 Order granting in
part and denying in part plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
The Court should reconsider portions of the Class Certification
Order to correct errors of law that are outcome determinative with
respect to class certification. The grounds and legal authority in
support of this Motion are set forth in the accompanying
memorandum. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a), counsel for GM conferred
with plaintiffs' counsel and requested their consent to this
motion. The Plaintiffs informed GM that they do not consent, the
Defendant said.
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, United
States.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 14, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H0qP2v at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
April N. Ross, Esq.
Rachel P. Raphael, Esq.
CROWELL & MORING LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 624-2500
Facsimile: (202) 628-5116
E-mail: aross@crowell.com
rraphael@crowell.com
- and -
Jeffrey K. Lamb, Esq.
Adam M. Wenner, Esq.
HONINGMAN LLP
2290 First National Building
660 Woodward Avenue
Detroit, MI 48226-3506
Telephone: (313) 465-7000
Facsimile: (313) 465-7405
E-mail: jlamb@honigman.com
awenner@honigman.com
GIVAUDAN SA: Sued Over Alleged Pricing Conspiracy on Fragrances
---------------------------------------------------------------
OUR OWN CANDLE COMPANY, INC., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GIVAUDAN S.A.; GIVAUDAN FRAGRANCES
CORPORATION; GIVAUDAN FLAVORS CORPORATION; UNGERER & COMPANY, INC.;
INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES INC.; SYMRISE AG; SYMRISE INC.;
SYMRISE US LLC; FIRMENICH INTERNATIONAL S.A.; FIRMENICH
INCORPORATED; and AGILEX FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 3:23-cv-02174 (D.N.J., April 18, 2023) arises out of
Defendants' alleged violations of the Sherman Act.
Allegedly, the Defendants entered into a continuing combination or
conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade and commerce in violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act by artificially reducing or
eliminating competition for the pricing of fragrance products
directly sold to US purchasers. The Defendants' unlawful conduct
reduced competition in the fragrance market, increased prices,
reduced choice for purchasers, and caused antitrust injury to
purchasers in the form of overcharges, says the suit.
Moreover, Plaintiff seeks to secure injunctive relief and to
recover actual and compensatory damages, treble damages, interest,
costs, and attorneys' fees for the injury caused by Defendants'
wrongful conduct against Defendants for violating the Sherman Act.
Givaudan S.A. is headquartered in Vernier, Switzerland, with its
offices located at Chemin de la Parfumerie 5, 1214 Vernier,
Switzerland. Givaudan S.A. is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of Switzerland. The company is engaged in the
development, manufacture, and sale of flavors and fragrances.
Givaudan S.A. and its U.S. subsidiaries have operations, offices,
plants, and facilities located in East Hanover, NJ; Middlesex, NJ;
South Hackensack, NJ; Mount Olive, NJ; East Hanover, NJ; Towaco,
NJ; Lincoln Park, NJ; and Somerset, NJ, as well as other locations
in Illinois, Ohio, Kentucky, Florida, Nebraska, California,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
Susan R. Schwaiger, Esq.
NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (917) 438-9189
E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
schwaiger@nussbaumpc.com
- and -
Arthur N. Bailey, Esq.
RUPP PFALZGRAF, LLC
111 West 2nd Street, Suite 1100
Jamestown, NY 14701
Telephone: (716) 664-2967
Email: bailey@RuppPfalzgraf.com
GIVENCHY CORP: Rodriguez Sues Over Disclosure of Web Visitor’s
Info
---------------------------------------------------------------------
REBEKA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GIVENCHY CORPORATION, a Delaware
limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-00710-BEN-DEB (S.D. Cal., April 18, 2023) arises out of
Defendant's violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act.
Allegedly, Givenchy permits https://givenchy.com/ to host the
Facebook tracking Pixel and has configured a PageView event to
transmit data whenever a user visits the webpage. When a visitor
watches the video from its website while logged into Facebook,
Givenchy knowingly compels a visitor's browser to transmit the
c_user cookie to Facebook. The c_user cookie contains that
visitor's unencrypted Facebook ID, which is considered as
personally identifiable information. Moreover, by compelling a
visitor's browser to disclose the c_user cookie alongside event
data for videos, Givenchy knowingly discloses information
sufficiently permitting an ordinary person to identify a specific
individual's video viewing behavior, says the suit.
Givenchy is a for-profit corporation Delaware corporation with its
principal U.S. business in New York. Regarded as a high-end luxury
fashion house, it hosts the brand of haute couture and
ready-to-wear clothing, accessories, perfumes and cosmetics. It
also owns, operates, and/or controls the www.givenchy.com. [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
Telephone: (949) 706-6464
Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
GOODLEAP LLC: Puskas File Bid to Certify Classes
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN and TERESA PUSKAS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GOODLEAP, LLC, et. al., Case No. 8:23-cv-00736-SDM-TGW (M.D. Fla.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying classes,
granting leave to take discovery, and providing such further relief
as is just and proper.
The Plaintiffs seeks certification of the following classes:
-- Deception Class:
"All persons within the state of Florida who, within three
years
before the filing of this Complaint: (1) have been approached
by
Defendant, MC SOLAR, or its agent Defendant, MC CONSTRUCTION,
(2)
who were provided contracts to execute and sign, (3) without
receiving the e-sign consent as required under Florida and
Federal law, (4) who had solar panel systems installed on
their
property by MC CONSTRUCTION, MC SOLAR, or its Agents, (5) who
did
not receive the advertised benefit of the solar panel Solar
System, (a) including a working solar panel Solar System, or
(b)
elimination of a significant portion of the utility bill;"
and
-- Goodleap Financed Class:
"All persons within the state of Florida who, within three
years
before the filing of this Complaint: (1) have been approached
by
Defendant, MC SOLAR, or its agent Defendant, MC CONSTRUCTION,
(2)
who were provided contracts to execute and sign, (3) without
receiving the e-sign consent as required under Florida and
Federal law, (4) who had solar panel systems installed on
their
property by MC CONSTRUCTION, MC SOLAR, or its Agents, (5) who
did
not receive the advertised benefit of the solar panel Solar
System, (a) including a working solar panel Solar System, or
(b)
elimination of a significant portion of the utility bill, (6)
and
who financed through GOODLEAP."
On March 11, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint
against the Defendants. In the complaint, the Plaintiffs assert
five claims against the Defendants. The first is under the
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. 501.203, by
offering and selling goods and services to consumers using
deceptive acts in furtherance of their trade or commerce and by
seeking agreements in violation of state and federal law; the
second is Fraud in the Execution relating to the representations of
those sales persons that the system would meet their needs to
wholly offset and eliminate electric utility bills and the
inability of the consumer to give consent by virtue of Defendants.
GoodLeap is a finance technology company that provides financing
options for the residential solar energy industry.
A copy of the the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 12, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41q1uY2 at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryant H. Dunivan Jr., Esq.
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION
ATTORNEY, PA
301 W. Platt St., No. 216.
Tampa, FL 33606
Telephone: (813) 252-0239
Email: bryant@theconsumerprotectionattorney.com
eservice@theconsumerprotectionattorney.com
GOOGLE INC: Class Certification Hearing Extended to Jan. 25, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Google Location History Litigation,
Case No. (Court), the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila entered an order
as follows:
Event Deadline Proposed
Deadline
Joint Status Conference Jun. 16, 2023 Unchanged
Statement:
Production of custodial Jul. 28, 2023 Unchanged
ESI, final privilege logs,
and other precertification
fact discovery
Deadline to file class Oct. 13, 2023 Nov. 3,
2023
certification opposition
and serve Rule 23 expert
witness report(s), if any:
Plaintiffs file reply in Nov. 13, 2023 Dec. 15,
2023
support of motion for class
certification:
Class Certification Hearing: Dec. 14, 2023 Jan. 25,
2024
Google is an American multinational technology company focusing on
online advertising, search engine technology, cloud computing, and
computer software.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40z6Hv8 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
Bradley K. King, Esq.
Henry J. Kelston, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
2600 West Olive Ave., Suite 500
Burbank, CA 91505
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
bking@ahdootwolfson.com
hkelston@ahdootwolfson.com
- and -
Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
Melissa Gardner, Esq.
Michael Levin-Gesundheit, Esq.
Michael K. Sheen, Esq.
Jallé H. Dafa, Esq.
John D. Maher, Esq.
Nicholas Diamand, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
E-mail: msobol@lchb.com
mgardner@lchb.com
mlevin@lchb.com
msheen@lchb.com
jdafa@lchb.com
jmaher@lchb.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Benjamin Berkowitz, Esq.
Thomas E. Gorman, Esq.
Nicholas D. Marais, Esq.
Christopher S. Sun, Esq.
Christina Lee, Esq.
KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
Telephone: (415) 391-400
Facsimile: (415) 397-188
E-mail: bberkowitz@keker.com
tgorman@keker.com
nmarais@keker.com
csun@keker.com
clee@keker.com
GREATBANC TRUST: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 22
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johana Colon v. Kevin G.
Johnson, Dale L. Hersey, Nathan S. Ward, Shaun L. McGruder, Michael
L. Schmickle, Michael J. Chalhub, GreatBanc Trust Co. and John and
Jane Does 1-25, Case No. 8:22-cv-00888 (M.D. Fla.), Hon. Judge
Thomas P. Barber entered an order granting motion for miscellaneous
relief to the extent that the deadlines will be extended as
follows:
-- Third-Party Joinder/Amended June 23, 2023
Pleading deadline:
-- The Plaintiff Expert Disclosure Dec. 11, 2023
Deadline:
-- The Defendant Expert Disclosure Jan. 8, 2024
Deadline:
-- Rebuttal Expert Disclosure Feb. 6, 2024
Deadline:
-- Discovery deadline: April 5, 2024
-- Dispositive and Daubert June 6, 2024
Motion deadline:
-- Class Certification deadline: Sept. 22, 2023
The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) involving employee retirement.
GreatBanc is an independent trustee specializing in employee stock
ownership plan (ESOP) fiduciary oversight.[CC]
GUARDIAN ANALYTICS: Christiani Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTHUR CHRISTIANI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GUARDIAN ANALYTICS, INC., ACTIMIZE INC., AND
WEBSTER BANK, NA, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02158 (D.N.J., April
18, 2023) arises out of Defendants' violations of the Federal Trade
Commission Act and breach of fiduciary duties.
The Defendants allegedly failed to use reasonable measures to
protect the personally identifiable information (PII) of their
customers. On or about April 10, 2023, Defendant Webster Bank
announced that its vendor, Guardian, a subsidiary of Actimize, was
the target of a ransomware attack that affected Webster's data. An
investigation revealed that unauthorized third parties accessed
certain Guardian systems at various times between Nov. 27, 2022 and
Jan. 22, 2023. Moreover, the Plaintiff seeks for prospective
injunctive relief requiring Defendants to employ adequate security
practices consistent with law and industry standards to protect
their customer's PII, says the suit.
Guardian Analytics is a corporation organized under the laws of
Delaware, and its principal place of business is located at 221
River St., Hoboken, N J. The company is a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Actimize Inc. It provides behavioral analytics and machine
learning solutions for preventing banking fraud and anti-money
laundering. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
David C. Magagna, Esq.
Nicholas J. Elia, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut St., Ste. 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
dmagagna@lfsblaw.com
nelia@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
THE LYON LAW FIRM, LLC
2754 Erie Ave.
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Telephone: (513) 381-2333
Facsimile: (513) 766-9011
E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
GUARDIAN ANALYTICS: Sues Over Negligence and Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD MARSHALL and ANN MARIE MARSHALL, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GUARDIAN ANALYTICS,
INC.; ACTIMIZE INC.; and WEBSTER BANK, NA, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-02156-WJM-LDW (D.N.J., April 18, 2023) arises out of
Defendants' breach of implied contract and negligence by failing to
properly secure and safeguard the personal identifiable information
(PII) of their customers.
Allegedly, the Defendants' negligence resulted in the Plaintiffs'
personal identifiable information being exposed in a data breach,
causing immediate harm and making them susceptible to identity
theft and fraud. Additionally, the Defendants did not state why
they waited nearly three months before notifying Plaintiffs that
their PII was compromised in the data breach, says the suit.
Guardian Analytics, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 221 River Street, Hoboken, New NJ.
This company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Actimize Inc. It
provides behavioral analytics and machine learning solutions for
preventing banking fraud and anti-money laundering to several banks
including Webster Bank. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
David C. Magagna, Esq.
Nicholas J. Elia, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
dmagagna@lfsblaw.com
nelia@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (513) 345-8291
E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
HARVARD MAINTENANCE: Filing of Class Cert Bids Due March 29, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Baez v. Harvard
Maintenance, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-12199 (D. Mass.), Hon. Judge
Patti B. Saris entered an amended proposed scheduling order as
follows:
-- Amended Pleadings due by: July 3, 2023
-- Discovery to be completed by: Feb. 29, 2024
-- Dispositive and Class Certification March 29, 2024
Motions due by:
--Opposition due by: April 29, 2024
The nature of suit states Labor -- Other Labor Litigation.
Harvard Maintenance is a family owned provider of commercial
janitorial services in the United States.[CC]
HEALTH RECOVERY: Class Cert Hearing in Frechette Set for July 14
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIANA FRECHETTE, et al.,
v. HEALTH RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-04453-ALM-KAJ
(S.D. Ohio), Hon. Judge Algenon L. Marbley entered an order setting
date for class certification hearing on July 14, 2023.
The class certification Hearing in this case may not be continued
by stipulation of the parties or counsel, but only by an order of
the Court on good cause shown. Any request for a continuance should
be made promptly after the reason for seeking the continuance
becomes Known, the Court says.
Counsel should prepare for this hearing with the knowledge that
this Court has already studied the memoranda related to class
certification. Counsel should be prepared to answer questions
raised by the Court.
Health Recovery offers medication assisted treatment to those who
need help with alcohol and drug addiction.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41JsIs3 at no extra charge.[CC]
HEARTHSIDE FOOD: Court to Set Rule 16 Scheduling Conference
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cameron v. Hearthside Food
Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01053-MMM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the
Hon. Judge Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as
follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed.
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
Hearthside manufactures grain based food and snack products.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43Ruycr at no extra charge.[CC]
HY-VEE INC: Rodriguez Suit Seek to Certify 401(k) Plan Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THERESA L. RODRIGUEZ,
ZACHARY M. SHANK, MICHAEL P. MANSBERGER, HEIDI L. DETRA and TIM
CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. HY-VEE, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF HY-VEE, INC.,
THE HYVEE AND AFFILIATES 401(K) PLAN INVESTMENT COMMITTEE and JOHN
DOES 1-30, Case No. 4:22-cv-00072-SHL-WPK (S.D. Iowa), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order, pursuant to FED. R.
CIV. P. 23, for an Order certifying class action, appointing them
as representatives of the proposed class, and appointing their
counsel as counsel for the Class.
The Plaintiffs submit that the Court should certify the following
proposed Class:
"All persons, except Defendants and their immediate family
members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Hy-Vee
and Affiliates 401(k) Plan, at any time between March 1, 2016
through the date of judgment."
Hy-Vee is an employee-owned chain of supermarkets in the Midwestern
and Southern United States, with more than 280 locations in Iowa,
Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota,
Wisconsin, and intends to soon open locations in Indiana, Kentucky,
Tennessee, and Alabama.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 14, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AieQcC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
donr@capozziadler.com
IDT CORP: Shareholder Suit in Delaware Court Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
IDT Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended January 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 13, 2023, that in July 5, 2017,
plaintiff JDS1, LLC, on behalf of itself and all other similarly
situated stockholders of IDT's former subsidiary, Straight Path
Communications, and derivatively on behalf of Straight Path as
nominal defendant, filed a putative class action and derivative
complaint in the court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against
the company, The Patrick Henry Trust (a trust formed by Howard S.
Jonas that held record and beneficial ownership of certain shares
of Straight Path he formerly held), Howard S. Jonas, and each of
Straight Path's directors.
The complaint alleges that the company aided and abetted Straight
Path Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Davidi
Jonas, and Howard S. Jonas in his capacity as controlling
stockholder of Straight Path, in breaching their fiduciary duties
to Straight Path in connection with the settlement of claims
between Straight Path and the company related to potential
indemnification claims concerning Straight Path's obligations under
the Consent Decree it entered into with the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), as well as the sale of Straight Path's subsidiary
Straight Path IP Group, Inc. to the company in connection with that
settlement. That action was consolidated with a similar action that
was initiated by The Arbitrage Fund.
The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, (i) a declaration
that the action may be maintained as a class action or in the
alternative, that demand on the Straight Path Board is excused;
(ii) that the term sheet is invalid; (iii) awarding damages for the
unfair price stockholders received in the merger between Straight
Path and Verizon Communications Inc. for their shares of Straight
Path's Class B common stock; and (iv) ordering Howard S. Jonas,
Davidi Jonas, and the company to disgorge any profits for the
benefit of the class Plaintiffs. On August 28, 2017, the Plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint.
In September 24, 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which was ultimately denied, and which denial
was affirmed by the Delaware Supreme court. On February 17, 2022,
the court denied the company's motion for summary judgment. On
March 10, 2022, JDS1, LLC withdrew its application to serve as
class representative and lead plaintiff.
In May 16, 2022, the court denied The Arbitrage Fund's motion to
serve as class representative and lead plaintiff, and approved
intervenor Ardell Howard's motion to serve as class representative.
The trial commenced on August 29, 2022 for a period of five days,
followed by another five-day period in December 2022.
IDT Corporation is a telecommunications company based in New
Jersey.
INLINE NETWORK: Cline and Jepson Sue Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
TERRELL CLINE and EDWARD JEPSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. INLINE NETWORK
INTEGRATION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2023LA000402 (Ill. Cir., 18th
Judicial, April 18, 2023) arises out of the recent targeted
cyberattack against Defendant Inline.
According to the Notice of a Data Breach letter, Inline discovered
the Data Breach on or about Feb. 9, 2022. In mid-July 2022,
Defendant publicly disclosed that months earlier, on or about March
12, 2022, Defendant had detected "unusual activity" on its IT
servers.
Allegedly, the Defendant allowed a third party to access
Defendant’s computer systems and data, resulting in the
compromise of highly sensitive personal information belonging to
consumers whose data was within Inline's system. The Defendant
breached its duties, and thus was negligent, by failing to use
reasonable measures to protect its customer’s personal
information. Moreover, the Defendant also failed to comply with
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guidelines for cybersecurity, in
violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, says the suit.
Inline Network Integration, LLC. is an IT-managed services provider
that helps businesses across the US with IT support, systems
management, data protection services, and help desk services.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
INSOMNIA COOKIES: Williams Sues Over Managers' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL WILLIAMS, and JONN GIBSON, on their own behalf and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. INSOMNIA COOKIES, LLC d/b/a
Insomnia Cookies; SERVE U BRANDS, INC.; and SETH BERKOWITZ, Case
No. 1:23-cv-03400 (S.D.N.Y., Apr. 23, 2023) alleges that the
Defendants have willfully, maliciously, and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Missouri
wage-and-hour laws by engaging in pattern and practice of failing
to pay its employees, including the Plaintiff, minimum wage for
each hour worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked
over 40 each workweek.
From September 21, 2018, to January 6, 2021, Mr. Williams was
employed by the Defendants to work as a General Manager for the
Defendants in Missouri. He was scheduled to work for 45 hours a
week. Between November 15, 2021, and November 27, 2021, despite
working in excess of 100 hours a week, he was only paid 45 hours
for his work during this period of time. The Defendants also
improperly and unlawfully utilized Paid Time Off to pay portions of
Mr. Williams' overtime, the lawsuit claims.
From August 2018 to November 2021, excepting a six month period
during which Mr. Gibson did not work, Mr. Gibson was employed by
the Defendants to work as a General Manager for Defendants for its
three stores in St. Louis, Missouri. Mr. Gibson was scheduled to
work for 45 hours a week. At the start of Mr. Gibson's employment
up and through the pandemic, while he was paid one (1) hour extra
per week for contingencies, typically, he spend between 10 to 30
extra hours a week on his personal computer to help manage the
store. Excepting the one (1) hour, work performed outside of the
store was not recorded nor paid. Accordingly, the Defendants had a
policy and practice of refusing to pay the Plaintiff in full, and
the similarly situated collective action members, for some or all
of the hours they worked, says the suit.
Insomnia Cookies is a chain of bakeries in the United States that
specializes in delivering warm cookies, baked goods, and ice
cream.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 110
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
JOSE GARZA: More Time to Respond Sought in Fund Texas Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fund Texas Choice, et al.,
v. Jose Garza, in his official capacity as District Attorney of
Travis County, Texas, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00859-RP (W.D.
Tex.), the Plaintiffs file an unopposed motion for extension to
respond to the Defendants' motion to dismiss and to file reply:
On August 23, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint for
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. On September 27, 2022, the Court
held a preliminary injunction hearing. Following that hearing, the
Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint on October 11, 2022,
and on November 1, 2023, filed their Expedited Motion for
Certification of Defendant Class and Appointment of Class
Representatives and Class Counsel, and Brief in Support.
The Motion for Class Certification requests certification of a
defendant class of "all elected District Attorneys and County
Attorneys in the State of Texas who have the authority within their
jurisdictions to enforce through criminal prosecutions the Pre-Roe
Statutes and the Trigger Ban," and asks that the Prosecutor
Defendants be appointed as class representatives.
Attorney General Paxton filed a Motion to Dismiss on December 9,
2022. On February 24, 2023, the Court granted General Paxton's
Motion to Dismiss, dismissing all of Plaintiffs' claims against him
without prejudice and further dismissing without prejudice
Plaintiffs' claims against the Prosecutor Defendants challenging SB
8 and HB 1280.
The Court also partially granted Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction and enjoined the Prosecutor Defendants from prosecuting
Plaintiffs under the Pre-Roe Statutes while this matter is pending.
On March 24, 2023, the Prosecutor Defendants filed their Response
in Opposition to Class Certification, arguing in part that they
were not properly representative of the proposed class. Pursuant to
this Court's March 28, 2023 Text Order granting Plaintiffs' motion
for extension of time, the Plaintiffs Reply in Support of Class
Certification is currently due on April, 14, 2023.
On April 11, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File
Second Amended Complaint and Join Parties, which includes their
proposed Second Amended Complaint.
The Plaintiffs include Fund Texas Choice, The North Texas Equal
Access Fund, The Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity, Frontera
Fund, The Afiya Center, West Fund, Jane's Due Process, Clinic
Access Support Network, and Dr. Ghazaleh Moayedi, DO, MPH, FACOG.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 12, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3otKbXv at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer R. Ecklund, Esq.
Elizabeth G. Myers, Esq.
Allyn Jaqua Lowell, Esq.
John Atkins, Esq.
Elizabeth Rocha, Esq.
THOMPSON COBURN, LLP
2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 3200
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (972) 629-7100
Facsimile: (972) 629-7171)
E-mail: jecklund@thompsoncoburn.com
emyers@thompsoncoburn.com
alowell@thompsoncoburn.com
jatkins@thompsoncoburn.com
erocha@thompsoncoburn.com
- and -
Alexandra Wilson Albright, Esq.
Marcy Hogan Greer, Esq.
Kevin Dubose, Esq.
Kirsten M. Castañeda, Esq.
ALEXANDER DUBOSE &
JEFFERSON, LLP
515 Congress Ave., Suite 2350
Austin, TX 78701-3562
Telephone: (512) 482-9300
Facsimile: (512) 482-9303
E-mail: aalbright@adjtlaw.com
mgreer@adjtlaw.com
kdubose@adjtlaw.com
kcastaneda@adjtlaw.com
KANSAS CITY LIFE: Fine Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT R. FINE,
Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-02071-SSS-PD
(C.D. Cal.), Hon. Judge entered an order the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, defined as:
"All persons who own or owned a Better Life Plan, Better Life
Plan
Qualified, LifeTrack, AGP, MGP, PGP, Chapter One, Classic,
Rightrack (89), Performer (88), Performer (91), Prime Performer,
Competitor (88), Competitor (91), Executive (88), Executive
(91),
Protector 50, LewerMax, Ultra 20 (93), Competitor II, Executive
II,
Performer II, Ultra 20 (96), or Century II VUL life insurance
policy issued in California, that was issued or administered by
Defendant, or its predecessors in interest, and that was active
on
or after January 1, 2002."
Excluded from the Class is Defendant; any entity in which
Defendant
has a controlling interest; any of the officers, directors,
employees, or sales agents of the Defendant; the legal
representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns of the
Defendant;
anyone employed with Plaintiff's counsels' firms; and any Judge
to
whom this case is assigned, and his or her immediate family.
Kansas City Life Insurance Company is a public insurance company
established in 1895 and located in Kansas City, Missouri.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 14, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N552L0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
E. Scott Palmer, Esq.
Katelyn B. Hunter, Esq.
PALMER HUNTER & HALL
One Wilshire Building
624 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2200
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: 213-629-8704
Facsimile: 213-629-8703
E-mail: scott@palmerhunter.com
katelyn@palmerhunter.com
- and -
John J. Schirger, Esq.
Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC
4520 Main Street, Suite 1570
Kansas City, MO 64111
Telephone: 816-561-6500
Facsimile: 816-561-6501
E-mail: jschirger@millerschirger.com
mlytle@millerschirger.com
jfeierabend@millerschirger.com
- and -
Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
Ethan M. Lange, Esq.
Lindsay Todd Perkins, Esq.
David A. Hickey, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com
lange@stuevesiegel.com
perkins@stuevesiegel.com
hickey@stuevesiegel.com
LAMAS BEAUTY: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lamas Beauty Inc. The
case is styled as Nadreca Reid, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Lamas
Beauty Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03159 (S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Lamas Beauty Inc. is a beauty salon in Los Angeles,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
LOS ANGELES, CA: Millstein Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN MILLSTEIN,
individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; NORTH COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY and DOES
1-100, Case No. 2:21-cv-02623-MEMF-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
requests that the Court preliminarily certify collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and order that notice be
provided to the class.
The Plaintiff moves for preliminary certification of the following
classes:
-- Unpaid Overtime Wage Class:
"All current and former non-exempt hourly paid Custody
Assistants
employees that worked at the North County Correctional
Facility
who worked over 40 hours in a workweek for the County of Los
Angeles at any time within the three (3) years prior to filing
the initial Complaint through April 10, 2023 (the opt-in
period
closure date) who were not paid their overtime wages.
-- Rest Period Class:
"All current and former Custody Assistant employees who worked
as
an hourly paid non-exempt employee at the North County
Correctional Facility for the County of Los Angeles, at any
time
within the three (3) years prior to the filing of this initial
Complaint through April 10, 2023 (the opt-in period closure
date), who could not take rest breaks.
-- Bona Fide Meal Period Class:
"All current and former Custody Assistant employees who worked
as
an hourly paid non-exempt employee at the North County
Correctional Facility for the County of Los Angeles, at any
time
within the three years prior to the filing of this initial
Complaint through April 10, 2023 (the opt-in period closure
date), who did not get bona fide meal periods."
The Plaintiff Millstein asserts claims against the County of Los
Angeles for violations of the FLSA. The Plaintiff was employed
with the County as a Custody Assistant at the North County
Correctional Facility (NCCF). Ms. Millstein was not paid overtime
wages that she earned in violation of 29 U.S.C. section 207. Ms.
Millstein was not permitted to take rest breaks in violation of 29
U.S.C. section 785.18.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 14, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N6Om5O at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Evan Selik, Esq.
Christine Zaouk, Esq.
McCATHERN LLP
523 West Sixth Street, Suite 516
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Telephone: (213) 225-6150
Facsimile: (213) 225-6151
E-mail: eselik@mccathernlaw.com
czaouk@mccathernlaw.com
MARRIOTT INT'L: Hall Seeks Reconsideration of March 30 Order
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TODD HALL, KEVIN BRANCA,
and GEORGE ABDELSAYED individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 3:19-cv-01715-JO-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs move the Court for reconsideration of the Court's March
30, 2023 order granting in part and denying in part the parties’
motions for summary judgment and granting in part and denying in
part plaintiffs' motion to certify the class.
Marriott is an American multinational company that operates,
franchises, and licenses lodging including hotel, residential and
timeshare properties.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 13, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41L4Ep4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
Lilach Halperin, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 696-9006
Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
mike@consumersadvocates.com
lilach@consumersadvocates.com
- and -
Robert L. Teel, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. TEEL
1425 Broadway, Mail Code: 20-6690
Seattle, WA 98122
Telephone: (866) 833-5529
Facsimile: (855) 609-6911
E-mail: lawoffice@rlteel.com
- and -
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
MARRIOTT INT'L: Seeks to Dismiss Branca Class Suit with Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TODD HALL, KEVIN BRANCA,
and GEORGE ABDELSAYED, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 3:19-cv-01715-JO-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion for
reconsideration and dismissing the action with prejudice.
The Court said, "It was clear error to not dismiss the
"misrepresentation by omission" claim because the claim is
duplicative of the concealment claim. The Court dismissed
Plaintiffs' negligent misrepresentation claim because the
"inadequate resort fee disclosure" theory of liability is not based
on "publication of false statement. " Despite the lack of a false
statement, the Court appears to have allowed the misrepresentation
claim to survive because "fraud liability can be based on
'suppression of a fact'" thereby treating the claim as a
"misrepresentation by omission" claim."
Because Plaintiffs assert a separate "concealment" claim, the Court
should dismiss the "misrepresentation by omission" claim as
duplicative.
The Plaintiffs allege Marriott baits consumers by posting on the
first page of its three-page web flow a "from" room rate that
excludes the mandatory resort fee. Because, however, the third page
discloses the total price, inclusive of the resort fee, on summary
judgment the Court dismissed the bait-and-switch claim, noting "any
consumer's perception that the price reflected on the first page
constituted the total price is quickly and explicitly dispelled"
because the "higher total price was clearly and conspicuously
disclosed by the end of the transaction. "
Marriott is an American multinational company that operates,
franchises, and licenses lodging including hotel, residential and
timeshare properties. It is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 14, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43RlC6X at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Brett N. Taylor, Esq.
Paul Leary, Esq.
Chad E. Kurtz, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3700
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: 213-892-7900
Facsimile: 213-892-7999
E-mail: btaylor@cozen.com
pleary@cozen.com
ckurtz@cozen.com
MASON TENDERS: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Vandermark Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN VANDERMARK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MASON TENDERS DISTRICT COUNCIL WELFARE FUND;
MASON TENDERS DISTRICT COUNCIL PENSIONFUND; MASON TENDERS DISTRICT
COUNCIL ANNUITYFUND; and MASON TENDERS DISTRICT COUNCIL OF GREATER
NEW YORK, Case No. 153365/2023 (New York Sup., Apr. 13, 2023)
alleges that the Defendants failed to adopt, implement and maintain
adequate security measures to safeguard Class members' personally
identifiable information (PII) and protected health information
(PHI).
On July 7, 2022, Mason Tenders posted or caused to be posted a
notice entitled "Notice Letter of Data Incident" announcing
publicly that "unauthorized access to certain of the Funds'
computer systems" occurred between December 2, 2021 and April 18,
2022. The information taken in the Data Breach is highly sensitive
and includes names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers,
medical information and health insurance information.
The Defendants' failure to enact reasonable safeguards enabled an
unauthorized third-party to access Defendants' computer systems and
the highly sensitive and confidential data of over 20,000 victims
who entrusted their Private Information to Mason Tenders, the
Plaintiff contends.
The Defendants omits key information from its Notice Letter
letters, including the Notice Letter sent to the Plaintiff, such
as: (1) how the unauthorized intrusion occurred, (2) why the
Defendants waited from April 17, 2022 until July 7, 2022 to post a
notice informing victims that their information had been
compromised, and (3) what remedial measures Defendants were taking
to protect the data that Defendants continues to maintain to date,
the Plaintiff claims.
The Defendants have not offered the Plaintiff and the Class Members
any sort of real relief for the harm caused by the Data Breach.
Defendants has only offered Plaintiff and the Class 1 year of
credit monitoring, which is woefully insufficient given that the
types of information stolen in this Data Breach could have lasting
implications for the Plaintiff and Class Members for years to come.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members
have been exposed to a substantial and present risk of fraud and
identity theft, added the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself and
all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was
accessed during the Data Breach. The Plaintiff seeks remedies
including all forms of allowable damages, including statutory
damages, compensatory damages, nominal damages, reimbursement of
out-of-pocket costs; injunctive relief including improvements to
Defendants' data security systems, future annual audits; and
adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendants.
Mr. Vandermark is a member of Defendants' labor organization and is
a resident and citizen of the state of New York.
Mason Tenders is a New York-based labor organization which serves
employees in the construction and labor industry throughout the
Greater New York-area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq.
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
E-mail: vmaniatis@milberg.com
gklinger@milberg.com
MDL 3052: Panel Vacates Payne Suit Transfer Order
-------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district litigation captioned "In re: Kia Hyundai
Vehicle Theft Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability
Litigation," MDL No. 3052, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation vacates the
conditional transfer order of the case styled as Payne, et al. v.
Kia Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 1:22−00881 lodged in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York.
Defendant Kia America, Inc. moved to vacate the panel's order
conditionally transferring the action to MDL No. 3052. Plaintiffs
did not respond to Kia's motion.
After considering the argument of counsel, the panel concluded that
including this action in MDL No. 3052 will neither serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses, nor further the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation. In its initial transfer order,
the panel held that the Central District of California was an
appropriate forum for actions sharing factual questions concerning
allegations that certain Kia and Hyundai branded vehicles are
defective because the cars lack engine immobilizer technology. Such
technology prevents cars from being started unless a code is
transmitted from a unique smart key.
The vehicles at issue in MDL No. 3052 include 2011-2022 Kia
vehicles and 2015-2022 Hyundai vehicles that were equipped with
traditional "insert-and-turn" steel key ignition systems.
Plaintiffs argue that vehicles without immobilizer technology are
particularly susceptible to being stolen. Payne is a survivor
action brought by the mothers of two teens who died when they were
passengers in a stolen 2021 Kia Sportage. The action shares some
factual allegations with the MDL because plaintiffs make
allegations that the accident in which their children perished
would have been avoided had the 2021 Kia Sportage included an
engine immobilizer as standard equipment.
The panel is persuaded by defendant's unopposed arguments against
transferring this wrongful death action to an MDL populated by
cases containing primarily economic loss claims. Despite some
factual overlap with the MDL actions, the Payne case contains
significant and distinct questions relating to issues such as
causation and includes claims not asserted in any other MDL action
to date.
"We do not view transfer of Payne as necessary for the efficient
conduct of the MDL or of Payne," rules the panel.
Although Payne is excluded from the MDL, the parties and the
involved judges were encouraged to coordinate, where practicable,
to reduce the chance of duplicative discovery and minimize the
possibility of conflicting pretrial rulings.
A full-text copy of the court's April 7, 2023 order is available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3052-Order-Vacating_CTO-3-23.pdf
MDL 3067: Panel Denies Transfer of 3 Cases to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district action captioned "In re: TikTok In-App
Browser Consumer Privacy Litigation," MDL No. 3067, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation denied a motion to transfer three cases -- one each from
the U.S. District Courts for the Central District of California,
Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania for centralization of litigation.
Plaintiffs allege that TikTok illegally intercepts users'
communications and activities on third-party websites through the
web browser within the TikTok app. Specifically, plaintiffs assert
that, when users access third-party websites through the in-app
browser, the browser inserts JavaScript code that tracks users'
keystrokes and activities on such websites and collects all data
entered.
All actions are putative nationwide or statewide class actions
asserting claims under the Federal Wiretap Act or state
anti-wiretapping statutes. In addition, plaintiffs variously assert
claims for violation of state data privacy and consumer protection
laws, and common-law claims for invasion of privacy or unjust
enrichment.
TikTok does not dispute that the actions involve common questions
of fact and law, and that convenience and efficiency would be
served by coordinated pretrial proceedings. Instead, it argues that
it would be inefficient to create a new MDL because the actions
fall within the scope of an existing MDL concerning the TikTok app.
In the order directing centralization of that MDL, the panel stated
that those actions shared allegations that TikTok, through its
popular social networking app, engaged in "the scanning, capture,
retention, and dissemination of the facial geometry and other
biometric information of users of the app."
After centralization, the MDL appears to have expanded to include
claims that the TikTok app captured certain additional types of
data. In July 28, 2022, the court approved a class settlement that
resolved the then-pending actions. Plaintiffs contend that MDL No.
2948 was limited to claims that TikTok improperly collected users'
biometric data through the video-sharing functions of the app. They
argue that the in-app browser actions involve distinct questions of
fact and law and should be centralized as a new MDL. In response,
TikTok cites language in the consolidated class complaint,
settlement agreement, and court orders in MDL No. 2948 and argues
that the scope of the MDL expanded beyond claims relating solely to
biometric data to encompass claims relating to the improper
collection of all user data through the TikTok app.
Because the in-app browser actions raise questions relating to the
interpretation and scope of the settlement in MDL No. 2948, those
questions are most appropriately resolved by the transferee court.
It expressly retained jurisdiction over the interpretation and
enforcement of the class settlement and enjoined further litigation
by class members relating to the released claims. Certain
plaintiffs argue that the in-app browser actions should not be
included in MDL No. 2948 because the MDL was reassigned to a new
transferee judge. The reassignment of MDL No. 2948 also does not
change the fact that the transferee court retained jurisdiction to
interpret and enforce the settlement.
Accordingly, on the basis of the papers filed and the hearing
session held, the panel concluded that centralization is not
necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or to
further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Rather,
these actions will be handled most efficiently in MDL No. 2948, to
which they are transferred in an order issued concurrently with
this one. The threshold question whether the actions are subject to
the MDL No. 2948 settlement must be answered by the transferee
court. If the court concludes that some or all of the claims in the
in-app browser actions were not released under the settlement,
coordinated pretrial proceedings in those actions may proceed as
part of MDL No. 2948.
A full-text copy of the court's April 7, 2023 order is available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3067-Order-Denying_Transfer-3-23.pdf
MDL 3068: Panel Denies Transfer of Six Actions
----------------------------------------------
In multi-district case captioned "In re: Unilever Aerosol Products
Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation," MDL
No. 3068, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, denied the transfer of six
actions, specifically: two actions each from the U.S. District
Courts for the District of Connecticut and Northern District of
Illinois and one each from Northern District of Florida and the
Middle District of Louisiana to centralize litigation.
Plaintiffs allege that certain Unilever aerosol products
(antiperspirants and dry shampoo products) contained inappropriate
amounts of benzene.
After considering the argument of counsel, the panel was not
persuaded that centralization is necessary.
According to the panel, these putative nationwide class actions
share facts, in a broad sense, regarding the presence of benzene
allegedly caused by propellants used in Unilever aerosol products.
Despite the surface similarities among the actions, the aerosol
shampoo actions (five cases in four districts) appear to be
relatively distinct from the aerosol antiperspirant action (the
Northern District of Illinois Barnes action), the panel held. The
two types of cases involve different putative classes of purchasers
who bought different products, which are regulated in different
ways and were manufactured in different places and recalled at
different times. Notably, Unilever asserts that the dry shampoo
products do not contain the same propellant as the antiperspirant
products. Despite any factual and legal commonality, centralization
does not appear needed to further the just and efficient conduct of
this litigation, rules the panel.
A full-text copy of the court's April 7, 2023 order is available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3068-Order_Denying_Transfer-3-23.pdf
MDL 3070: Court Denies Centralization of Three Suits
----------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district case captioned "In re: National Grid Tax
Gross-Up Adder Litigation," MDL No. 3070, Judge Karen K. Caldwell,
Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
denied a motion for centralization of three actions pending in the
U.S. District Courts for the District of Massachusetts, Northern
District of New York and District of Rhode Island.
Plaintiffs allege in these actions that defendant utilities acted
in bad faith and imposed an unlawful charge on plaintiffs'
independent solar power generators that they wrongly claim is
required to compensate them for a purported federal tax liability.
The actions share common factual and legal questions stemming from
these allegations, which are nearly identical among the
complaints.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, the
panel concluded that centralization is not necessary for the
convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation considering that only a minimal
number of actions are involved where the moving party bore a
heavier burden of demonstrating the need for centralization. Given
that just three actions are pending, and all plaintiffs are
represented by common counsel, the common factual questions do not
appear sufficiently complex or numerous to justify creating an MDL
here. Informal coordination should be possible to avoid unnecessary
duplication of effort. This litigation is in its nascent stages,
and movants have not demonstrated consideration of alternatives to
centralization, rules the panel.
A full-text copy of the court's April 10, 2023 order is available
at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3070-Order_Denying_Transfer-3-23.pdf
MERCEDES-BENZ: Amended Class Action Claims Must be Filed by May 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDER SOWA, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC and MERCEDES-BENZ GROUP AG, Case No.
1:23-cv-00636-SEG (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Sarah E. Geraghty
entered an order establishing class certification pleading schedule
as follows:
1. The Plaintiffs may file a consolidated May 1, 2023
amended class action complaint by:
2. The Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC June 14, 2023.
shall respond to the consolidated amended
class action complaint by:
3. The Plaintiffs may file a response in July 28, 2023.
opposition to any motion to dismiss by:
4. The Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, August 25,
2023
LLC may file a reply in support of
any motion to dismiss by:
Mercedes-Benz USA is a Mercedes-Benz Group-owned distributor for
passenger cars in the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UWSyqB at no extra charge.[CC]
MIDLAND CREDIT: Pierni Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Amanda Pierni, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management Inc.,
Case No. 2383CV-00150 was removed from the Superior Court of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Plymouth County, to the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on April
18, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-10824-JGD.
The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant violated the Fair Debt
Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Krystle G. Tadesse, Esq.
LOCKE LORD LLP
2800 Financial Plaza
Providence, RI 02903
Phone: (401)-274-9200
Fax: (401) 276-6611
Email: krystle.tadesse@lockelord.com
- and -
Stephanie Sprague, Esq.
LOCKE LORD, LLP
111 Huntington Avenue
Boston, MA 02199
Phone: 617.239-0222
Email: stephanie.sprague@lockelord.com
MMM CONSUMER: Seeks Oral Argument in Eppes Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Eppes, et al. v. MMM
Consumer Brands Inc. d/b/a Marley Spoon, Case No. 1:22-cv-06341-KPF
(S.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court that oral argument be held
with respect to Marley Spoon's motion to compel arbitration or, in
the alternative, to deny class certification, in the event the
Court determines that oral argument would be useful.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 14, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mXTXAD at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael J. Grohs, Esq.
SAIBER LLC
132 West 31st Street, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (332) 240-1350
Facsimile: (973) 622-3346
E-mail: mgrohs@saiber.com
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Settlement Class Gets Certification in Douglass
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLAIR DOUGLASS, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. MONDELEZ GLOBAL
LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00875-WSH (W.D. Pa.), Hon. Judge W. Scott
Hardy entered an order granting the plaintiff's motion to certify
the class for settlement purposes and for preliminary approval of
class action settlement:
The Settlement Class is defined as:
"A national class including all Blind or Visually Disabled
individuals who use screen reader auxiliary aids to navigate
digital content and who have accessed, attempted to access, or
been
deterred from attempting to access, or who may access, attempt
to
access, or be deterred from attempting to access, the Website
from the United States."
The Court appoints and designates Mr. Douglass as representative of
the Settlement Class.
The Court appoints and designates attorneys Tucker, Abramowicz,
Steiger, and Moore as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.
A hearing shall be held before the Court on September 19, 2023 at
9:30 AM.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 13, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GYQKHG at no extra charge.[CC]
NABORS COMPLETION: Lopez to Recover Arbitration Award, Court Orders
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTONIO LOPEZ, Petitioner v. NABORS COMPLETION &
PRODUCTION SERVICES CO., a Delaware corporation, now known as C&J
Well Services, Inc., Respondent, Case No. 2:22-cv-06213-DDP-JPRx
(C.D. Cal.), Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California orders that Lopez will recover
arbitration award against NABORS, plus attorneys' fees and costs.
On April 2, 2015, two former employees of Respondent NABORS,
Brandyn Ridgeway and Tim Smith, filed a putative class action
alleging, among other things, claims under Labor Code Section
1194(a) and 1771 for failure to pay the minimum prevailing wage and
overtime, under Labor Code Section 226(e) for failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements under Labor Code Section 226(a),
and for related interest and penalties, as well as attorneys' fees
and costs, (CACD Case No. 2:15-cv-03436-DDP-VBKx; "Ridgeway class
action").
On June 29, 2015, NABORS brought a motion to compel arbitration of
Ridgeway and Smith's individual claims pursuant to 9 U.SC. Section
2, the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") and a written arbitration
agreement that included a class action waiver.
On Oct. 13, 2015, the Court denied NABORS' motion to compel
arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement unenforceable.
NABORS timely appealed the denial of its motion to compel
arbitration. On Feb. 13, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal
issued a Memorandum which reversed the Court's order denying the
motion and remanded with instructions.
On March 30, 2018, Petitioner Lopez, a putative class member in the
Ridgeway class action, commenced an individual arbitration at JAMS.
Lopez' individual claims were adjudicated by JAMS Arbitrator
Deborah Crandall Saxe, Esq. resulting in an Interim Award issued
June 22, 2022 and a Final Arbitration Award issued Aug. 30, 2022,
in favor of Lopez.
On Aug. 31, 2022, Lopez filed the instant Petition to Confirm Final
Arbitration Award, For Further Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and to
Enter Judgment Against Nabors; Nabors appeared, filed an answer and
filed a crossclaim to vacate the Final Award. On April 12, 2023,
the Court granted Lopez' motion and confirmed the Final JAMS
Arbitration Award issued by Arbitrator Deborah Crandall Saxe, Esq.
on Aug. 30, 2022, in the Arbitration JAMS Case No. 1220058989 and
denied NABORS' request to vacate the award.
Therefore, Judge Pregerson orders that Lopez will recover against
NABORS in the amount of $203,070.93 ($106,623.97 in wages and
$96,446.96 in interest (as of Jan. 10, 2022)), plus continuing
interest after Jan. 10, 2022, at 10% per annum until paid, $2,700
in penalties under Labor Code section 226, $175,406.88 in
attorneys' fees, plus $2,306.64 in costs, plus continuing interest
after Aug. 23, 2022, as awarded by the Arbitrator. He also orders
additional post-arbitration attorneys' fees in the amount of $8,455
and for costs in the amount of $402.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2023 Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3487f55k from Leagle.com.
NABORS COMPLETION: Murguia to Recover Arbitration Award, Court Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSE MURGUIA, Petitioner v. NABORS COMPLETION &
PRODUCTION SERVICES CO., a Delaware corporation, now known as C&J
Well Services, Inc., Respondent, Case No. 2:22-cv-06356-DDP-JPRx
(C.D. Cal.), Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California orders that Murguia will recover
arbitration award against NABORS, plus attorneys' fees and costs.
On April 2, 2015, two former employees of Respondent NABORS,
Brandyn Ridgeway and Tim Smith, filed a putative class action
alleging, among other things, claims under Labor Code Section
1194(a) and 1771 for failure to pay the minimum prevailing wage and
overtime, under Labor Code Section 226(e) for failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements under Labor Code Section 226(a),
and for related interest and penalties, as well as attorneys' fees
and costs, (CACD Case No. 2:15-cv-03436-DDP-VBKx; "Ridgeway class
action").
On June 29, 2015, NABORS brought a motion to compel arbitration of
Act ("FAA") and a written arbitration agreement that included a
class action waiver. On Oct. 13, 2015, the Court denied NABORS'
motion to compel arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement
unenforceable. NABORS timely appealed the denial of its motion to
compel arbitration. On Feb. 13, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeal issued a Memorandum which reversed the Court's order denying
the motion and remanded with instructions.
On March 30, 2018, Petitioner Murguia ("Murguia"), a putative class
member in the Ridgeway class action, commenced an individual
arbitration at JAMS. Murguia' individual claims were adjudicated by
JAMS Arbitrator. On Sept. 6, 2022, Murguia filed the instant
Petition to Confirm Final Arbitration Award, For Further Attorneys'
Fees and Costs, and to Enter Judgment Against Nabors. It was
granted by the Court on April 12, 2023 and the Final JAMS
Arbitration Award was confirmed.
Therefore, Judge Pregerson orders that Murguia will recover against
NABORS in the amount of $19.56 on the unpaid wages and interest
thereon at the rate of 10% per annum until wages and interest are
paid in full, $25,072.50 in penalties under Labor Code section 203,
$2,050 in penalties under Labor Code section 226, $177,391.75 in
attorney fees, and $4,391.95 in costs as awarded by the Arbitrator.
He orders additional post-arbitration attorneys' fees in the amount
of $8,039.50 and for costs in the amount of $402.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2023 Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8y79yy from Leagle.com.
NAMAN LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cunningham Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
REGINALD CUNNINGHAM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NAMAN, LLC d/b/a WAYFARER MOTEL
d/b/a SEA DUNES OCEAN FRONT MOTEL, Defendants, Case No.
4:23-cv-01632-JD (D.S.C., April 20, 2023) 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 Cunningham was employed by the Defendant as a wayfarer.
NAMAN, LLC is engaged in the hotel management and development.
[BN]
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
Email: pauld@akimlawfirm.com
blake@akimlawfirm.com
- and -
Robert M. Turkewitz, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT M. TURKEWITZ, LLC
768 St. Andrews Boulevard
Charleston, SC 29407
Telephone: (843) 628-7868
Facsimile: (843) 277-1438
Email: rob@rmtlegal.com
- and -
Brian M. Knowles, Esq.
KNOWLES LAW FIRM, PC
768 St. Andrews Blvd.
Charleston, SC 29407
Telephone: (843) 810-7596
Facsimile: (877) 408-107
Email: brian@knowlesinternational.com
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Class Settlement in Mostajo Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY MARC MOSTAJO, et
al., v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
2:17-cv-00350-DAD-AC (E.D. Cal.), Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered
an order granting motions for final approval of class action
settlement and granting motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and
incentive award.
-- The court awards the following sums:
a. Class counsel shall receive $950,000 in attorneys' fees and
$629,222.04 in expenses;
b. The Plaintiff Mostajo shall receive $25,000 as an incentive
payment;
c. The Plaintiff Queden shall receive $25,000 as an incentive
payment;
d. RG/2 shall receive $15,000 in settlement administration
costs;
and
e. The parties shall direct payment of 75% of the settlement
allocated to the PAGA payment, or $37,500, to the LWDA as
required by California law, and the remainder of the PAGA
payment, $12,500, shall be included in the net settlement
fund;
-- The parties are directed to effectuate all terms of the
settlement agreement and any deadlines or procedures for
distribution.
-- This action is dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the
terms of the parties' amended settlement agreement, with the
court specifically retaining jurisdiction over this action for
the purpose of enforcing the parties’ settlement agreement;
and
-- The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
On February 26, 2020, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. Specifically, the court certified the
following two subclasses:
(1) Subclass A, which is defined as the "class of persons employed
by Nationwide as commercial lines claims adjusters in California"
from January 9, 2013 through the date of preliminary approval; and
(2) Subclass B, which is defined as "all former California
employees employed by Nationwide" from January 9, 2013 through the
date of preliminary approval "who accrued vacation time for which
Nationwide did not pay them."
The court also appointed plaintiffs Anthony Marc Mostajo and Elaine
Quedens as class representatives, the Workman Law Firm, PC as class
counsel, and RG/2 Claims Administration, LLC as claims
administrator. Because no additional substantive issues concerning
the certification have been raised, the court does not repeat its
prior analysis here, and the court's prior appointments are
confirmed for settlement purposes.
Nationwide is an insurance and financial service company, focusing
on domestic property and casualty insurance, and life insurance.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ouzDHf at no extra charge.[CC]
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Court to Set Rule 16 Scheduling Conference
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Warhurst et al v. Navient
Solutions, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-04006-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.),
the Hon. Judge Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as
follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
Navient provides financial services.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HlhaUv at no extra charge.[CC]
NEMACOLIN WOODLANDS: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERYL HOOK, DAVID SEMAN,
BARBARA BROWN, LARRY ONDAKO and JULIA ONDAKO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NEMACOLIN WOODLANDS,
INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, d/b/a, NEMACOLIN WOODLANDS
RESORT; NEMACOLIN, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation; and NWL, CO.,
a Pennsylvania corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-00387-MPK (W.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge Maureen P. Kelly entered an order granting final
approval of class settlement class.
-- Settlement Class
The Court finally certifies class action with the class
defined
as:
"All natural living persons in the United States who obtained
a
Nemcolin Resort 400 Club Membership during the period
beginning
January 1, 1989, and ending on March 23, 2021, who did not
sell,
transfer, terminate, cancel, or otherwise relinquish his or
her
Nemacolin Resort 400 Club Membership is evidenced by
documentation maintained by Nemacolin."
The definition is inclusive of the Class Representatives. The
Class expressly excludes officers and directors of the
Nemacolin
Defendants; any parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, of the
Nemacolin Defendants; and entity in which the Nemacolin
Defendants have a controlling interest; and natural, living
person who sold, transferred, terminated, cancelled, or
otherwise
relinquished his or her Nemacolin Resort 400 Club Membership ;
any person deceased as of December 14, 2022 who had a
Nemacolin
Resort 40 Club Membership; all judges assigned to hear any
aspect
of this litigation, as well as their immediate family members;
all persons and entities that have released Claims described
prior to the Court's preliminary approval of the Settlement
Class; and government entities; and any persons who timely and
validly excluded himself or herself from the Settlement Class
in
accordance with the procedures approved by the Court.
-- Designation of Class Representatives and Class Counsel:
The Court confirms the prior appointments of the Plaintiffs
Cheryl Hook, David Seman, Barbara Brown, Larry Ondako, and
Julia
Ondako as the Class Representatives, and counsel of record,
Joy
D. Llaguno and the attorneys of Hook & Hook PLLC representing
the
Class Representatives in this action as class counsel.
-- Attorney's Fees and Expenses
The Court finds that an award of $3 million in attorneys' fees
and $17,772.53 in costs and expenses is fair and reasonable,
and
the Court approves of Class Counsel's attorney's fees, costs,
and
expenses.
Nemacolin Woodlands provides hospitality services.
A copy of the Court's order dated April13, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AhRggl at no extra charge.[CC]
NV PROPERTY: Final Approval of Class Settlement Sought in Merced
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEON MERCED, an
individual; SERTHA EVANS, an individual; and each of them on behalf
of all others similarly situated. v. NV PROPERTY, LLC d/b/a THE
COSMOPOLITAN OF LAS VEGAS; DOES I through V, inclusive; and ROE
CORPORATIONS I through V, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-00920-RFB-VCF
(D. Nev.), the Parties request that the Court grant their joint
motion for final certification of the collective action and for
final approval of collective action settlement.
The Settlement in this lawsuit resulted only after significant
negotiations with a skilled mediator. Prior to the Settlement, the
Parties, who at all times have been fully and adequately
represented by counsel, had full opportunity to analyze the
pertinent factual and legal issues and assess the strengths and
weaknesses of the claims and defenses at issue.
The Parties disagree about the merits of Plaintiffs' claims and the
viability of Defendant's various defenses. If the litigation had
continued, Plaintiffs would have faced many obstacles, including
decertification of the collective action under Section 216(b) of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Plaintiff could also lose up
to 50% of the total value of their FLSA claims if Defendant
successfully proved its good faith defense against liquidated
damages.
Finally, the proposed Net Settlement Fund distribution to each of
the class members is fair and equitable. The Net Settlement Fund
amounts are tailored to each of the GSR Claimant's actual damages
based upon the number of weeks they worked during the relevant time
period and the actual tips they would have received for work during
that time period had the alleged managers and supervisors not been
included in the tip pool. High Limits Cage Cashier Claimants will
each receive a fixed sum of $50.00.
This matter arises from the Plaintiffs' employment with The
Cosmopolitan, a hotel and casino on the Las Vegas strip with a
variety of gaming operations, including slot machines. Plaintiffs
worked as Guest Services Representatives ("GSRs") in the
Defendant's Slot Department.
On May 21, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a collective and class action
Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada against Defendant. The Plaintiffs allege that, during their
employment, they and other similarlysituated GSRs were required to
participate in the Slot Department tip pool with management in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as amended March
23, 2018. The Plaintiffs allege that Assistant Slot Shift Managers
("ASMs"), who both contributed and withdrew amounts from the Slot
Department tip pool, were "managers" for purposes of Section 3(m),
and thus should not have been allowed to participate in the tip
pool with GSRs.
-- The Settlement Fund
The Settlement provides for a maximum settlement amount of
$863,040.00. The following approximate amounts will be set up
from the Settlement Fund:
1. A maximum amount up to $608,290.00 for Plaintiffs’ FLSA
claims
(the FLSA Opt-In Fund);
2. $15,000.00 each to Plaintiff Deon Merced and Sertha Evans as
a
service award for their participation in the lawsuit, and in
exchange for their execution of General Releases (the Service
Awards);
3. $215,760.00 for the Plaintiffs' Counsel's attorneys' fees and
$8,000.00 costs (the Fees and Costs Fund).
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 14, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H4iDhE at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sean K. Claggett, Esq.
CLAGGETT & SYKES LAW FIRM
4101 Meadows Lane, Suite 100
Las Vegas, NE 89107
The Defendant is represented by:
Lisa A. Mcclane, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
Nevada Bar No. 10139
300 South Fourth Street, Suite 1500
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Telephone: (702) 252-3131
Facsimile: (702) 252-7411
E-mail Address: lmcclane@fisherphillips.com
OCEANPARK APARTMENTS: McShane Seeks Proper Minimum & OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
ERIN MCSHANE, an individual, v. OCEANPARK APARTMENTS LLC dba
HOLLYWOOD LANDMARK, LLC, a California company; ALIHABIBI
MANAGEMENT, LLC, a California company; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 23STCV07118 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
March 30, 2023) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the
Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other members of the
general public similarly situated, stemming from the Defendants'
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime compensation,
failure to provide rest day, failure to pay unpaid meal period
premiums, failure to reimburse necessary business expenses, failure
to provide accurate wage statements, misclassification as
independent contractor, unfair labor practices, and wrongful
termination in violation of the California Labor Code.
Hollywood Landmark is in the real estate brokers and agents
business. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rotem Tamir, Esq.
BLUESTONE LAW
6380 Wilshire, Suite 1606
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Telephone: (310) 363-0975
E-mail: rotem@bluestone.law
OHLA USA: Escobedo Sues Over Alleged Labor Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Ignacio Jr Escobedo, 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. OHLA USA, INC., a Delaware
corporation; VICTOR CHAIREZ, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCVOS617 (Cal. Super., April 18,
2023) arises out of Defendants' violations of the California Labor
Code.
The Defendants employed Plaintiff Escobedo as a nonexempt employee,
with duties that included mechanical piping, moving sand, and
pumping water. Mr. Escobedo worked for Defendants from
approximately October 2021 through approximately December 2022.
Allegedly, the Defendants violated the Labor Code by, among other
things, failing to provide Escobedo a 30-minute uninterrupted,
timely, and complete meal period for days on which he worked in
excess of five and 10 hours per day. The Defendants also failed to
furnish Escobedo with itemized wage statements, says the suit.
OHLA is a Delaware corporation doing business in the County of Los
Angeles, State of California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq.
Jean H. Power, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 438-5555
Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com
jeff@tomorrowlaw.com
jean@tomorrowlaw.com
ONPOINT COMMUNITY: Filing of Class Cert Bid in Granados Due Oct. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Granados v. OnPoint
Community Credit Union, Case No. 3:21-cv-00847 (D. Or.), Hon. Judge
Michael H. Simon entered an order on motion for extension of
discovery & PTO deadlines as follows:
(1) Discovery is to be completed by: July 17, 2023
(2) Both parties' opening expert July 31, 2023
reports are due by:
(3) Both parties' rebuttal reports are August 29, 2023
due by:
(4) Expert discovery to be completed September 28,
2023
By:
(5) Plaintiff's motion for class October 16, 2023
certification is due by:
(6) Defendant's opposition to class November 15, 2023
certification is due by:
(7) The Plaintiff's reply is due November 29, 2023
By:
The nature of suit states other Statutes -- other statutory
actions.[CC]
ORLANDO HEALTH: Obie Sues Over Dispute Concerning Medical Bills
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Obie, individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated
v. Orlando Health, Inc. d/b/a Bayfront Health St. Petersburg, Case
No. 23-006613-CI (Fla. 6th Judicial Cir. Ct., Pinellas Cty., April
17, 2023), is brought for violations of the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUPTA") and/or the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act (the "FCCPA"), involving a dispute
concerning the amount of medical bills that can be lawfully charged
by the Hospital to their patients, when their patients are covered
by personal injury protection ("PIP") insurance and the patients'
insurer has limited reimbursement pursuant to the "schedule of
maximum charges."
According to Section 627.736(1)(a), Florida Statutes, PIP insurance
must generally cover 80% of reasonable medical expenses, up to
$10,000.00, for injuries sustained by the insured in a motor
vehicle accident. According to Section 627.736(5)(a)1, Florida
Statutes, the PIP insurer may limit its reimbursement of medical
expenses to 80% of the "schedule of maximum charges." Moreover,
under Section 627.736(5)(a)4, the Hospital is also prohibited from
billing or attempting to collect from the insured any more than the
20% coinsurance amount for the patient's medical bill
Despite the provisions of Section 627.736(5)(a)1 and 4, the
Hospital has, and at all material times has had, a routine,
continuing, and ongoing business practice of unlawfully,
unconscionably, unfairly, and/or deceptively overcharging, billing,
and attempting to collect from PIP insureds charges that exceed the
limits set forth in Section 627.736(5)(a)1 and 4, and in violation
of FDUTPA and/or the FCCPA.
The Plaintiff was a contracting party and/or a named insured and/or
an omnibus insured under an automobile insurance policy issued by
USAA General Indemnity Company (the "PIP Insurer"). The insurance
policy was in full force and effect, and provided PIP coverage as
required by law to comply with the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault
Law.
On October 10, 2022, the Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle
accident, and as a result, he sustained bodily injuries related to
the operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle.
The Plaintiff subsequently sought and received emergency medical
services and care for his injuries from the Hospital that were
covered by his PIP insurance. It is the Hospital's routine practice
to require patients covered by PIP insurance to sign standard form
patient agreements and assignments of benefits. The Plaintiff
signed the Hospital's standard form patient agreement, but is not
in possession of the document and anticipates it will be produced
in discovery by the Hospital. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend
this Complaint upon receipt of the Hospital's standard form patient
agreement to allege any breach of contract count applicable to the
Hospital's conduct complained of herein.
Despite the statutory discount afforded by Section 627.736(5)(a)1.b
and despite the prohibition against balance-billing and collection
practices described in Section 627.736(5)(a)4, the Hospital billed
and attempted to collect from the Plaintiff the full unpaid balance
of the 80% portion of the medical bill that was satisfied by the
PIP Insurer's payment of PIP benefits.
Despite the Plaintiff's subsequent request and notice to the
Hospital of its illegal balance billing, the Hospital refused to
adjust and reduce its overcharges to reflect the statutory discount
imposed by the PIP statute, and instead, continued to insist that
the Plaintiff must pay the entire unpaid balance of its bill in
violation of Section 627.736(5)(a)1 and 4. Thereafter, the
Plaintiff, in order to shield himself from future legal action, to
avoid potential damage to his credit rating, and to avoid continued
debt collection, asked his attorneys to hold in trust the full
amount of his claimed outstanding balance of the Hospital's bill,
thereby depriving him of the use of said funds.
As result of the Hospital's billing and collection practices, the
Hospital caused the Plaintiff to incur actual damages in the amount
of the mandatory Section 627.736(5)(a)4 reduction that the Hospital
refused to apply to its bill. The Hospital's billing and collection
practices described herein are routine, longstanding, ongoing, and
continuing in nature, and have been in place during the five-year
time period preceding the filing of this lawsuit, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was a contracting party.
The Hospital is licensed to operate under Chapter 395.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott R. Jeeves, Esq.
Kyle W. Woodford Esq.
JEEVES LAW GROUP, P.A.
2132 Central Avenue
St. Petersburg, FL 33712
Phone: (727) 894-2929
Primary: sjeeves@jeeveslawgroup.com
kwoodford@jeeveslawgroup.com
Secondary: khill@jeeveslawgroup.com
- and -
Craig E. Rothburd, Esq.
Dylan J. Thatcher, Esq.
CRAIG E. ROTHBURD, P.A.
320 W. Kennedy Blvd., suite 700
Tampa, FL 33606
Phone: (813) 251-8800
Primary Email: craig@rothburdpa.com
dylan@rothburdpa.com
Secondary Email: maria@rothburdpa.com
- and -
Casim Adam Neff, Esq.
NEFF INSURANCE LAW, PLLC
4051 27th Avenue North
St. Petersburg, FL 33713
Phone: (727) 342-0617
Email: cneff@neffmsurancelaw.com
PAMPERED CHEF: Discloses Visitor’s Sensitive Info, Rodriguez Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
REBEKA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PAMPERED CHEF, LTD., an
Illinois limited liability corporation, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-02920 (C.D. Cal., April 18, 2023), arises out of
Defendant's actions that violated the Video Privacy Protection
Act.
Whenever someone watches a video on www.pamperedchef.com, the
Defendant allegedly reports all the details to Google and Meta,
Inc. (and its subsidiary Facebook. The details include the
visitor's personally identifiable information and the titles
watched. The Defendant knowingly permits its website to host the
Facebook tracking Pixel which transmits numerous distinct events to
Facebook. In addition, the Defendant's actions also readily permit
Google and an ordinary person to identify Plaintiff's
video-watching behavior, says the suit.
Pampered Chef, Ltd. is a for-profit corporation with its principal
place of business in Addison, IL. It is a multinational multi-level
marketing company that offers a line of kitchen tools, food
products, and cookbooks. It owns, operates, and/or controls the
website, www.pamperedchef.com. [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
Telephone: (949) 706-6464
Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
PLDT INC: Faces Olsson Shareholder Suit in California Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
PLDT Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F/A report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 27, 2023, that on February 6, 2023, plaintiff
Sophia Olsson filed a putative class action suit in the United
States District court for the Central District of California
alleging that PLDT, Inc. and nine of its current and former
directors and officers made materially false and misleading
statements regarding capital expenditures during the period 2019 to
2022.
Plaintiff asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
United States Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (and related
rules) but does not specify purported damages.
PLDT Inc. Is a telecommunications company based in the Philippines.
POLARITYTE INC: Faces Richfield Shareholder Suit
------------------------------------------------
Polarityte, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal
year January 28, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 27, 2023, that in September 24, 2021, a class
action complaint alleging violations of federal securities laws was
filed in the United States District court, District of Utah, by
Marc Richfield against the company and certain officers of the
company.
The court subsequently appointed a Lead Plaintiff and ordered the
Lead Plaintiff to file an amended Complaint by February 7, 2022,
which was extended to February 21, 2022. The Lead Plaintiff filed
an amended complaint on February 21, 2022, against the company, two
current officers of the company, and three former officers of the
company.
The complaint alleges that during the period from January 30, 2018,
through November 9, 2021, the defendants made or were responsible
for, disseminating information to the public through reports filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission and other channels that
contained material misstatements or omissions in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 adopted thereunder. Specifically,
the Complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented or failed
to disclose that: (i) the company's product, "SkinTE" Collagen
Sparkling Tea was improperly registered as a Human Cells, Tissues,
and Cellular and tissue-based products (HCT/P) under Section 361 of
the Public Health Service Act and that, as a result, the company's
ability to commercialize SkinTE as a 361 HCT/P was not sustainable
because it was inevitable SkinTE would need to be registered under
Section 351 of the Public Health Service Act; (ii) the company
characterized itself as a commercial stage company when it knew
sales of SkinTE as a 361 HCT/P were unsustainable and that, as a
result, it would need to file an IND and become a development stage
company; (iii) issues arising from an FDA inspection of the
company's facility in July 2018, were not resolved even though the
company stated they were resolved; and (iv) the IND for SkinTE was
deficient with respect to certain chemistry, manufacturing, and
control items, including items identified by the FDA in July 2018,
and as a result it was unlikely that the FDA would approve the IND
in the form it was originally filed.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a claim, on April 22, 2022. The Lead Plaintiff filed its
memorandum in opposition to the company's motion to dismiss on July
18, 2022. The company filed its reply memorandum to the Lead
Plaintiff's opposition memorandum on August 11, 2022, and oral
argument on the motion to dismiss was held September 8, 2022. At
the hearing the judge issued a ruling from the bench dismissing the
Complaint without prejudice and granting the Lead Plaintiff leave
to file an amended complaint.
The Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in October 3, 2022,
alleging additional facts. The company filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint for failure to state a claim on November 2, 2022,
Lead Plaintiff filed its brief in opposition to the company's
motion on December 2, 2022, and the company filed its reply brief
to the Lead Plaintiff brief in opposition on December 23, 2022.
Oral argument on the company's motion to dismiss the complaint was
held March 6, 2023.
Polarityte, Inc. is a biotechnology company developing regenerative
tissue products and biomaterials based in Utah.
PREMIUM CHOICE: More Time to File Class Status Bid Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VIRGINIA JOHNSON-GRUVER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PREMIUM CHOICE INSURANCE SERVICES, Case No. 2:23-cv-00247-RGK-AGR
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
extending the motion for class certification deadline.
On January 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a class action complaint
against the Defendant. On January 26, 2023, Plaintiff effected
service of process on Defendant.
Accordingly, pursuant to the Court's standing order, Plaintiff’s
motion for class certification is due to be filed by April 13,
2023. On March 17, 2023, Defendant filed its answer to the
complaint.
On March 20, 2023, the Court entered an Order setting the
scheduling conference in this action for April 24, 2023. On April
3, 2023, the parties conducted their Rule 26 conference.
On April 4, 2023, Plaintiff served an initial set of discovery on
Defendant. Although Plaintiff has been diligently investigating her
claims and served discovery as soon as discovery was open,
Plaintiff has not had the benefit of taking discovery prior to the
class certification deadline.
Premium Choice is a family-owned and operated broker provider
offering affordable Life and Medicare options.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UNm9mj at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: rachel@kaufmanpa.com
PRINCIPAL NATIONAL: Filing of Class Cert Bids Due March 1, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Varian et al v. Principal
National Life Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00051
(E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered a class
action scheduling order as follows:
-- Mid-Discovery Status Conference set for: Oct. 10, 2023
-- Designation of Expert Witnesses due by: Nov. 3, 2023
-- Rebuttal Designation of Expert Dec. 1, 2023
Witnesses due by:
-- Expert Discovery due by: Dec. 26, 2024
-- Class Certification Motions filed by: March 1, 2024
-- Responses due by: March 22, 2024
-- Replies due by: April 5, 2024
-- Class Certification Motion Hearing April 26, 2024
set for:
The nature of suit states Diversity-Insurance Contract.
Principal National Life Insurance was founded in 1879 by a banker
named Edward Temple.[CC]
PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Rule 23 Class Certification Sought in Jones
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC JONES and HERBERT
BOWENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY and ARTISAN
AND TRUCKERS CASUALTY COMPANY, Ohio Corporations, Case No.
2:22-cv-00364-PP (Court), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an
order granting their motion for class certification pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23:
-- Progressive Universal Class:
"All persons who made a first-party claim on a policy of
insurance issued by Progressive Universal Insurance Company
to a
Wisconsin resident who, from March 23, 2016, through the date
an
order granting class certification is entered, received
compensation for the total loss of a covered vehicle where
that
compensation was based on an Instant Report prepared by
Mitchell
(i.e. Report code = "COMP") and the actual cash value was
decreased based upon Projected Sold Adjustments to the
comparable vehicles used to determine actual cash value."
-- Artisan and Truckers Class:
"All persons who made a first-party claim on a policy of
insurance issued by Artisan and Truckers Casualty Company to
a
Wisconsin resident who, from August 8, 2016, through the date
an
order granting class certification is entered, received
compensation for the total loss of a covered vehicle where
that
compensation was based on an Instant Report prepared by
Mitchell
(i.e. Report code = "COMP") and the actual cash value was
decreased based upon Projected Sold Adjustments to the
comparable vehicles used to determine actual cash value."
All prerequisites for class certification set forth in Rule 23(a)
are satisfied, and class treatment is proper under Rule 23(b)(3),
the Plaintiffs contend.
The Plaintiff Jones' PSA damages are $678.71, and Plaintiff Bowens'
PSA damages are $641.23. This is a relatively small amount compared
to the cost of litigating against a large insurance company. In
Amchem, the Supreme Court noted that the central policy underlying
the class action mechanism is "to overcome the problem that small
recoveries do not provide the incentive for any individual to bring
a solo action prosecuting his or her rights."
Progressive Universal operates as an insurance firm.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 14, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mS4zB5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 N.E. 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
Chris Gold, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (786) 289-9471
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
chris@edelsberglaw.com
- and -
Hank Bates, Esq.
Lee Lowther, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
519 W 7th St
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 312-8500
Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com
llowther@cbplaw.com
QUALITY RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Servers' Minimum & OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
SHAVONNE WARREN v. QUALITY RESTAURANT CONCEPTS, LLC D/B/A
APPLEBEE'S GRILL & BAR, Case No. 2:23-cv-00516-JHE (N.D. Ala., Apr.
21, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, and
as a collective action on behalf of herself and similarly situated
servers that were illegally denied minimum wages and overtime
Compensation, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendant has had a uniform policy and practice of improperly
claiming a tip credit against its minimum wage obligations for
required and substantial non-tipped hours worked. The Defendant
also has had a uniform policy and practice of failing to pay
servers overtime at appropriate overtime rates for hours worked in
excess of 40 in a week, the lawsuit contends.
Accordingly, to avoid discipline, at a minimum, the Plaintiff and
others similarly situated had to clock-in and begin work at least
10-minutes before their scheduled working hours and stay at least
five (5) minutes after their scheduled hours. The Defendant
allegedly failed to pay Plaintiff and others similarly situated the
minimum wage of $7.25 per hour for all hours worked, tipped and
non-tipped, says the suit.
While working for the Defendant, the Plaintiff and others similarly
situated often worked more than 40 hours during a workweek, and as
many as 70 hours. The Defendant also allegedly failed to pay the
Plaintiff and others similarly situated at the rate of one and one
half times the rate of $7.25 for hour worked in excess of 40,
Monday to Saturday, the suit further asserts.
Shavonne Warren, is a citizen of the United States and a resident
of Alabama. The Defendant employed the Plaintiff in Birmingham,
Alabama.
Quality Restaurant operates in a restaurant setting and provides
casual food dining under the Applebee's brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert J. Camp, Esq.
WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS,
FISHER & GOLDFARB, LLC
The Kress Building
301 19th Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 314-0500
Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
RAIL DELIVERY: C.D. California Enters Final Judgment in Canava Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California enters Final Judgment in the case,
SALVADOR CANAVA, et al., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RAIL DELIVERY SERVICES,
INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00401-SB-KK
(C.D. Cal.).
For the reasons stated in the separate order granting the
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement and the Plaintiffs' Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees
and Expenses and Service Awards, Judge Blumenfeld approves the
proposed Settlement and the PAGA Payment as fair, reasonable, and
adequate for the Settlement Class.
Judge Blumenfeld approves the following payments:
a. The requested Service Payments of $10,000 for each of the
three Named Plaintiffs (Salvador Canava, Jesus Dominguez, and Omar
Rivera) and $5,000 for each of the three Testifying Class Members
(Cesar Ruiz, Rahul Sethi, and Zachary Wimberly);
b. The Class Counsel's requested fee award of $1.5 million;
c. The Class Counsel's expenses of $357,826.76; and
d. An award of $26,000 to Settlement Services, Inc.
The Clerk will enter Final Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
It is a final judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2023 Final Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4unm9umm from Leagle.com.
REGIONAL EXPRESS: Dixon Seeks to Certify Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CYLE DIXON, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. REGIONAL EXPRESS CLEV
INC., ET AL., Case No. 1:22-cv-02288-DAR (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:
1. Conditionally certifying this case as a collective action
under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on behalf of
Representative
Plaintiff and others similarly situated;
2. Directing that notice be sent by United States mail, email,
and
text message to the following:
"All current and former hourly delivery drivers who worked 40
or
more hours during a workweek at any time from December 20,
2019,
to the present;"
3. Approving the proposed Notice and Consent to Join form;
4. Directing the Defendants to provide within 14 days a
spreadsheet
in Microsoft Excel or comma-delimited format a Roster of all
individuals that fit the definition above that includes their
full names, dates of employment, last known home addresses,
personal email addresses, and phone numbers;
5. Directing Defendants to provide a declaration that the
produced
Roster fully complies with the Court's Order; and
6. Directing that duplicate copies of the Notice may be sent in
the
event new, updated, or corrected mailing addresses, email
addresses, or phone numbers are found for any potential
opt-in
plaintiff.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 14, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40AtE0V at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
1360 E 9th St., Suite 808
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 230-2955
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
RIBBON HOME: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due July 28
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAMARIA LYNN WILLIAMS, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. RIBBON
HOME, INC., f/k/a ACHIEVE, INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-02873-JLB-JSS
(M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge John L. Badalamenti entered a case
management and scheduling order as follows:
Rule 26(a)(2) Expert
Disclosures:
-- Plaintiff: Nov. 17, 2023
-- Defendant: Dec. 1, 2023
-- Rebuttal: Dec. 15, 2023
Discovery and Motions to Jan. 15, 2024
Compel Discovery:
Motions for Class Certification July 28, 2023
(if applicable)
Mediation: Feb. 5, 2024
Ribbon Home provides software solutions. The Company offers
platform for buying and selling of home.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MXAVEZ at no extra charge.[CC]
RITE AID: Class Cert Discovery Denied w/o Prejudice in Stafford
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRYON STAFFORD,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
RITE AID CORPORATION, Case No. 3:17-cv-01340-TWR-AHG (S.D. Cal.),
Hon. Judge Allison Goddard entered an order:
1. denying without prejudice motion for entry of order
concerning
discovery and other pretrial matters;
2. setting status conference; and
3. setting mandatory settlement conference.
Before the Court is the parties' joint motion for entry of
stipulation and proposed order concerning discovery and other
pretrial matters. In the joint motion, the parties request that the
Court dismiss without prejudice Plaintiff Robert Josten and the
operative Josten Complaint, permit a new additional plaintiff to
file a Motion for Intervention by May 1, 2023, and extend the
deadlines in the case schedule by approximately four months each.
The parties seek such a lengthy extension of the case schedule not
only to conduct discovery regarding the anticipated new plaintiff,
but also to complete other outstanding discovery, including
class-wide discovery, depositions and/or document discovery of
third parties, and additional discovery regarding Defendant Rite
Aid's transactional data.
Although the Court recognizes that the requested dismissal of
Plaintiff Josten and anticipated motion to intervene by a new
plaintiff may require some additional discovery, the Court finds
the parties have not shown good cause to grant a four-month
carte-blanche extension of the case schedule. In particular, the
parties have not established that they have acted diligently to
complete class-wide discovery, third-party deposition and document
discovery, and discovery regarding Rite Aid's transactional data in
the seven months since the stay was lifted in this case (or in the
five months since the Court issued the operative Scheduling Order).
-- No later than May 19, 2023, counsel for each party shall send
an
email to the Court at efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov
containing
the following:
a. The name and title of each participant, including all
parties
and party representatives with full settlement authority,
claims adjusters for insured defendants, and the primary
attorney(s) responsible for the litigation;
b. An email address for each participant to receive the Zoom
video conference invitation;
c. A telephone number where each participant may be reached;
and
d. A cell phone number for that party's preferred point of
contact (and the name of the individual whose cell phone
it
is) for the Court to use during the conference to alert
counsel via text message that the Court will soon return
to
that party’s Breakout Room, to avoid any unexpected
interruptions of confidential discussions
-- Counsel are advised that although the Settlement Conference
will
take place on Zoom, all participants shall appear and conduct
themselves as if it is proceeding in a courtroom, including
by
dressing in appropriate courtroom attire.
Rite Aid is an American drugstore chain based in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Nfxl9F at no extra charge.[CC]
RUBY HOLLOW: McGowan, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY MCGOWAN, ROBERT W.
BRUDERMAN, THE JOHN W. TEMPLE REVOCABLE TRUST, and THE MORRISON
FAMILY TRUST, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, v. GEOFF STANLEY, DOUGLAS MEADOW, RUBY HOLLOW LLC, and
JOHN DOES 1 through 10, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-06971-DLC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
certifying Rule 23 Class Action.
Ruby Hollow operates as an investment company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 14, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N54R2i at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ambrose Madison Richardson
40 Wall St., 35th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 26700
E-mail: arichards@solblum.com
SAN JOSE, CA: Plaintiffs Seek Reconsideration of April 17 Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NAACP OF SAN JOSE/ SILICON
VALLEY; ET AL., v. CITY OF SAN JOSE; ET AL., Case No.
4:21-cv-01705-PJH (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move for
reconsideration of the Court's April 7, 2023.
The Plaintiffs move for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 54 and
Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(1), (2) and (3) and request that the court not
preclude Mr. Acosta from pursuing a wage loss claim.
San Jose is a large city surrounded by rolling hills in Silicon
Valley, a major technology hub in California's Bay Area.
Architectural landmarks, from the 1883 Italianate-style Oddfellows
building to Spanish Colonial Revival structures, make up the
downtown historic district. The downtown area is also home to the
Tech Museum of Innovation, devoted to the exploration of science
and technology.
Mr. Acosta was an innocent bystander trying to get home when his
eye was violently destroyed by a police munition without any even
alleged justification. This traumatic event affected every aspect
of his life. His self perception was drastically altered and he
struggled with PTSD, anxiety and depression. Formerly a very
successful, career focused person who still holds a very well paid
position as a senior engineering manager at Apple, Mr. Acosta has
struggled but thus far persevered in working full time in his same
position. But like the physical complications of his severe eye
injury, Mr. Acosta's mental health and employment issues continued
to develop after the discovery cut off.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 14, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AqRTnD at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rachel Lederman, Esq.
RACHEL LEDERMAN & ALEXSIS C. BEACH,
P.O. Box 40339
San Francisco, CA 94140-0339
Telephone: (415) 282-9300
E-mail: rachel@sfbla.com
- and -
Tifanei Moyer, Esq.
LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS OF
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
131 Steuart Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 543-9444
E-mail: tmoyer@lccrsf.org
- and -
R. Michael Flynn, Esq.
FLYNN LAW OFFICE
1720 Broadway, Ste 430
Oakland CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 893-3226
E-mail: michael@flo-law.com
- and -
James B. Chanin, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JAMES B. CHANIN
3050 Shattuck Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94705
Telephone: (510) 848-4752, Ext. 2
E-mail: jbcofc@aol.com
- and -
Chris Johnson, Esq.
Alicia J. Donahue, Esq.
Tammy B. Webb, Esq. SBN 227593
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
555 Mission Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 544-1900
E-mail: cjohnson@shb.com
adonohue@shb.com
- and -
Mitchell Engel, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
2555 Grand Blvd.
Kansas City, MO 64108-2613
Telephone: (816) 474-6550
E-mail: mengel@shb.com
SEPHORA USA: Femmer Seeks Final Nod of Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIFFANY FEMMER on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. SEPHORA USA, INC.,
Case No. 4:20-cv-00676-JMB (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order:
(1) finding that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate;
(2) granting final approval to the Settlement;
(3) approving Plaintiff's request for an award of attorneys'
fees
and an incentive award;
(4) confirming appointment of Daniel J. Orlowsky of Orlowsky
Law,
LLC and Adam M. Goffstein of Goffstein Law, LLC as Class
Counsel;
(5) approving the form and methods of the Notice Plan and
finding
that it satisfied Due Process; and
(6) granting such further relief as the Court deems reasonable
and
just.
The Settlement—reached after almost nine months of negotiations
and another 10 months spent working together to secure a tax refund
from the Missouri Department of Revenue ("MDOR") based on a refund
of taxes Sephora USA, Inc. collected on certain sales made via its
website for shipment to Missouri delivery addresses—is fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and has been met with overwhelming
support from the Settlement Class Members.
The Plaintiff claims that, despite clear Missouri law to the
contrary, Sephora charged excess "tax" on sales of its products
through remote sales channels, including Sephora's internet
website, to Missouri purchasers that are shipped from an
out-of-state facility to a Missouri delivery address.
The Plaintiff brought this class action on behalf of herself and
all persons and entities who, during the five-year period before
the filing of the Complaint, purchased a product from Sephora for
personal, family or household use through remote sales channels,
including its internet website, that was delivered from an
out-of-state facility to a Missouri delivery address and who were
charged tax monies at a higher tax rate than the correct applicable
use tax rate.
Retractable Waterproof Eyeliner from Sephora's website,
www.sephora.com, for personal, family or household use for delivery
to 102 Trail Drive, Berger, Missouri 63014.
The Plaintiff's purchase was shipped from 8500 Nail Road, Olive
Branch, Mississippi 38654. Id. According to the Missouri Department
of Revenue, the applicable use tax rate for sales of products
through remote sales channels that are shipped by Defendant from an
out-of-state facility for delivery to 102 Trail Drive, Berger,
Missouri 63014 on January 30, 2020 is 4.225%. Id. ¶ 28. When
Plaintiff purchased the Sephora Collection Retractable Waterproof
Eyeliner on January 30, 2020, Sephora required Plaintiff Femmer to
pay an 11.692% tax rate, resulting in the overcollection of monies.
The Plaintiff brought this suit on her own behalf and on behalf of
a putative statewide class, asserting claims under four counts for:
(1) violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA),
(2) unjust enrichment, (3) negligence, and (4) money had and
received.
With its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court preliminarily
certified the Settlement Class as:
All Persons who made at least one Qualifying Purchase,
regardless
of whether such person is or might be a party to an arbitration
agreement or class action waiver with Sephora."
-- Monetary Relief and the Settlement Fund
The Plaintiff's and Class Counsel's efforts have yielded a
Settlement that provides immediate monetary compensation to
consumers statewide. The Settlement establishes a Settlement
Fund of $2,082,646.03.
The entire amount of the Class Settlement Amount will be
distributed pro rata to Settlement Class Members from the
Settlement Fund after deductions for Notice and
Administration
Expenses and any Court-awarded Attorneys' Fees and Litigation
Expenses and a Service Award payment to Plaintiff will also
be
distributed from the Settlement Fund.
Because the Net Settlement Amount is being distributed to
Settlement Class Members pro rata, the amount of individual
payments will ultimately depend on the number of Qualifying
Purchases that were made during the class period. By the close of
the notice period, more than 280,000 Settlement Class Members have
successfully received notice that they are entitled to receive
payment. As such, Class Counsel estimate that each Settlement Class
Member will receive an individual payment ranging from $0.01 -
$1,433.93, for an average payment of $7.33 depending on their
Qualifying Purchase(s).
Sephora operates personal care and beauty stores and maintains an
e-commerce website, www.sephora.com.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 12, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41H85gd at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel J. Orlowsky, Esq.
ORLOWSKY LAW, LLC
7777 Bonhomme Ave., Suite 1910
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 725-5151
Facsimile: (314) 455-7375
E-mail: dan@orlowskylaw.com
- and -
Adam M. Goffstein, Esq.
GOFFSTEIN LAW, LLC
7777 Bonhomme Ave., Suite 1910
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 725-5151
Facsimile: (314) 455-7278
E-mail: adam@goffsteinlaw.com
SHARP HOLDING: Tipped Employees Win Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RHONDA KING, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated, v. SHARP HOLDING, INC.,
et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00728-PTG-JFA (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge
Patricia Tolliver Giles entered an order:
1. certifying the following class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23:
"All current and former Tipped Employees who have worked for
the
Defendants in the State of Maryland from June 29, 2019, to
the
present who: (i) worked for Defendants for at least one pay
period after there was a change in Maryland's minimum wage
and
(ii) do not opt-out of this action (the "MD State Class")."
2. conditionally certifying class pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2 l
6(b):
"All current and former Tipped Employees who worked for the
Defendants in any one or more of the following states:
Maryland,
New Jersey, Ohio, or the Commonwealth of Virginia at any
point
from June 29, 2019, through the present and worked for the
Defendants for at least one pay period after there was a
change
in the applicable minimum wage or tip credit permitted and
elect
to opt-into this action (the "Collective Class")."
3. Directing the Defendants to provide Plaintiffs counsel with
the
names, last known cell phone numbers, last known email
addresses, last known addresses, job titles, dates of
employment, and location of employment of all potential
members
of the conditionally certified classes within 15 days of the
date of the Order;
4. Directing the parties confer and submit agreed-upon proposed
notices to the Court for the collective and class actions
within
seven days of the date of the Order; and
5. Directing the Defendants post the approved notices of this
lawsuit in a conspicuous place in all of Defendants'
restaurants.
Sharp Holding operates as a holding company. The Company, through
its subsidiaries, owns and develops real estate properties.
A copy of the Court's order dated April13, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KVkVRp at no extra charge.[CC]
SILK AND SONDER: Slade Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
Linda Slade, Individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons v. SILK AND SONDER, INC., Case No.
1:23-cv-03152-AT (S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2023), is brought against the
Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually-impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Silk and Sonder provides to their non-disabled customers
through its App. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its
App, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the
"ADA"). Because Defendant's App, is not equally accessible to blind
and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff
seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Silk and Sonder's
policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's App will
become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to
compensate Plaintiff for having been subjected to unlawful
discrimination, says the complaint.
Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen reading software to read website content using her
computer.
Silk and Sonder provides to the public a mental wellness App
designed to help users improve their mental health, lower anxiety
and stress, and increase confidence.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com
SOLAR TURBINES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Figueroa Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
RONALD FIGUEROA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOLAR TURBINES INCORPORATED; and DOES 1
through 100, Defendants, Case No. 37-2023-00016512-CU-OE-CTL (Cal.
Super., San Diego Cty., April 20, 2023) is an action against the
Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage
statements.
Plaintiff Figueroa was employed by the Defendants as a welder.
SOLAR TURBINES INCORPORATED manufactures industrial gas turbines.
The Company offers engines, compressors, mechanical drive packages,
and generators, as well as renders construction services including
design and engineering, fabrication, material procurement, and
onsite construction. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul K. Haines, Esq.
Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq.
Susan J. Perez, Esq.
HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (424) 292-2350
Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com
sperez@haineslawgroup.com
SONUS NETWORKS: Class Certification Bid Filing Extended to June 28
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RON MILLER, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SONUS NETWORKS,
INC., RAYMOND P. DOLAN, MARK T. GREENQUIST, and MICHAEL SWADECase
No. 1:18-cv-12344-GAO (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge George A. O'Toole
entered joint stipulation and scheduling order as follows:
Prior Date New Date Event
Apr. 28, 2023 June 28, 2023 Plaintiffs To File Motion For
Class Certification
Apr. 28, 2023 June 28, 2023 Expert Reports In Support Of
Class
Certification
Jun. 12, 2023 Aug. 11, 2023 Defendant's Opposition To Class
Certification
Jun. 12, 2023 Aug. 11, 2023 Expert Reports In Opposition To
Class Certification
Jul. 12, 2023 Sept. 11, 2023 Plaintiff's Reply In Support Of
Class Certification
Sonus Networks is a cloud-based communications distributor that
offers mobile network operation and Microsoft solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MSwviN at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Garth Spencer, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: 310-201-9150
E-mail: gspencer@glancylaw.com
- and -
Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
Gonen Haklay
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
Jenkintown, PA 19046
Telephone: (215) 600-2817
E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com
ghaklay@rosenlegal.com
- and -
Glen DeValerio, Esq.
Daryl Andrews, Esq.
ANDREWS DEVALERIO LLP
Chestnut Hill, MA 02467
Telephone: 617-999-6473
E-mail: glen@andrewsdevalerio.com
daryl@andrewsdevalerio.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John F. Batter III, Esq.
Robert Kingsley Smith, Esq.
Andres R. O’Laughlin, Esq.
Yavor Nechev, Esq.
Thomas F. Lampert, Esq.
Sharon K. Hogue, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR
LLP
60 State Street, Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 526-6000
Facsimile: (617) 526-5000
E-mail: john.batter@wilmerhale.com
robert.smith@wilmerhale.com
andy.olaughlin@wilmerhale.com
yavor.nechev@wilmerhale.com
thomas.lampert@wilmerhale.com
sharon.hogue@wilmerhale.com
- and -
John F. Sylvia, Esq.
Deborah J. Frisch, Esq.
MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS,
GLOVSKY AND POPEO, PC
One Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: (617) 348-1820
Facsimile: (617) 542-2241
E-mail: JFSylvia@mintz.com
DJFrisch@mintz.com
- and -
Gregory Morvillo, Esq.
MORVILLO PLLC
90 Broad Street, 23rd Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 831-1531
E-mail: gm@morvillopllc.com
- and -
Nolan Mitchell, Esq.
QUARLES & BRADY LLP
1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 780-2644
Facsimile: (202) 372-9572
E-mail: nolan.mitchell@quarles.com
- and -
Anthony Gruppuso, Esq.
BROWN MOSKOWITZ & KALLEN, P.C.
1 Main Street, Suite 101
Chatham, NJ 07928
Telephone: (973) 376-0909, ext. 1132
E-mail: Gruppuso.legal@outlook.com
- and -
Kathryn L. Alessi, Esq.
Bruce R. Braun, Esq.
Tommy Hoyt, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
60 State Street, 36th Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 223-0364
E-mail: kalessi@sidley.com
bbraun@sidley.com
thoyt@sidley.com
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Filing of Class Status Bid Due June 20
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RORESTE REFUERZO, v.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Case No. 3:22-cv-00868-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order Following April
13, 2023, Further Case Management Conference as follows:
1. The Defendant agreed that the list of flight attendants with
approved FMLA/CFRA leave can be used for the injunctive
relief
class and that Defendant will not argue the class should be
limited to only those flight attendants that used leave.
2. On or before April 14, 2023, the Plaintiff shall advise
Defendant of the date on which it wants to run a report of
flight attendants with 11 points. Defendant shall produce the
report on or before April 28, 2023.
3. On or before April 14, 2023, Plaintiff shall provide
Defendant
with the list of 10 employee identification numbers (from the
191) for whom Defendant should produce attendance point
cards.
The Defendant shall produce the cards for those 10 employees
on
or before April 28, 2023.
4. On or before April 20, 2023, Defendant shall submit for in
camera review the 23 emails discussed in the joint statement.
The submission shall be made to
jscsettlement@cand.uscourts.gov,
and include a cover letter that identifies the attorneys and
their roles (and/or any other persons referenced in the
communications).
5. On or before April 27, 2023, Defendant shall produce the
termination letters for those flight attendants who were
terminated for attendance points and took the relevant
leave.
6. The Court will hold a further case management conference on
June
7, 2023 at 11:00 a.m. via Zoom video. An updated joint case
management conference statement is due by noon on June 6,
2023.
7. The Class Certification briefing schedule is amended as
follows:
Deadline to Move for Class Certification: June 20, 2023
Opposition: August 18,
2023
Reply: October 3,
2023
Hearing: November 2,
2023
Southwest Airlines is a domestic airline that provides primarily
short-haul, high-frequency, and point-to-point services.
A copy of the Court's order dated April13, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40pLqUw at no extra charge.[CC]
STATE AUTOMOBILE: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due Jan. 22, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTINA TRAVIS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
STATE AUTOMOBILE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., d/b/a State Auto
Insurance Companies, et al. Case No. 5:21-cv-05395-JLS (E.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl entered an order regarding class
certification deadlines:
Event Deadline
Amend pleadings to add claims May 31, 2023
or parties:
Complete fact discovery relating Sept. 29, 2023
to Plaintiff's individual claims
and class certification issues:
Disclosure of Plaintiff's expert Oct. 31, 2023
reports relating to Plaintiff's
individual claims and class
certification issues:
Disclosure of Defendants' expert Nov. 29, 2023
reports relating to Plaintiffs'
individual claims and class
certification issues:
Disclosure of Plaintiff's rebuttal Dec. 22, 2023
expert reports relating to
Plaintiff's individual claims and
class certification issues:
Complete expert discovery relating Jan. 22, 2024
to Plaintiff's individual claims and
class certification issues:
File motion for class certification Jan. 22, 2024
(Plaintiff):
File opposition to motion for Feb. 29, 2024
class certification (Defendants):
A copy of the Court's order dated April 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NmHYYj at no extra charge.[CC]
STRYKER CORPORATION: Floyd Seeks Certification of Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELITA FLOYD,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
STRYKER CORPORATION, Case No. 3:22-cv-01131-C (N.D. Tex.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. Certifying her proposed collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
section
216(b);
2. Approving her proposed Notice and its distribution process to
the putative collective members;
3. Directing the Defendant to produce in a computer-readable
file,
the following information for all putative opt-in plaintiffs:
names, last known mailing addresses, alternate addresses, all
known email addresses (work and personal), telephone numbers,
and dates of employment; and
4. Directing Limited tolling of the statute of limitations for
the
putative collective members.
Stryker is an American multinational medical technologies
corporation based in Kalamazoo, Michigan.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 13, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mXgYn4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander M. White, Esq.
VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP
600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 203-7180
Facsimile: (516) 706-0248
E-mail: awhite@vkvlawyers.com
SWCA INCORPORATED: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Cook Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
ARTHUR COOK, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SWCA, INCORPORATED D/B/A SWCA
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00660-DWL
(D. Ariz., April 19, 2023) is an action against the Defendant's
failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Plaintiff Cook was employed by the Defendant as an environmental
inspector.
SWCA, INCORPORATED D/B/A SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS provides
environmental consulting services. The Company offers services in
the areas of cultural resources, natural resources, air quality,
environmental planning, environmental permitting, environmental
compliance, geographic information services, climate change, and
water resources. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel R. Randall, Esq.
RANDALL LAW PLLC
4742 North 24th Street, Suite 300
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602)328-0262
Facsimile: (602) 926-1479
Email: srandall@randallslaw.com
- and -
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
Email: 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
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
TD BANK: Parties in Nelipa Seek Adoption of Revised Sched Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nelipa et al., v. TD Bank,
N.A., Case No. 1:21-cv-01092-LDH-RER (E.D.N.Y.), the parties
jointly request the adoption of the Proposed Revised Scheduling
Order, which extends the current deadlines by 90 days:
The proposed class action involves Accountholder' claims that TD
Bank did not credit their accounts for unauthorized transactions as
required under Regulation E. As a large financial entity, TD Bank
retains information about various accountholder issues in several
different databases for varying purposes. For example, the Claims
Initiation Manager database contains written comments describing
the reasons for denying a dispute.
While TD Bank contends the CIM database is the only database
relevant to the issues in this case, a separate fraud database
contains codes that Plaintiffs contend may be relevant to this
action. TD Bank contends that database has no applicability to
disputes including the claims at issue in this case (e.g., an
accountholder claiming there was an unauthorized withdrawal from
their account).
The Plaintiffs have identified a total of thirteen databases for
which there is some reason to believe they contain data relevant to
this case. The Defendant continues to maintain that only one
database, the CIM database, contains information relevant to this
case.
Despite disagreements regarding the proper scope of discovery into
the databases, the parties have worked cooperatively to try to
resolve issues since the December 8, 2022 status conference and
following order setting the current schedule. The 30(b)(1)
deposition of Jakub Zielinski was taken on December 13, 2022. Since
that date, counsel have been in near-weekly dialogue by phone or by
email concerning the database discovery and attempting to identify
and agree on the relevant data.
TD Bank is an American national bank and the United States
subsidiary of the multinational TD Bank Group.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April13, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GYAq9Y at no extra charge.[CC]
TMC THE METALS: Caper Shareholder Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------
TMC The Metals Company Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2023, that on October 28,
2021, a shareholder filed a putative class action against the
company, one of its executive and former directors in federal
district court for the Eastern District of New York, captioned
"Caper v. TMC The Metals company Inc., formerly Sustainable
Opportunities Acquisition Corp., Gerard Barron and Scott Leonard."
The complaint alleges that all defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
Messrs. Barron and Leonard violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to
disclose information about the company's operations and prospects
during the period from March 4, 2021, and October 5, 2021.
In November 15, 2021, a second complaint containing substantially
the same allegations was filed, captioned "Tran v. TMC the Metals
Company, Inc." These cases have been consolidated. In March 6,
2022, a lead plaintiff was selected. An amended complaint was filed
on May 12, 2022, reflecting substantially similar allegations.
The plaintiff is seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
the alleged wrongdoings. In September 26, 2022, the motion to
dismiss was fully briefed and the parties are awaiting a ruling.
TMC The Metals company Inc. deep-sea minerals exploration company
based in British Columbia.
TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Briefing
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUNG M. PHAN,
Individually, and on Behalf of the Class, v. TRANSAMERICA PREMIER
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Iowa Corporation, Case No.
5:20-cv-03665-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order granting its ex parte application for leave to file
supplemental briefing on the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
On April 6, 2023, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff's motion
for class certification. At the outset of the hearing, the Court
recognized that the Plaintiff's Reply Brief in support of her
motion for class certification substantially altered the relief she
sought in her initial moving papers.
Transamerica agrees with the Court that such new concessions may be
implied in the Plaintiff's Reply Brief, and that these new
concessions substantially alter the relief sought by Plaintiff.
However, Transamerica contends that it did not have an opportunity
to properly respond to the altered relief Plaintiff now seeks, both
as set forth in the Reply Brief and as further addressed during the
April 6 hearing, including the final remarks made by Plaintiff’s
counsel at the hearing after counsel for Transamerica spoke.
Transamerica requests leave to file a supplemental brief addressing
these topics. Transamerica will be able to file such a supplemental
brief within 10 court days after the Court rules on this
application. Additionally, if this application is granted,
Transamerica welcomes the opportunity to address any matters upon
which the Court requests further briefing.
Transamerica is a life insurance company.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 12, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MSQH44 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
225 Broadway, 19th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (619) 325-0492
Fax: (619) 325-0496
E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
ECarrillo@nicholaslaw.org
Aadame@nicholaslaw.org
- and -
Jack B. Winters, Esq.
Sarah Ball, Esq.
WINTERS & ASSOCIATES
8489 La Mesa Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
Telephone: (619) 234-9000
Facsimile: (619) 750-0413
E-mail: jackbwinters@earthlink.net
sball@einsurelaw.com
sflores@einsurelaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Vivian I. Orlando, Esq.
VOrlando@maynardcooper.com.com
MAYNARD COOPER & GALE LLP
10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 550
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 596-4500
Larry M. Golub, Esq.
SACRO & WALKER LLP
700 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 610
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 721-9597
Facsimile:(818) 721-9670
E-mail: lgolub@sacrowalker.com
alloyd@sacrowalker.com
UMASS MEMORIAL: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Nov. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brooks et al v. UMass
Memorial Medical Center, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-40011 (D. Mass.),
Hon. Judge Margaret R. Guzman entered a scheduling order as
follows:
-- Status Conference set for: Feb. 28, 2024
-- Phase 1 Fact Discovery to be Oct. 31, 2023
completed by:
-- Motions for class certification Nov. 30, 2023
due by:
-- Oppositions due: Dec. 30, 2023
--Replies due by: Jan. 15, 2024
The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment.
UMass Memorial Health is a health care system in Central
Massachusetts offering the region's medical technology &
support.[CC]
UMPQUA BANK: Bid to Certify Interlocutory Appeal Nixed
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHELA CAMENISCH, et al.,
v. UMPQUA BANK, Case No. 3:20-cv-05905-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order denying motion to certify
interlocutory appeal.
The Defendant attempts to show the law is unclear by pointing to
various Ninth Circuit memorandum dispositions and district court
decisions that it insists reach conflicting results under similar
facts. At heart, though, the defendant's position is that the law
is clear, but that the summary judgment order applied that law in a
manner to reach the wrong result.
The order explains in detail why the record at the summary judgment
stage was sufficient to demonstrate a triable issue of fact as to
whether defendant had actual knowledge, given what a trier of fact
would be entitled to infer from circumstantial evidence.
Neither defendant's disagreement with that analysis nor claimed
contradictions in the results of other cases rises to a substantial
ground for a difference of opinion as to a controlling question of
law. The motion is denied. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the
defendant's motion to certify for interlocutory appeal the order
denying summary judgment is suitable for disposition without oral
argument and the hearing set for April 20, 2023, is vacated.
The Plaintiffs' contention that this motion should be denied as
untimely is not persuasive. There is no express time limitation for
bringing these motions, and defendant has explained that it elected
to wait for the result of its Rule 23(f) petition for permission to
appeal the class certification order before pursuing this.
Umpqua is a financial holding company.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43OtAhe at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED MECHANICAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Cotton Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRITT COTTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00370 (M.D. Tenn., April 19, 2023) is
an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and
the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week.
Plaintiff Cotton was employed as a mechanical staff.
UNITED MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL, INC. provides a wide range of
installation services for new and existing building sites. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
jholt@jsyc.com
UNITEDHEALTHCARE SERVICES: Bid to Dismiss Samson Class Suit Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANTZ SAMSON, a
Washington resident, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. UNITEDHEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Case No.
2:19-cv-00175-MJP (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Marsha J. Pechman
entered an order on the defendant's motion to dismiss under the
first-to-file rule.
-- Because both the parties and the issues to be litigated in
this
case are different than those in the Matlock cases, the Court
denies United's motion to dismiss under the First-to-File
rule.
-- The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all
counsel.
The Plaintiff Frantz Samson filed this suit against Defendant,
UnitedHealthcare Services, in 2019 alleging violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Samson began receiving
automated calls from United in July 2018 after getting a new cell
phone number.
Samson repeatedly told United that it had the wrong number, asked
United to stop calling and to take him of the calling list, but the
calls persisted. United is a large corporation comprised of
"business segments, " which in turn are composed of various teams.
Samson alleges that he received calls from three United teams: the
Community & State National Retention team, the Medicare and
Retirement Non-Licensed Retention team, and the Medicare and
Retirement Collections team.
United utilizes the LiveVox IVR system and the Avaya Dialer to call
and leave prerecorded messages to recipients. Samson alleges that
United violated the TCPA by placing calls using an artificial or
prerecorded voice to cellular telephone numbers without the prior
express consent of the party being called.
The case was brought as a class action on behalf of two classes: a
"Wrong Number Class," consisting of individuals that United called
but who were not United members at the time, and a "Do-NotCall
Class, " comprising individuals that United called, but had flagged
as "do not call" in its records.
After Samson filed his Amended Complaint, United brought a motion
to stay the case pending the resolution of three similar,
consolidated cases in the Eastern District of California. The three
cases are: Matlock v. United HealthCare Services, Inc. Case No.
2:13- cv-02206 (E.D. Cal.); Humphrey v. United HealthCare Services,
Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01792 (E.D. Cal.); and Gonzalez v. Optum,
Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-01129 (E.D. Cal.). All three cases are class
actions involving automatic calls by United or its subsidiary to
individuals who did not consent to receiving calls.
The case has since been reassigned to this Court, who lifted the
stay and gave Samson leave to file an Amended Class Certification
to avoid any duplication with the classes in the Matlock actions.
Samson has since filed a Renewed Motion for Class Certification. He
again seeks to certify two classes:
-- Wrong Number Class:
"All persons residing within the United States who, between
January 1, 2015, and the date of class certification, received
a
non-emergency telephone call(s) from one of the
UnitedHealthcare
teams that called Plaintiff Samson, to a cellular phone
through
the use of an artificial or prerecorded voice, and who,
according
to Defendant’s records, was not a UnitedHealthcare member at
the
time of the call."
-- Do-Not-Call Class:
"All persons residing within the United States who, between
January 1, 2015 and the date of class certification, received
a
non-emergency telephone call(s) from one of the
UnitedHealthcare
teams that called Plaintiff Samson, to a cellular phone
through
the use of an artificial or prerecorded voice, and whose
telephone number, according to Defendant’s records, was
flagged
or documented as "do not call, " "final do not contact" or
otherwise recorded as number not to be called. "
United Healthcare provides hospital, medical, and other health
services to subscribers or members.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 13, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/421x4v9 at no extra charge.[CC]
UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS: Valdez Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to D. Colo.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA VALDEZ, RICKY ABEYTA,
MARK FRANKLIN, and MICHAEL CHILDS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS OF VIRGINIA,
LLC, a Virginia Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2023CV30498
(Filed March 13, 2023) was removed from the District Court of
Arapahoe County, Colorado, to the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado on April 21, 2023.
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-01015 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs generally assert that the Defendant employed them
and the class they seek to represent, improperly failed to pay them
and the Class overtime compensation under the Colorado Wage and
Hour Law and failed to provide them and the Class rest breaks or
compensation in lieu of those breaks in violation of 7 C.C.R.
1103-1:4, the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards (COMPS)
Orders, the suit alleges.
One of the Plaintiffs also asserts an individual claim for unlawful
deductions.
Plaintiff Childs alleges that he worked for Universal as a driver
from December 2018 to April 2021. He alleges that he worked 805
hours of overtime for which he did not receive overtime premium pay
based on his regular rate of pay during the relevant time period.
He also alleges that he was denied 558 rest breaks for which he did
not receive overtime premium pay and that he is owed 10 minutes of
overtime premium pay for each missed rest break.
Universal Logistics is a carrier company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David H. Miller, Esq.
Victoria Guzman, Esq.
WILHITE & MILLER LAW FIRM
1600 Ogden Street
Denver, CO 80218
Telephone: (303) 551-7667
E-mail: dhmiller@wilhitelawfirm.com
vguzman@wilhitelawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Sterling J. LeBoeuf, Esq.
DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS LLP
1550 17th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 892-9400
Facsimile: (303) 893-1379
E-mail: sterling.leboeuf@dgslaw.com
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: Ct. Directs Filing of Discovery Plan
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cox-Kilgore v. University
of Illinois, Case No. 1:23-cv-01056-JBM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon.
Judge Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as
follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
The University of Illinois is a public land-grant research
university in Illinois in the twin cities of Champaign and Urbana.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LePWkI at no extra charge.[CC]
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA: Discloses Users Info to FB, Yeisley Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eileen Yeisley, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated, v. University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics (UIHC), Case
No. 3:23-cv-00025-SHL-HCA (S.D. Iowa, Apr. 21, 2023) sues the
Defendant for its unlawful and widespread unauthorized practice of
disclosing Plaintiff's and Class Members' confidential personally
identifiable information (PII) and protected health information
(PHI) to third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta
(Facebook).
According to the complaint, the Defendant manages or controls the
two websites www.uihealthcare.org and UIHC ("Defendant's Website"),
which it encourages individuals to use for booking medical
appointments, locating physicians and treatment facilities,
communicating medical symptoms, searching medical conditions and
treatment options, signing up for events and classes. The Defendant
allegedly installed and implemented the Facebook Tracking Pixel on
its Website, which secretly enables the unauthorized transmission
and disclosure of the Plaintiff and Class Members' PII and PHI as
they are communicated to the Defendant.
More specifically, the Defendant's Websites direct the Plaintiff's
and Class Members' communications to automatically and
surreptitiously be sent to Facebook's servers, and this occurs on
every webpage that the Defendant has installed the Pixel and
Conversions API. Thus, operating as designed and as implemented by
Defendant, the Pixel allows the Private Information that the
Plaintiff and Class Members submit to the Defendant to be
unlawfully disclosed to Facebook alongside the individual's unique
and persistent Facebook ID (FID), says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of
Defendant's conduct. These injuries include: invasion of privacy;
lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to
mitigate the actual consequences of the Pixel, loss of benefit of
the bargain, diminution of value of the Private Information,
statutory damages, and the continued and ongoing risk to their
Private Information, the suit claims.
Plaintiff Yeisley is a current user of UIHC. The Plaintiff used the
Defendant's Website to search for physicians, schedule appointments
and procedures, receive and discuss medical diagnoses and treatment
from her healthcare providers, receive lab results, and review
medical records.
UIHC provides family-centered health care, extensive medical
research, and comprehensive teaching programs for many health care
professions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian O. Marty, Esq.
J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD
& WEESE P.C.
5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
West Des Moines, IA 50265
Telephone: (515) 223-4567
Facsimile: (515) 223-8887
E-mail: marty@sagwlaw.com
goplerud@sagwlaw.com
- and -
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
David A. Goodwin, Esq.
Joseph E. Nelson, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
jnelson@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 341-0400
E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com
- and -
Nathan D. Prosser, Esq.
HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC
8050 West 78th Street
Edina, MN 55439
Telephone: (952) 522-4291
E-mail: nprosser@hjlawfirm.com
- and -
Aaron N. Halstead, Esq.
Aaron J. Bibb, Esq.
HAWKS QUINDEL S.C.
409 East Main Street
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 257-0040
E-mail: ahalstead@hq-law.com
abibb@hq-law.com
- and -
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H Street N.E., Suite 302
Washington, D.C. 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
- and -
Scott David Hirsch, Esq.
SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP PLLC
6810 N. State Road 7
Coconut Creek, FL 33073
Telephone: (561) 569-7062
E-mail: scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com
USAA FEDERAL: Must File Class Cert Bid Response by June 20
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHILIP BULLS, et al., V.
USAA FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK and USAA SAVINGS BANK, Case No.
5:21-cv-00488-BO (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Terrence W. Boyle
entered an order granting the Defendants' request for an extension
to respond to plaintiffs' class certification motion.
Pursuant to an expedited briefing schedule, the Plaintiffs have
responded, defendants have replied, and the motion is ripe for
ruling. In their motion, defendants seek an extension of 120 days
to respond to plaintiffs' class certification motion. Without an
extension of time, defendants' response would be due within 21 days
of the date of filing of the motion, or April 18, 2023 . The
Plaintiffs agree to an extension, but a four-week extension rather
than a 120-day extension.
The Court determines, however, that 120-day extension is not
necessary. Defendants' response shall be filed not later than May
30, 2023 . The Plaintiffs reply shall be filed not later than June
20, 2023.
USAA operates as a full service bank. The Bank accepts deposits,
makes loans and provides other services for the public.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LnIO5j at no extra charge.[CC]
VALENTINO LOPEZ: Martinez-Morales Seeks FLSA Conditional Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE CRUZ
MARTINEZ-MORALES, et al. V. VALENTINO LOPEZ JR., et al., Case No.
5:22-cv-00187-BO (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Terrence W. Boyle
entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion and conditionally
certifies this action as a Fair Labor Standards (FLSA) collective
action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) as follows:
"H-2A workers employed by Valentino Lopez, Jr., at any time in
2020, who file a Consent to Sue pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b)
and
who performed agricultural or related work for Defendants in or
around Sampson County, North Carolina, and who were required by
Defendants to pay unlawful recruitment fees, were not fully
reimbursed for their inbound travel costs in the first paycheck
they received, and/or were paid less than the minimum hourly
wage
of $7.25 per hour required by the FLSA for any H-2A worker's
weekly wage(s)."
The Court said, "To the extent defendants have or can reasonably
obtain such information, defendants are ordered to provide
plaintiffs a computer-readable list containing the following
information regarding the putative action members: the full names,
date(s) of employment, employee ID, passport number and copy of
passport biographical page, U.S. and Mexico addresses, home, cell,
and WhatsApp phone numbers (U.S. and Mexico), location of work
performed for the defendants, and date of birth of all putative
collective action members. Defendants shall provide this list
within two weeks of the entry of this order."
The Court authorizes the notice to be distributed by plaintiffs'
counsel in English and Spanish to potential opt-in plaintiffs by
U.S. mail within two weeks from the date defendants provide to
plaintiffs the opt-in plaintiffs' contact information.
The Court authorizes the information in the notice to be
distributed by text and/or WhatsApp message, social media including
but not limited to Facebook, posting on a website, notification and
provision of the notice and form(s) to the Mexican Consulate, and
radio in Mexico.
The Court orders defendants to post the notice [DE 75-1] in English
and Spanish at all worksites and employer-provided housing for H-2A
farmworkers in North Carolina under the ownership or control of any
of defendants until resolution of this action or December 31 ,
2023, whichever is earlier.
The Defendants must provide the notice to current employees with
the employees' paychecks within two weeks after entry of the
Court's Order.
The Plaintiffs are thirteen Mexican H-2A visa holders who traveled
to North Carolina in 2020 to harvest produce on defendants' farms.
They claim defendants (1) did not reimburse them for their visa
expenses until after their first week, (2) paid them less than
minimum wage, and (3) charged unlawful recruiting fees.
The Plaintiffs claim defendants violated the FLSA and seek to bring
claims on behalf of themselves individually and all other
similarly situated employees through the FLSA's collective action
procedure. 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).
A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LpC33g at no extra charge.[CC]
WASHINGTON COUNTY, AL: Bid to Certify Class Denied w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lang et al v. Washington
County, Alabama, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00057 (S.D. Ala), Hon.
Judge Jeffrey U. Beaverstock entered an order denying without
prejudice motion to certify class.
The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus --
Prison Condition.
Washington County is a county located in the southwestern part of
the U.S. state of Alabama.[CC]
WEXFORD HEALTH: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Brown
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brown v. Wexford Health
Sources Inc., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-03018-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.),
the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as
follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
Wexford Health is a healthcare services company headquartered in
Foster Plaza Two in Green Tree, Pennsylvania, near Pittsburgh.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40pfFLB at no extra charge.[CC]
WHEELS UP: Lee Goodman Trust Sues Over Drop in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------
THE LEE GOODMAN TRUST, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WHEELS UP EXPERIENCE INC.; KENNETH
DICHTER; and TODD SMITH, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02900
(E.D.N.Y., April 19, 2023) is a class action on behalf of the
Plaintiff and all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded Wheels Up securities between November 9,
2022 and March 31, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of
the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that statements made by the
Defendants in their press releases, and reports submitted to SEC,
were materially false and misleading because they misrepresented
and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to
the Company's business, operations and prospects, which were known
to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them.
The Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose that: (1) Wheels Up failed to address any material
weaknesses with internal controls; (2) Wheels Up's financial
statements from September 30, 2022 to the present included "certain
errors" such as understating net loss and overstating goodwill; (3)
as a result, Wheels Up would need to restate its previously filed
financial statements for certain periods; and (4) as a result,
Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times, says the suit.
Wheels Up's share price fell $0.072 per share, or 11.37 percent, to
close at $0.5610 per share on April 3, 2023, the next trading day,
damaging investors. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts
and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of
the Company's common shares, Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages, the suit alleges.
WHEELS UP EXPERIENCE INC. provides private aviation services. The
Company offers services that allows members to book
short-and-medium range private charter flights at an all-inclusive
hourly rates. Wheels Up Experience serves customers in the United
States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
WHITEFISH, MT: Class Cert Oral Argument Sought in Beck Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFF BECK, 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 Parties ask the Court to enter an order scheduling an oral
argument on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Whitefish is a resort town in the Rocky Mountains of northwest
Montana. It's a gateway to the jagged peaks, lakes and
glacier-carved valleys of Glacier National Park.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 14, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43RtvJx at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Riley M. Wavra, Esq.
LAIRD COWLEY PLLC
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
WILLIAM LEE: Court Certifies Class of Tennessee Residents
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TENNESSEE CONFERENCE of
the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION for the ADVANCEMENT of COLORED PEOPLE, et
al., v. WILLIAM LEE, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01039 (M.D. Tenn.),
the Hon. Judge William L. Campbell, Jr. entered an order granting
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Court certifies a class of:
"Tennessee residents who have been disenfranchised because of a
felony conviction and have requested or attempted to request a
Certification of Restoration (COR) from the pardoning,
incarcerating, or supervising authority, but to date have not
received a COR sufficient to restore their voting rights."
In addition, the Court appoints Lamar Perry, Curtis Gray, John
Weare, Benjamin Tournier, Leola Scott, and Reginald Hendrix as
class representatives, and Campaign Legal Center, Baker Donelson,
Free Hearts, and Equal Justice Under Law as class counsel.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 13, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43Niw3K at no extra charge.[CC]
WOW RESTAURANT: Chen, et al., Seek FLSA Collective Action Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YANHONG CHEN, and LUTONG
YANG, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. WOW RESTAURANT TH LLC d/b/a Yaki Sushi Grill BBQ;
TRINH HUYNH, Case No. 8:22-cv-02774-VMC-MRM (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
(1) granting collective action status, under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);
(2) directing the Defendants within 14 days of the entry of this
Order to produce an Excel spreadsheet containing first and
last
name, last known address with apartment number (if
applicable),
the last known telephone numbers, last known e-mail
addresses,
WhatsApp, WeChat ID and/or FaceBook usernames (if
applicable),
and work location, dates of employment and position of:
"ALL current and former non-exempt and non-managerial
employees
employed at any time from December 07, 2019 (three years
prior
to the filing of the Complaint) to the date when the Court
so-
orders the Notice of Pendency and Consent to Join Form or
the
date when Defendants provide the name list, whichever is
later;"
(3) authorizing that notice of this matter be disseminated, in
any
relevant language via mail, email, text message, website or
social media messages, chats, or posts, to all members of
the
putative class within twenty-one (21) days after receipt of
a
complete and accurate Excel spreadsheet with affidavit from
Defendants certifying that the list is complete and from
existing employment records;
(4) authorizing an opt-in period of 90 days from the day of
dissemination of the notice and its translation;
(5) authorizing the Plaintiff to publish the full opt-in notice
on
The Plaintiffs' counsel's website;
(6) authorizing the publication of a short form of the notice
may
also be published to social media groups specifically
targeting
the Chinese, Spanish, and English-speaking American
immigrant
worker community;
(7) directing the Defendants to post the approved Proposed
Notice
in all relevant languages, in a conspicuous and unobstructed
locations likely to be seen by all currently employed
members
of the collective, and the notice shall remain posted
throughout the opt-in period, at the workplace;
(8) directing the Plaintiffs to publish the Notice of Pendency,
in
an abbreviated form to be approved by the Court, at the
Defendants' expense by social media and by publication in
newspaper should Defendants fail to furnish a complete Excel
list or more than 20% of the Notice be returned as
undeliverable with no forwarding address to be published in
English, and Chinese, Spanish, and English;
(9) directing equitable tolling on the statute of limitation on
this suit be tolled for 90 days until the expiration of the
Opt-in Period;
(10) permitting discovery of class information of all potential
collective and class members in a bid to determining whether
this case may proceed as a class action pursuant to Rule
23(a)
and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
(11) granting leave to amend the Complaint pursuant to Rule
15(a)(2)
and 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in
anticipation
of adding opt-in plaintiff(s) and allegations pertaining to
putative opt-in plaintiff(s)’ Florida Minimum Wage Act
claims;
and
(12) granting such other and further relief as the Court deems
Proper.
Yaki Sushi serves Japanese cuisine.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 13, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UOEa3D at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
Tiffany Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 110
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
- and -
Locksley O. Wade, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF LOCKSLEY O. WADE
11 Broadway, Suite 615
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 933-9180
E-mail: wade@wadefirm.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 2023. 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 ***