/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230517.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, May 17, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 99 Headlines 15 W 36TH PHOTO: Cruz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York 86TH STREET WINE: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ADIDAS AG: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unsold Yeezy Products AGRO RESEARCH: Saborio Balks at Herbicides, Fertilizers' False Ads ALASTIN SKINCARE: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ALEXION PHARMA: Appeals Class Cert Ruling in Boston Retirement Suit ALTO OPERATIONS: Ayon Sues Over Labor Code Violations AMAZON.COM INC: Court Denies Gray's Bid to File Amended Complaint AMAZON.COM INC: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due April 12, 2024 AMAZON.COM INC: Kinney Files Class Suit Over False Discounts AMD FOOD: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Drummond Suit Alleges AMERICAN FAMILY: Class Cert Bid Deadline Extended to June 26 AMERICAN SPOON FOODS: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York AMERICAN WHOLESALE: Shane Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ANAIS CANDLE: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ANYWHERE REAL ESTATE: Continues to Defend Batton Class Suit ANYWHERE REAL ESTATE: Continues to Defend Bumpus Class Suit in CA ANYWHERE REAL ESTATE: Continues to Defend Burnett Class Suit ANYWHERE REAL ESTATE: Continues to Defend Nosalek Class Suit ARTEMIS CARE: Filing of Conditional Certification Bid Due June 16 AS BEAUTY GROUP: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York AUDIENCEVIEW TICKETING: Newman Files Suit in S.D. New York AZMERE USA INC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York B & J PROPERTY: Or. App. Flips in Part Judgments in Hathaway Suit BABY GENERATION: Faces Dajlani Suit Over Defective Strollers BANK OF AMERICA: Baptiste Sues Over Alleged Breach of Contract BEAUTY INDUSTRY: Conidi Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois BIO-MEDICAL APPLICATIONS: Calderon Suit Removed to C.D. California BLUEPRINT COOKIES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Velez Suit Claims BOMBAY HOUSE: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York BOO INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Tano Suit Alleges CAL. DEL. USA: Orin Suit Removed to C.D. California CARBON6 LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CARGO LEASING: Corrales Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages CCI & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay Inspectors' OT Wages, Wood Says CENTIMARK CORP: Discovery & Mediation Order Issued in Lingle Suit CHICAGO CUBS: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Lateano Suit Alleges CHICAGO, IL: Blind Walkers Won Class Suit Over Pedestrian Safety CHOBANI LLC: Gershzon Suit Removed to N.D. California CK SALES: Appeals Court Exempt Bakery Distributors From Arbitration CLASSICAL INSIGHTS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York COMFORT SYSTEMS: $60K Settlement in Maddison Suit Wins Prelim. Nod COMPASS GROUP: Borrero Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri CONSUMER CREDIT: Pinn Suit Transferred to N.D. California CONTRACT PHARMACAL: Reyes Sues Over Manual Workers' Unpaid OT CRUNCH TIME: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Drummond Suit Alleges DELAWARE COUNTY, PA: Summary Judgment in Burford Suit Affirmed DELTONA CITY, FL: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines DEUTSCHE BANK: Lead Plaintiff Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action DIESTEL TURKEY: Court Stays Discovery in Wetzel Class Suit DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Response to Class Cert Bid Due June 7 DOLLAR TREE STORES: Salluce Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. EL RINCONCITO: Migues Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime EMERSON'S SHOES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Schuman Sues Over Anticompetitive Scheme FOSSIL GROUP: Cantu Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Personal Info FRENCH BULL LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FRONT LINE EMS: Chaffer FLSA Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas GEICO INDEMNITY: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in McCoy Suit GF ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Diaz Suit Alleges GOOGLE LLC: Singh Suit Transferred to S.D. New York HAPPY COOKER: Tracz Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages HAWAIIUSA FEDERAL CREDIT: Smith Files Suit in D. Hawaii HOAG MEMORIAL: Davis Suit Removed to C.D. California HOAG MEMORIAL: Doe Suit Remanded to Orange County Superior Court HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Faces Thomas Suit Over Unpaid Wages HOUSE OF SHANGHAI: Wong Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages HOUSING AUTHORITY: Fuentes Suit Removed to C.D. California HS SUPPLIES LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York IRVINE COMPANY: Alexander Sues Over Artificially Inflated Prices JAJ CONTRACT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Burgos Suit Alleges JHONNYS TOWING: Torterolo Seeks General Assistants' Unpaid Wages JONES LANG LASALLE: Ramirez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. KANSAS CITY ROYALS: Concepcion Appeals Fee Awards Ruling in Senne LASERSHIP INC: Fails to Pay Overtime and Minimum Wages, Ortiz Says LOS ANGELES REHABILITATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cuadras Says LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES INC: Faces Voight Class Suit in Louisiana LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Houser Class Suit Remanded to District Court MARRIOTT RESORTS: Rubio Suit Removed to C.D. California MATTEL INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit MAXIM HEALTHCARE: 2020 Data Breach Settlement Granted Prelim OK MEDALLION LANDSCAPE: Torres Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MEDICREDIT INC: Loses Bid to Toss or Strike Saggio's Class Claims MEDTRONIC INC: Jankowski Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages META PLATFORM: Continues to Defend Consolidated Advertisement Suits METRO SUPPLY CHAIN: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MKS INSTRUMENTS: Sharma Files Suit in D. Massachusetts MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Kermani Suit Transferred to S.D. California MORGAN STANLEY: Antitrust Class Suit Certification Bid Pending MYLAN NV: Mivtachim Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 2nd Cir. NABORS COMPLETION: Lecain Recovers $86.6K in Unpaid Wages NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Hall Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 2nd Cir. NATURA MANAGEMENT: Hicks Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NATURE'S BOUNTY: Baines Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 2nd Cir. NCS PEARSON: Faces Tanav Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Bylaws Violates Delaware Law, Casey Alleges NETFLIX INC: La. App. Affirms Dismissal of Kenner Suit W/ Prejudice NETGAIN TECHNOLOGY: USA Dismissed From Doe Class Suit W/o Prejudice NEW YORK, NY: B.G. Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NEW YORK: Intervenors Appeal Rulings in Greater Chautauqua Suit NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Turner Suit Removed to C.D. California NYTDA INC: Faces NU-Electric Suit Over Parking Ticket Management OAKHURST INDUSTRIES: Guzman Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages OAKLAWN JOCKEY CLUB: Phillips Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas ONE BROOKLYN: Burwell Sues Over Data Breach OUR GRACE: Fails to Pay OT and Minimum Wages, Knighten Alleges PAULA'S CHOICE: Faces Munoz Suit Over Data Privacy Violations POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Joint Bid to File Responses Under Seal Nixed PORCELANA CORONA: Appeals Ruling in Cone Suit to 5th Cir. PREMIUM BRANDS: Engles Suit Removed to C.D. California PRINCE TELECOM: Denial of Arbitration Bids in Roman Suit Affirmed PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN: Amendment of Scheduling Order Sought PRUDENTIAL OVERAL: Larson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. RANCHO GORDO INC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York RANDALL MECHANICAL: Employees Win Conditional Class Certification REALPAGE INC: Blosser Sues Over Price Fixing Conspiracy REALPAGE INC: Spencer Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee RED ROBIN: McInerny Suit Removed to C.D. California REPTILES LOUNGE: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York REPUBLIC SERVICES: Abendroth Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages RESURGENT CAPITAL: Farraj Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida REVOLUTION HOSPITALITY: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York RIDGE WALLET: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ROUNDY'S ILLINOIS: District Court Dismisses Costner Labor Suit SAFEWAY INC: Agrees to Settle Energy Tax Class Suit for $8.75-M SAVE RITE MEDICAL.COM: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SAZERAC COMPANY: Fischer Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri SCHOLLY INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Baker Suit Alleges SENIOR HEALTHCARE: Chapman Files TCPA Suit in W.D. New York SKULLCANDY INC: Cody Suit Removed to C.D. California SOUTHEAST ENERGY: Harman Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls SOUTHEASTERN INDIANA HEALTH: Elkins Suit Removed to S.D. Indiana SPORTMAN'S WAREHOUSE: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York STANTEC CONSULTING: Gotta's Bid for Class Certification Granted STATE FARM: Ct. Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Jackson-Johnson STUART H. KAPLAN: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SUPER CARE: Agrees to Settle Retsky Breach Class Suit for $2.25-M TAIM RESTAURANT: Hwang Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TERRAFORM LABS: Jump Trading Seeks Arbitration of Claims TERRY S. JOHNSON: Beers Sues to Recover Overtime Compensation TEVA PHARMA: Court Narrows Claims in OTPPB Suit TMX FINANCE CORPORATE: Alex Files Suit in S.D. Georgia TMX FINANCE: Carrington Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII TWITTER INC: Court Dismissed Wrongful Termination Class Suit UNISYS CORPORATION: Brunswick FLSA Suit Transferred to D. Utah UNITED HEALTH: Class Certification Bid Filing Due April 17, 2024 UNITED PARCEL: More Time to Oppose Class Certification Bid Sought UNITED PARCEL: Must Respond to Class Certification Bid by May 26 UNITED STATES CELLULAR: Rensin Sues Over Misleading Statements UNIVERSITY HEALTH: Cansler Appeals Case Dismissal to 4th Cir. US NURSING CORPORATION: Guthrie Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. VIKI INC: Ade Sues Over Disclosure of Subscribers' Identities VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Reis Files Suit in D. New Jersey WALMART INC: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Jessica WEBSTER FINANCIAL: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Whelan Alleges WEC ENERGY: Munt Seeks Certification of Investment Class WEWORK INC: Hardev Sues Over General Corporation Law Violation WHISKED INC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WHOLE FOODS: Seeks to Strike Deloitte's Additional Analysis WHOLE FOODS: Seeks to Strike Plaintiffs' Counsel Declaration WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Sought X MONDO HAIR LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York YETI COOLERS: Hernandez Sues Over Users' Personal Info Disclosure ********* 15 W 36TH PHOTO: Cruz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 15 W 36th Photo Corp. The case is styled as Miriam Cruz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. 15 W 36th Photo Corp., Case No. 1:23-cv-03374-FB-RML (E.D.N.Y., May 4, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 15 W 36th Photo Corp. doing business as 42nd Street Photo -- https://www.42photo.com/ -- is a camera store in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com 86TH STREET WINE: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Miguel Basilio Lopez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. 86TH STREET WINE & SPIRITS CORP.; YAAKOV WEICHMAN; and DALIA WEICHMAN, individually, Case No. 1:23-cv-03769 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2023), is brought alleging that, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, ("FLSA"), he is entitled to recover from the Defendants: unpaid wages and minimum wages for hours worked; unpaid overtime compensation; unpaid "spread of hours" premium for each day he worked in excess of 10 hours; liquidated damages and statutory penalties pursuant to the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and costs. During the Plaintiff's employment by the Defendants, he worked over 40 hours per week. The Plaintiffs schedule required him to work between 42 and up to 60 hours per week. The Plaintiff was not paid wages for all hours worked, or overtime wages. The Plaintiff was paid on a salary basis. Plaintiff was paid a weekly salary of five hundred ten dollars, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants in New York County, New York, as a stock person and general helper for the Defendants' business. The Defendants operate a wine and liquor store.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 60 East 42nd Street — 4011' Floor New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 209-3933 Fax: (212) 209-7102 Email: pcooper@icpclaw.com ADIDAS AG: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unsold Yeezy Products ------------------------------------------------------------- Juliana Kim of OPB reports that more than six months after Adidas cut ties with Ye, formerly known as Kanye West, the sportswear giant has been slow to release a plan on how it will repurpose the piles of unsold Yeezy merchandise -- fueling frustrations among investors. "We are working on different options," Adidas CEO Bjorn Gulden said in an investor's call on May 6, 2023. "The decisions are getting closer and closer." Earlier this week, a group of investors filed a class-action lawsuit against Adidas, accusing the company of knowing about Ye's problematic behavior years before ending the collaboration. Adidas denies the allegations. Adidas terminated its partnership with Ye back in October after the rapper made antisemitic comments. The company stopped its production of Yeezy products as well as payments to Ye and his companies. In February, Adidas estimated that the decision to not sell the existing merchandise will cut the company's full-year revenue by 1.2 billion euros (about $1.28 billion) and its operating profit by 500 million euros ($533 million) this year. The loss may be even steeper if the company does not figure out how to repurpose the already-made Yeezy products. For months, investors have been waiting for Adidas to decide how it will offset the losses. In an investor's call in March, Gulden said he received hundreds of business proposals, but it was important to tread carefully given the tarnished reputation that the product is associated with. "I probably got 500 different business proposals from people who would like to buy the inventory. But again, that will not necessarily be the right thing to do, so a very difficult, sensitive situation," he said. On May 5, 2023, Gulden told investors that "there are three, four scenarios that are now building" and the company has been in talks with "interesting parties many times." He added that a repurpose plan could be approved in the "mid-term in the future." [GN] AGRO RESEARCH: Saborio Balks at Herbicides, Fertilizers' False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------ VICTOR SABORIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AGRO RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL LLC; SENTINEL BIOLOGICS, INC.; AMAZON.COM INC.; AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-02086-TSH (N.D. Cal., April 28, 2023) arises from the conduct of Defendants of falsely advertising and misrepresenting their products sold to Plaintiff and other consumers in violation of the California Business and Professions Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a purchaser and user of the agricultural herbicide and fertilizer product titled Weed Slayer, manufactured by ARI and sold and distributed by Amazon. Weed Slayer is a two-part mixture: Part A is the herbicide and Part B is a biological surfactant that enables the herbicide to penetrate through the leaf. Part B, also called Agro Gold WS, is advertised as an organic biological amendment containing nothing more than soil-enhancing bacteria and water. In reality, however, Agro Gold WS contains the synthetic herbicides glyphosate and diquat, both of which are prohibited for use in organic production, says the suit. Prior to, and at the time of, Plaintiff's purchases of Weed Slayer/Agro Gold WS, the Defendants misrepresented to Plaintiff that this product was natural, organic, suitable for use on organic plants, and contained clove essential oil as its only active ingredient. Due to Defendants' false and misleading advertising and statements, Plaintiff and members of the Class were induced to purchase a non-organic, synthetic herbicide that was far inferior in value than that which had been promised, the suit asserts. Agro Research International LLC is in the business of manufacturing and selling commercial agricultural products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Arns, Esq. Jonathan E. Davis, Esq. Shounak S. Dharap, Esq. Katherine A. Rabago, Esq. ARNS DAVIS LAW A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 515 Folsom St., 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94109 Telephone: (415) 495-7800 Facsimile: (415) 495-7888 E-mail: rsa@arnslaw.com jed@arnslaw.com ssd@arnslaw.com kar@arnslaw.com ALASTIN SKINCARE: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alastin Skincare, Inc. The case is styled as Jovan Campbell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Alastin Skincare, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03671 (S.D.N.Y., May 2, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Alastin Skincare -- https://alastin.com/ -- develops innovative and clinically-validated skincare products that correct, protect, and maintain healthy skin for a lifetime.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com ALEXION PHARMA: Appeals Class Cert Ruling in Boston Retirement Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated April 13, 2023 entered in the lawsuit BOSTON RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., LEONARD BELL, DAVID L. HALLAL, VIKAS SINHA, DAVID BRENNAN, DAVID J. ANDERSON, LUDWIG N. HANTSON, and CARSTEN THIEL, Case No. 3:16-cv-02127-AWT, in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven). The lawsuit, filed on December 29, 2016, seeks compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including attorneys' and expert fees and such equitable/injunctive or other further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge Alvin W. Thompson entered a ruling on April 13, 2023, holding that: 1. Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Representatives and Co-Class Counsel is granted; 2. The following class is certified pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3): "All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. from January 30, 2014, to May 26, 2017, inclusive (the Class Period) and who were damaged thereby (the Class), excluding Defendants; members of the immediate families of the Individual Defendants; Alexion's subsidiaries and affiliates; any person who is or was an officer or director of Alexion or any of the Company's subsidiaries or affiliates during the Class Period; any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest; and the legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns of any such excluded person or entity." 3. Lead Plaintiffs Erste Asset Management GmbH and the Public Employee Retirement System of Idaho are each appointed Class Representatives of the Class pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3); and 4. Lead Counsel Motley Rice LLC and Labaton Sucharow LLP are appointed as Co-Class Counsel for the Class pursuant to Rule 23(g). The appellate case is captioned as BOSTON RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT v. ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; LEONARD BELL; DAVID L. HALLAL; AND VIKAS SINHA, DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS, Case No. 23-709, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 27, 2023. The questions presented are (1) Whether class certification should be denied with respect to any alleged misstatements for which alleged corrective disclosures did not affect the stock's price? (2) Whether a defendant shows that it is more likely than not that a misrepresentation did not affect the stock's price when there is no "front end" evidence of price impact and no statistically significant price drop on the "back end"?[BN] Defendants-Petitioners ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; LEONARD BELL; DAVID L. HALLAL; AND VIKAS SINHA are represented by: Kannon K. Shanmugam, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 223-7325 Plaintiffs-Respondents BOSTON RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by: David A. Slossberg, Esq. HURWITZ, SAGARIN, SLOSSBERG & KNUFF, LLC 147 North Broad Street P.O. Box 112 Milford, CT 06460 Telephone: (203) 877-8000 - and - James M. Fee, Esq. Jonathan Gardner, Esq. James W. Johnson, Esq. Philip J. Leggio, Esq. Michael H. Rogers, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 ALTO OPERATIONS: Ayon Sues Over Labor Code Violations ----------------------------------------------------- Roberto Armando Ayon, on behalf of the general public as private attorney general v. ALTO OPERATIONS CALIFORNIA, LLC; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCVO9043 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 2, 2023), is brought pursuant for recovery of penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") and to recover civil penalties and address an employer's violations of the California Labor Code. In this case, the Defendants violated various provisions of the California Labor Code. The Defendants implemented policies and practices which led to the following Labor Code violations which include but are not limited to: failure to pay wages including overtime, failure to provide meal periods for every work period exceeding more than 10 hours per day and failure to pay an additional hour's of pay or accurately pay an additional hour's of pay in lieu of providing a meal period; failure to provide rest breaks for every four hours or major fraction thereof worked and failure to pay an additional hour's of pay or accurately pay an additional hour's of pay in lieu of providing a rest period; failing to pay all wages earned and owed upon separation from Defendant's employ; failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and failing to reimburse expenses. As a result, the Plaintiff seeks penalties under Labor on behalf of the general public as private attorney general and all other aggrieved employees, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in November 2021, as a Non-Exempt Employee with the title of Driver and worked during the liability period for the Defendants until the Plaintiff's separation from the Defendants' employ in February 28, 2022. ALTO OPERATIONS CALIFORNIA, LLC operates as a car and transportation business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Gregory Mauro, Esq. Michael Calvo, Esq. Lauren Falk, Esq. Ava Issary, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 Email: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com Michael@j ameshawkinsaplc.com Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com AMAZON.COM INC: Court Denies Gray's Bid to File Amended Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JAMES GRAY and SCOTT HORTON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-800 (W.D. Wash.), Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs Gray and Horton brought a putative class action against Defendants Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com Services LLC (collectively, "Amazon"), asserting various claims arising from Amazon's alleged use of voice data collected through its Alexa digital assistant software that runs on various devices sold by Amazon and Amazon partners. They alleged that Amazon did not disclose to its customers that it would use the data derived from the voice recordings made by the Alexa devices for the purposes of targeted advertising. The Plaintiffs asserted claims for (1) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (2) violation of Washington's Consumer Protection Act, RCW Section 19.86 et seq.; (3) intrusion upon seclusion; and (4) infringement of personality rights in violation of Washington's Personality Rights Act ("PRA"), RCW Section 63.60.010 et seq. The Court found that Amazon's disclosures -- in effect at the time the Complaint was filed -- adequately informed customers that their information would be collected and may be used to provide interest-based advertisements, and the Court dismissed the Complaint. The Plaintiffs now seek to amend the complaint to add the disclosures that were in effect at the time they bought their devices, which they allege did not sufficiently identify Amazon's practices. They assert that Amazon's omissions regarding its use of the voice recordings, and the information contained in or derived from the voice recordings, caused them injury because they overpaid for the products they purchased. The Plaintiffs' proposed amended complaint ("PAC") also updates their allegations regarding academic research and expands the scope of allegations to expressly include "voice data" generated from voice recordings. Amazon contends that the Plaintiffs have not cured the deficiencies that resulted in the Court's dismissal of their original complaint and argues that amendment would be futile because all proposed claims fail as a matter of law. First, the Plaintiffs contend that the Court should analyze their breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim based on the terms and conditions that were in effect when they purchased and activated their devices rather than on the 2022 versions. Judge Rothstein holds that the Plaintiffs merely repeat the same arguments the Court has already rejected. She says requiring the case to proceed to a second motion to dismiss as the Plaintiffs suggest would be inconsistent with securing the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding. Next, the Plaintiffs argue that their proposed amended allegations establish a fact issue as to how consumers interpret Amazon's statements regarding its use of voice recordings and voice data, which cures factual deficiencies identified by the Court regarding the unfair and deceptive practice and causation prongs of the Washington's Consumer Protection Act ("CPA") claim. Judge Rothstein, however, accepting the Plaintiffs' allegations as true, finds that whether or not Amazon's public statements were deceptive need not be addressed because the Plaintiffs had failed to plead that the statements caused their alleged injuries. The PAC has not cured the Plaintiffs' failure to allege that they viewed or heard or were aware of alleged deceptive public statements at the time they purchased their devices or since. Absent such allegations, she says the Plaintiffs cannot establish that, but for Amazon's public statements, their injuries would not have occurred. Thus, amendment would be futile. Regarding the Plaintiffs' claim for intrusion upon seclusion, Judge Rothstein says the Plaintiffs simply repeat their above arguments regarding their claim. The Court found that the Plaintiffs were on notice of the Alexa terms and the Privacy Notice, Amazon's policies permit the collection and processing of voice data for advertising purposes, and by registering and using their Alexa devices, the Plaintiffs consented to Amazon's terms. Accordingly, amendment would be futile. Finally, the Plaintiffs argue that because they allege that Amazon used their voices to generate a dossier for the purpose of advertising, the use was infringing. Judge Rothstein notes that rather than "amending" their complaint to cure deficiencies, the Plaintiffs are seeking reconsideration of their prior argument regarding the claim for violation of the Washington's Personality Rights Act. Even if the Court were to accept their definition of the violative use to include "dossiers" gleaned from voice recordings, she says the Court has found that the Plaintiffs consented to such use. Their proposed amendments do not plausibly plead otherwise. Therefore, the Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence. Hence, reconsideration of the Court's dismissal of this claim is denied. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Rothstein denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint and dismisses the matter with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's May 2, 2023 Order is available at https://rb.gy/h2ujk from Leagle.com. AMAZON.COM INC: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due April 12, 2024 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Frame-Wilson et al v. Amazon.com Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-00424 (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Richard A. Jones entered an order granting stipulated motion regarding class certification briefing schedule. -- The deadline for Plaintiffs to file April 12, 2024 their class certification motion is extended to: -- The deadline for Defendant Amazon to July 11, 2024 respond to Plaintiffs' motion is: -- The deadline for Plaintiffs' reply Sept. 10, 2024 brief is: The nature of suit states Antitrust Litigation. Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company focusing on e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Kinney Files Class Suit Over False Discounts ------------------------------------------------------------ Liz Morton of Value Added Resource reports that Amazon is being taken to task for allegedly using fake strike-through pricing to show false discounts, which could lead to FTC action in addition to consumer class-action suit. Amazon.com Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit claiming its posted Amazon Prime discounts are not discounts from a real price. Instead, plaintiffs contend, Amazon.com posts a false price that was not consistently used and then discounts from that price instead. The proposed class includes any Amazon customer who purchased a discounted product with a price of $500 or more where the original price posted was not used for at least six months of the previous year. Lead plaintiff Ben Kinney claims he purchased an LG television on Amazon that was priced at $1,496.99, marked down from $2,499.99, and tagged as "40% off." After the purchase, the price on the television then changed to $2,199 and stated "$700 off," according to the class action. The television, however, was normally sold on Amazon for $1,500 and the price rose to $2,000 for approximately a month, the plaintiff later found out, he claims. Amazon pricing allegedly violates FTC guidelines The pricing on Amazon violates Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guidelines for advertising a comparison to former prices, the plaintiff alleges. The FTC states a price comparison must be to a bonafide former price and not an inflated price, where sales weren't made, that was only created to then claim the item was later on a discount. The plaintiff claims Amazon Prime discounts regularly violate the law and consumer trust and is asking for damages to be paid by Amazon.com Inc. along with the costs of the case including court and attorney's fees, as well as any further relief that the court sees fit. The Prime discount class action lawsuit is Kinney, et al. v. Amazon.com Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-02523, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. [GN] AMD FOOD: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Drummond Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- NESHA DRUMMOND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMD FOOD CORP. d/b/a PRICE CHOICE SUPERMARKET, Defendants, Case No. CACE-23-013244 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., May 3, 2023) seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls. AMD FOOD CORP. d/b/a PRICE CHOICE SUPERMARKET owns and operates groceries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Dover, Esq. DEMESMIN & DOVER, PLLC 1650 SE 17th Street, Suite 100 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (866) 954-6673 Facsimile: (954) 916-8499 Email: SPAM-Pleadings@attorneysoftheinjured.com Jdover@attorneysoftheinjured.com AMERICAN FAMILY: Class Cert Bid Deadline Extended to June 26 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johnson, Holly v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00214 (W.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge James D. Peterson entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to extend their deadline for filing a motion for class certification from May 26 to August 24, 2023. -- The Plaintiffs' new deadline for June 26, 2023 filing a motion for class certification is: -- The Defendants' response is due: July 17, 2023 -- The Plaintiffs' reply is due: July 27, 2023 The nature of suit states Diversity-Insurance Contract. AmFam is an American private mutual company that focuses on property, casualty, and auto insurance, and also offers commercial insurance, life, health, and homeowners coverage as well as investment and retirement-planning products.[CC] AMERICAN SPOON FOODS: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Spoon Foods, Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. American Spoon Foods, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03750 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. American Spoon Foods, Inc. provides canned fruits and vegetables products. The Company offers preserves and nut butters, pancakes, toppings, granola, salsas, condiments, drink mixes, and other related products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com AMERICAN WHOLESALE: Shane Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Wholesale Insurance Holding Company, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Lawrence H. Shane, an individual as trustee of the Lawrence H. Shane & Toni Donaldson Family Trust and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and the general public v. American Wholesale Insurance Holding Company, LLC; Specialty Insurance Advantage, Inc.; Specialty Programs and Facilities Managers, Inc., Does 1 Through 20, Inclusive, Case No. CGC23606288 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 3, 2023). The case type is stated as "Business Tort." American Wholesale is a Charlotte-based wholesale insurance distribution holding company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan D. Saba, Esq. ROSEN SABA, LLP 2301 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 3180 El Segundo, CA 90245 Phone: 310-285-1727 ANAIS CANDLE: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anais Candle NY Inc. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Anais Candle NY Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03720 (S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Anais Candle NY Inc. -- https://anaiscandle.com/ -- offers unique hand-crafted and hand-refined candles made by experienced candle crafters.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (917) 796-7437 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com ANYWHERE REAL ESTATE: Continues to Defend Batton Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Anwhere Real Estate Group LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the nationwide Batton class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division. Batton, Bolton, Brace, Kim, James, Mullis, Bisbicos and Parsons v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, The Long & Foster Companies, Inc., RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division). In this putative nationwide class action filed on January 25, 2021 (formerly captioned as Leeder), the plaintiffs take issue with certain NAR policies, including those related to buyer broker compensation at issue in the Moehrl and Burnett matters, as well as those at issue in the 2020 settlement between the DOJ and NAR, but claim the alleged conspiracy has harmed buyers (instead of sellers). The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made agreements and engaged in a conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Act and were unjustly enriched, and seek a permanent injunction enjoining NAR from establishing in the future the same or similar rules, policies, or practices as those challenged in the action as well as an award of damages and/or restitution, interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. On May 2, 2022, the Court granted the motion to dismiss filed by the Company (together with the other companies named in the complaint) without prejudice. On July 6, 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint substituting in eight new named plaintiffs and no longer naming Leeder as named plaintiff, that may consequently be referred to as Batton v. The National Association of Realtors, et al. The amended complaint is substantially similar to the original complaint but, in addition to the federal Sherman Act and unjust enrichment claims, plaintiffs have added two claims based on certain state antitrust statutes and consumer protection statutes. The Company (together with the other companies named in the complaint) filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on September 7, 2022. Plaintiffs' opposition to the motion was filed October 21, 2022, and defendants' reply was filed on November 22, 2022; that fully briefed motion to dismiss remains pending. Discovery has not commenced. The Company disputes the allegations against it in this case, believes it has substantial defenses to plaintiffs' claims, and is vigorously defending this litigation. Anywhere Real Estate Group LLC (NYSE: HOUS), is an indirect subsidiary of publicly-traded Anywhere Real Estate Inc. (NYSE:HOUS, formerly known as Realogy Holdings Corp.) and is based in Madison, NJ. Anywhere provides franchise and brokerage operations as well as national title, settlement, and relocation companies and nationally scaled mortgage origination and underwriting joint ventures. The company operates in three segments: Anywhere Brands (formerly Franchise), Anywhere Advisors (formerly Owned Brokerage) and Anywhere Integrated Services (formerly Title). The franchise brand portfolio includes Better Homes and Gardens(R) Real Estate, CENTURY 21(R), Coldwell Banker(R), Coldwell Banker. ANYWHERE REAL ESTATE: Continues to Defend Bumpus Class Suit in CA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Anwhere Real Estate Group LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Bumpus class action in the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. Bumpus, et al. v. Realogy Holdings Corp., et al. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division). In this class action filed on June 11, 2019, against Anywhere Real Estate Inc. (f/k/a Realogy Holdings Corp.), Anywhere Intermediate Holdings LLC (f/k/a Realogy Intermediate Holdings LLC), Anywhere Real Estate Group LLC (f/k/a Realogy Group LLC ), Anywhere Real Estate Services Group LLC (f/k/a Realogy Services Group LLC), and Anywhere Advisors LLC (f/k/a Realogy Brokerage Group LLC and NRT LLC), and Mojo Dialing Solutions, LLC, plaintiffs allege that independent sales agents affiliated with Anywhere Advisors LLC violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) using dialers provided by Mojo and others. Plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of a National Do Not Call Registry class, an Internal Do Not Call class, and an Artificial or Prerecorded Message class. In March 2022, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification for the foregoing classes as to the Anywhere defendants but not as to co-defendant Mojo and dismissed Mojo from the case. Plaintiffs and the Anywhere defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment were denied without prejudice on May 11, 2022. The Company's petition for permission to appeal the class certification filed with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was denied and the plaintiffs' class notice plan was approved on May 26, 2022. A mediation between the parties in August 2022 did not result in resolution of this matter. On January 18, 2023, the Court set a trial date of May 15, 2023 and a hearing and pretrial conference for April 27, 2023. Plaintiffs had claimed that approximately 1.2 million Do Not Call calls and approximately 265,000 Pre-Recorded Messages qualified for inclusion in the classes, but on March 29, 2023, filed a motion to narrow the classes to approximately 321,000 Do Not Call calls and approximately 165,000 Pre-Recorded Messages. On April 12, 2023, the Company opposed Plaintiffs' motion to modify the classes and sought to decertify them. On April 24, 2023, the Court vacated the April 27th hearing and pretrial conference and the jury trial set to commence on May 15, 2023, and requested that the parties propose by May 22, 2023, a trial date in the fall of 2023. Plaintiffs' motion to narrow the classes, as well as other pre-trial motions, are pending. The Company disputes the allegations against it in this case, believes it has substantial defenses to both plaintiffs’ liability claims and damage assertions, and is vigorously defending this action. Anywhere Real Estate Group LLC (NYSE: HOUS), is an indirect subsidiary of publicly-traded Anywhere Real Estate Inc. (NYSE:HOUS, formerly known as Realogy Holdings Corp.) and is based in Madison, NJ. Anywhere provides franchise and brokerage operations as well as national title, settlement, and relocation companies and nationally scaled mortgage origination and underwriting joint ventures. The company operates in three segments: Anywhere Brands (formerly Franchise), Anywhere Advisors (formerly Owned Brokerage) and Anywhere Integrated Services (formerly Title). The franchise brand portfolio includes Better Homes and Gardens(R) Real Estate, CENTURY 21(R), Coldwell Banker(R), Coldwell Banker. ANYWHERE REAL ESTATE: Continues to Defend Burnett Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Anywhere Real Estate Group LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Burnett class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Burnett, Hendrickson, Breit, Trupiano, and Keel v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri). This is a now-certified class action complaint, which was filed on April 29, 2019 and amended on June 21, 2019, June 30, 2021 and May 6, 2022 (formerly captioned as Sitzer). The plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act because defendant NAR allegedly established mandatory anticompetitive policies and rules for the multiple listing services and its member brokers that require listing brokers to make an offer of buyer broker compensation when listing a property. The plaintiffs' experts argue that "but for" the challenged NAR policies and rules, these offers of buyer broker compensation would not be made and plaintiffs seek the recovery of any commissions paid to buyers' brokers as to both brokerage and franchised operations in the relevant geographic area. The plaintiffs further allege that commission sharing, which provides for the broker representing the seller sharing or paying a portion of its commission to the broker representing the buyer, is anticompetitive and violates the Sherman Act, and that the brokerage/franchisor defendants conspired with NAR by requiring their respective brokerages/franchisees to comply with NAR's policies, rules, and Code of Ethics, and engaged in other allegedly anticompetitive conduct including, but not limited to, steering and agent education that allegedly promotes the practice of paying buyer broker compensation and discourages commission negotiation. Plaintiffs' experts dispute defendants' contention that the practice of offering and paying buyer broker compensation is based on natural and legitimate economic incentives and benefits that exist irrespective of the challenged NAR policies and rules and also contend that international practices are comparable benchmarks. The antitrust claims in the Burnett litigation are limited both in allegations and relief sought to home sellers who from April 29, 2015, to the present used a listing broker affiliated with one of the brokerage/franchisor defendants in four MLSs that primarily serve the State of Missouri, purportedly in violation of federal and Missouri antitrust laws. The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from requiring home sellers to pay buyer broker commissions or from otherwise restricting competition among brokers, an award of damages and/or restitution for the class period, attorneys' fees and costs of suit. Plaintiffs allege joint and several liability and seek treble damages. In addition, the plaintiffs include a cause of action for alleged violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, or MMPA, on behalf of Missouri residents only, with a class period that commences April 29, 2014. The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from engaging in conduct in violation of the MMPA, an award of damages and/or restitution for the class period, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and costs of suit. On August 22, 2019, the Court denied defendants’ motions to transfer the litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and on October 16, 2019, the Court denied the motions to dismiss this litigation filed respectively by NAR and the Company (together with the other named brokerage/franchisor defendants). In September 2019, the Department of Justice ("DOJ") filed a statement of interest and appearances for this matter and, in July 2020 and July 2021, requested the Company provide it with all materials produced in this matter. The Court granted class certification on April 22, 2022. The Company's petition for an interlocutory appeal of the class certification decision was denied by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on June 2, 2022. The class the Court has certified includes, according to plaintiffs, over 310,000 transactions for which the plaintiffs are seeking a full refund of the buyer brokers’ commissions. On December 16, 2022, the Court issued a decision denying the defendants’ motions for summary judgment in this matter. The Court’s summary-judgment decision holds that plaintiffs have adduced evidence to support their contention that the challenged rules constitute per se violations of the Sherman Act. Because other courts considering similar antitrust challenges to MLS rules have held that such rules cannot be treated as per se violations, the defendants filed a motion asking the Court to certify the issue for a discretionary interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, but the motion was denied by the Court on January 27, 2023. On December 29, 2022 the court also entered an order directing the parties to conduct a mediation no later than March 15, 2023. On February 6, 2023, the court was advised that the parties had participated in the court-ordered mediation. This case had been scheduled to go to trial in February 2023. The court has now continued the trial until October 2023. The Company disputes the allegations against it in this case, believes it has substantial defenses to both plaintiffs’ claims and damage assertions, and is vigorously defending this litigation. Anywhere Real Estate Group LLC (NYSE: HOUS), is an indirect subsidiary of publicly-traded Anywhere Real Estate Inc. (NYSE:HOUS, formerly known as Realogy Holdings Corp.) and is based in Madison, NJ. Anywhere provides franchise and brokerage operations as well as national title, settlement, and relocation companies and nationally scaled mortgage origination and underwriting joint ventures. The company operates in three segments: Anywhere Brands (formerly Franchise), Anywhere Advisors (formerly Owned Brokerage) and Anywhere Integrated Services (formerly Title). The franchise brand portfolio includes Better Homes and Gardens(R) Real Estate, CENTURY 21(R), Coldwell Banker(R), Coldwell Banker. ANYWHERE REAL ESTATE: Continues to Defend Nosalek Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Anwhere Real Estate Group LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from Nosalek putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Nosalek, Hirschorn and Hirschorn v. MLS Property Information Network, Inc., Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts). This is a putative class action filed on December 17, 2020 (formerly captioned as Bauman), wherein the plaintiffs take issue with policies and rules similar to those at issue in the Moehrl and Burnett matters, but rather than objecting to the national policies and rules published by NAR, this lawsuit specifically objects to the alleged policies and rules of a multiple listing service (MLS Property Information Network, Inc.) that is owned by realtors, including in part by one of the Company's company-owned brokerages. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made agreements and engaged in a conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Act and seek a permanent injunction, enjoining the defendants from continuing conduct determined to be unlawful, as well as an award of damages and/or restitution, interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. On December 10, 2021, the Court denied the motion to dismiss filed in March 2021 by the Company (together with the other defendants named in the complaint). On March 1, 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint substituting in two new named plaintiffs and no longer naming the Baumans as named plaintiffs, that may consequently be referred to as Nosalek v. MLS Property Information Network, Inc. On January 9, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint which, among other things, added certain entities as defendants, including certain Anywhere wholly-owned franchisor subsidiaries, removed the Count II state law claims that the plaintiffs had previously voluntarily dismissed, and redefined the covered area as limited to home sales in Massachusetts (removing New Hampshire and Rhode Island). The lawsuit seeks to represent a class of sellers who paid a broker commission in connection with the sale of a property listed in the MLS Property Information Network, Inc. On January 23, 2023, MLS Property Information Network, Inc., HomeServices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. filed their answer to the second amended complaint. The Anywhere defendants filed their answer to the second amended complaint on February 21, 2023. Discovery in the case has commenced. The Company disputes the allegations against it in this case, believes it has substantial defenses to plaintiffs’ claims, and is vigorously defending this litigation. Anywhere Real Estate Group LLC (NYSE: HOUS), is an indirect subsidiary of publicly-traded Anywhere Real Estate Inc. (NYSE:HOUS, formerly known as Realogy Holdings Corp.) and is based in Madison, NJ. Anywhere provides franchise and brokerage operations as well as national title, settlement, and relocation companies and nationally scaled mortgage origination and underwriting joint ventures. The company operates in three segments: Anywhere Brands (formerly Franchise), Anywhere Advisors (formerly Owned Brokerage) and Anywhere Integrated Services (formerly Title). The franchise brand portfolio includes Better Homes and Gardens(R) Real Estate, CENTURY 21(R), Coldwell Banker(R), Coldwell Banker. ARTEMIS CARE: Filing of Conditional Certification Bid Due June 16 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TINA ULM, et al., v. ARTEMIS CARE LLC, et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00213-SL (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Sara Lioi entered a case management plan and trial order as follows: -- Deadline to Add Parties or Amend June 16, 2023 Pleadings: -- Deadline for the Plaintiffs' Motion June 16, 2023 for Conditional Class Certification, Expedited Opt-In Discovery and Court-Supervised Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs: -- Deadline for the Defendant's Opposition July 17, 2023 to Motion for Conditional Class Certification: -- Deadline for the Plaintiffs' Reply in July 31, 2023 Support of Conditional Class Certification: -- Deadline for Completing Non-Expert Oct. 13, 2023 Discovery: -- Deadline for Completing Expert Jan. 16, 2024 Discovery: -- Deadline for Filing Dispositive Feb. 2, 2024 Motions: -- Deadline for Filing Opposition March 4, 2024 to Dispositive Motions: -- Deadline for Filing Replies to March 18, 2024 Responses: Artemis Care is a medical practice company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p6lQHk at no extra charge.[CC] AS BEAUTY GROUP: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AS Beauty Group, LLC. The case is styled as Jovan Campbell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AS Beauty Group, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03673 (S.D.N.Y., May 2, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. AS Beauty -- https://www.asbeautyco.com/ -- is focused on developing global beauty brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com AUDIENCEVIEW TICKETING: Newman Files Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AudienceView Ticketing Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Jadyn Newman, an individual, and on behalf of classes of similarly situated individuals v. AudienceView Ticketing Corporation, UniversityTickets.com, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03764-VEC (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. AudienceView Ticketing Corporation provides e-commerce and ticketing software solution. The Company offers self-serve e-commerce, ticketing, and events management portal for events and entertainment organizations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mason Adams Barney, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (212) 532-1091 Email: mbarney@sirillp.com AZMERE USA INC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Azmere USA, Inc. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Azmere USA, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03373 (E.D.N.Y., May 4, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Azmere USA, Inc. -- https://www.azmereperfume.com/ -- is a perfume store in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com B & J PROPERTY: Or. App. Flips in Part Judgments in Hathaway Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Loren HATHAWAY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated within the state of Oregon; Gennise Hathaway, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated within the state of Oregon; and Heather Noble, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated within the state of Oregon, Plaintiffs-Respondents v. B & J PROPERTY INVESTMENTS, INC., an Oregon corporation; Better Business Management, Inc., an Oregon corporation doing business as Salem RV Park; and William J. Berman, an individual, Defendants-Appellants, Case Nos. 13C14321; A169427 (Or. App.), the Court of Appeals of Oregon reverses in part and affirms in part the trial court's general and supplemental judgments. The appeal reaches the Court of Appeals following nearly seven years of class-action litigation in the trial court. In 2013, Plaintiffs Loren and Gennise Hathaway (the Hathaways) first filed suit on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons against the owners and managers of Salem RV Park, where the Hathaways lived, alleging that certain park utility billing practices violated ORS 90.315(4) (2011) of the Oregon Landlord Tenant Act (ORLTA). Originally, the Defendants to the action were Better Business Management, Inc. (BBM), which managed the park, and B & J Property Investments, Inc. (B & J), which owned the land. As the litigation progressed, more named plaintiffs joined; the Plaintiffs added William Berman, an owner and president of BBM and B & J, as a Defendant; the Plaintiffs brought an additional claim for unlawful retaliation under ORS 90.385 after the park raised monthly rents by $20 in the first months of litigation; and, eventually, they sought to pierce BBM's corporate veil to recover damages for BBM's violations from both B & J and Berman individually. By late 2017, the court had resolved nearly all the issues in the litigation, largely through a series of partial summary judgment rulings that, in total, held BBM liable to the Plaintiffs for violations of the ORLTA pursuant to ORS 90.315(4) (2011) and ORS 90.385 and awarded the Plaintiffs nearly $5 million in damages. The case then proceeded to a bench trial solely on the issue of whether to pierce BBM's corporate veil to permit plaintiffs to recover those damages from B & J and Berman. The court again ruled in the Plaintiffs' favor and entered a general judgment against all three Defendants, "and each of them," on the Plaintiffs' claims. Over the next year, litigation over attorney fees and costs ultimately resulted in entry of a supplemental judgment awarding the Plaintiffs nearly $1 million in fees. The Defendants appeal from the court's general and supplemental judgments. BBM asserts nine assignments of error arising from class certification, summary judgment rulings for the Plaintiffs on the ORLTA claims, an order directing the Defendants to bear the costs of class notice, the court's order striking the Defendant's "good faith" affirmative defense, and the attorney fee award. In separate briefing, B & J and Berman assert seven assignments of error arising from the piercing trial. Because the Court of Appeals concludes that the trial court erred as to several of its legal rulings that occurred early in the litigation, it reverses and remands the general judgment for further proceedings. Specifically, it concludes that the trial court erred (1) in certifying a ten-year class for the Plaintiffs' claims under ORS 90.315(4) (2011), a ruling which was based on the court's conclusion that a discovery rule applied to the statute of limitations for the Plaintiffs' ORLTA claims, ORS 12.125, as described in BBM's second assignment of error; (2) in granting partial summary judgment to the Plaintiffs on the issue of BBM's liability under ORS 90.315(4) (2011) for its rate billing practices, a ruling that was due to the court's conclusion that BBM violated ORS 90.315(4) (2011) as a matter of law when it charged tenants a higher kilowatt-per-hour (kWh) rate for electricity than the electricity utility had charged BBM, as described in BBM's first assignment of error; and (3) in granting partial summary judgment to the Plaintiffs on the issue of damages under ORS 90.315(4) (2011) based on its erroneous interpretation of the damages provision in ORS 90.315(4)(e) (2011), as described in BBM's seventh assignment of error. The Court of Appeals also addresses several rulings that it concludes were not erroneous -- specifically, the court's grant of partial summary judgment to the Plaintiffs on the issue of BBM's liability under ORS 90.315(4) (2011) for its "meter reading fee," a ruling which was based on its conclusion that BBM's $10 meter reading fee violated ORS 90.315(4) (2011) as a matter of law, as described in BBM's second assignment of error, and the court's grant of partial summary judgment to the Plaintiffs on their retaliation claim, a ruling which was based on the court's conclusion that BBM's rent increase constituted retaliation under ORS 90.385 as a matter of law, as described in BBM's fifth assignment of error. The Court of Appeals also concludes that, to the extent that the court erred as alleged in BBM's sixth assignment of error in striking BBM's good faith defense, any error was harmless. BBM's eighth assignment of error, which asserts that the trial court erred in granting partial summary judgment to the Plaintiffs on the issue of calculating retaliation damages under ORS 90.375, is undeveloped in part and unpreserved in part, and the Court of Appeals thus rejects it. BBM's third assignment of error depends on the argument that the court erred in granting partial summary judgment to Plaintiffs on any theory of BBM's liability under ORS 90.315(4) (2011), and the Court of Appeals rejects that assignment of error because it rejects the argument it depends on. BBM's fourth assignment of error is mooted by its conclusion that the trial court erred in certifying a ten-year class. Thus, it does not further discuss BBM's third and fourth assignments of error. The Court of Appeals also does not address the assignments of error raised by B & J and Berman that pertain to the piercing trial that followed the court's legal rulings, because it is not persuaded that those issues would necessarily arise in the same way and with the same factual evidence on remand. It reverses the general judgment in the case due to other legal errors, returning the case to a posture that existed well before the piercing trial occurred. On remand, BBM's ultimate liability to the Plaintiffs will be significantly reduced, and assuming that the Plaintiffs still pursue a piercing claim under those circumstances, the issues presented to the court may be markedly different as well. Finally, the Court of Appeals does not address BBM's ninth assignment of error regarding the Plaintiffs' attorney fee award. It reverses the court's supplemental judgment as a matter of law because it is reversing the general judgment to which that supplemental judgment applies. Because BBM's assignments of error implicate varying standards of review as to the facts, the Court of Appeals does not provide facts relevant to the litigation as a whole but instead detail any facts relevant to a given assignment of error within its discussion of that issue. BBM's assignments of error do not track the chronological development of the litigation in the trial court, and the Court of Appeals does not attempt to address each assignment in precise chronological order either. Instead, the Court of Appeals organizes its discussion into the three main overarching topics at issue in BBM's appeal. It begins with the court's class certification ruling, in which the court applied a discovery rule to the one-year statute of limitations in ORS 12.125. It then addresses the court's summary judgment rulings on liability and damages for the Plaintiffs' utility billing claims under ORS 90.315(4) (2011). Lastly, it addresses the court's summary judgment and ORCP 21 E(2) rulings relevant to the Plaintiffs' retaliation claim under ORS 90.385 and BBM's affirmative defense thereto. A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2023 Opinion is available at https://rb.gy/j3url from Leagle.com. Matthew J. Kalmanson -- mjk@hartwagner.com -- argued the cause for the Appellants. Also on the briefs were Hart Wagner LLP, and Janet M. Schroer -- jms@hartwagner.com. Rick Klingbeil argued the cause for the Respondents. Also on the briefs were Rick Klingbeil, PC, Brady Mertz, PC, and Brady Mertz -- info@bradymertz.com. BABY GENERATION: Faces Dajlani Suit Over Defective Strollers ------------------------------------------------------------ FJONA DAJLANI; and ALLISON EGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BABY GENERATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-03394 Document (E.D.N.Y., May 4, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for making, marketing, and distributing defective "Mockingbird" branded Single-to-Double Strollers and Single Strollers (the "Strollers"). The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Strollers do not meet minimum standards of operating with the necessary level of safety due to a defective, unstable frame that has caused the Strollers to crack, at times causing children to fall from the Strollers. This very dangerous defect, which Defendant knew of or should have known and warned customers about has been experienced and reported by disappointed consumers who experienced these defects firsthand after the point of sale. The Plaintiffs would not have purchased one of the Strollers, or would have sought materially different terms, had she known these Strollers were not as safe as Defendant represented. BABY GENERATION, INC. doing business as Mockingbird, provides baby carriages and strollers. The Company offers strollers and accessories designed for infants and toddlers. Mockingbird serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel B. Strauss, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 Facsimile: (212) 687-7714 Email: jstrauss@kaplanfox.com -and - Laurence D. King, Esq. Matthew B. George, Esq. Blair E. Reed, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 Facsimile: (415) 772-4707 Email: lking@kaplanfox.com kherkenhoff@kaplanfox.com mgeorge@kaplanfox.com breed@kaplanfox.com - and - Marc A. Wites, Esq. WITES & ROGERS 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point, FL 33064 Telephone: (954) 933-4400 Facsimile: (954) 354-0205 Email: mwites@witeslaw.com BANK OF AMERICA: Baptiste Sues Over Alleged Breach of Contract -------------------------------------------------------------- MILDRED DUZANSON-BAPTISTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-02417 (D.N.J., May 2, 2023), alleges claims for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation and promissory estoppel. The claims are brought in connection with the Defendant's recruitment and hiring of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated high performing Financial Solutions Advisors (FSA) who worked at Bank of America's Merrill Lynch subsidiary for new positions as Merrill Financial Solutions Advisors (MFSA). The Defendants allegedly breached the agreement by transferring the existing clients of Plaintiff and the members of the Class to FSAs while Plaintiff and the members of the Class were participants in the MFSA training program. In addition, the Defendants also made false representations to Plaintiff and the Class concerning the retention of their existing client base while they were in the MFSA training program, says the suit. Bank of America Corporation is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in Charlotte, NC. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catherine E. Anderson, Esq. Jason L. Solotaroff, Esq. GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP 90 Broad Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 847-8315 Facsimile: (646) 964-9620 E-mail: canderson@gslawny.com BEAUTY INDUSTRY: Conidi Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jennifer Conidi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BEAUTY INDUSTRY GROUP OPCO, LLC d/b/a LUXY HAIR CO., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2023CH03204 was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 2, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-02765. The Class Action Complaint alleges six causes of action against Luxy for violations of the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act ("BIPA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Robert M. Andalman, Esq. Diana Guler, Esq. A&G LAW LLC 542 South Dearborn, 10th Floor Chicago, IL 60605 Phone: (312) 348-7629 Facsimile: (312) 279-4529 - and - Kent J. Schmidt, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 2000 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (714) 800-1400 Facsimile: (714) 800-1499 BIO-MEDICAL APPLICATIONS: Calderon Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Dolores Calderon, Jason Calderon, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bio-Medical Applications of Mission Hills, Inc. doing business as: Fresenius Kidney Care Mission Hills; Bio-Medical Applications of California, Inc.; Fresenius Management Services, Inc. doing business as: Fresenius Medical Care North America; Case No. 22STCV24391 was removed from the Superior Court of The State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 3, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-03382 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Labor/Mgmnt. Relations. Bio-Medical Applications of Mission Hills, Inc. doing business as Fresenius Kidney Care Mission Hills -- https://www.freseniuskidneycare.com/ -- offers hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis and home dialysis services to people with chronic kidney disease.[BN] The Plaintiffs appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: David H. Stern, Esq. BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: (310) 979-8480 Fax: (310) 820-8859 Email: dstern@bakerlaw.com BLUEPRINT COOKIES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Velez Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- LAUREN VELEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUEPRINT COOKIES FTL LLC, Defendants, Case No. CACE-23-013299 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., May 4, 2023) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. BLUEPRINT COOKIES FTL LLC sells cookies, chocolate chips, and baked products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Dover, Esq. DEMESMIN & DOVER, PLLC 1650 SE 17th Street, Suite 100 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (866) 954-6673 Facsimile: (954) 916-8499 Email: SPAM-Pleadings@attorneysoftheinjured.com Jdover@attorneysoftheinjured.com BOMBAY HOUSE: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bombay House Hospitality, LLC. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Bombay House Hospitality, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03316-LDH-CLP (E.D.N.Y., May 2, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bombay House Hospitality, LLC doing business as Bombay House -- https://bombayhouse.com/ -- has since been an iconic restaurant destination in Utah.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com BOO INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Tano Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ CESAR TANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. B.O.O. Inc., d/b/a ACURA OF PEMBROKE PINES, Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-013252 (Fla., Cir., Broward Cty., May 3, 2023) seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls. B.O.O. Inc., d/b/a ACURA OF PEMBROKE PINES offers new and used car sales, car repair, car parts and car loans. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Dover, Esq. DEMESMIN & DOVER, PLLC 1650 SE 17th Street, Suite 100 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (866) 954-6673 Facsimile: (954) 916-8499 Email: SPAM-Pleadings@attorneysoftheinjured.com Jdover@attorneysoftheinjured.com CAL. DEL. USA: Orin Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Lindsay Orin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public v. CAL. DEL. U.S.A. INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV07181 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 4, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-03404. The Complaint includes the following causes of action: failure to pay all wages due; failure to pay all minimum and overtime wages due; failure to provide rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof; IWC Wage Order 4-2001; failure to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions; and failure to pay wages due at separation of employment.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Matthew A. Tobias, Esq. Bryanne J. Lewis, Esq. Elyssa M. Sternberg, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations 333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422 Phone: 213.620.1780 Facsimile: 213.620.1398 Email: mtobias@sheppardmullin.com blewis@sheppardmullin.com esternberg@sheppardmullin.com CARBON6 LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carbon6, LLC. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Carbon6, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03728 (S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Carbon6 -- https://www.carbon6rings.com/ -- is a Brooklyn-based jewelry maker.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com CARGO LEASING: Corrales Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Reinier Rey Corrales and Phong Dang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CARGO LEASING SOLUTIONS LLC, AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00555 (W.D. Tex., May 2, 2023), is brought against the Defendants seeking all available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendants failure to pay overtime wages. The Plaintiffs regularly worked more than 40 hours a week. The Plaintiffs observed that other Delivery Associates routinely worked similar hours. Even after Delivery Associates finish delivering their assigned packages, they were required to "rescue" other Delivery Associates by going to meet another Delivery Associate in the field to help deliver some of their packages. The Defendants did not accurately record all time that Delivery Associates spent working for Defendants, and, as such, Delivery Associates performed work "off the clock." The Plaintiffs performed many of the aforementioned required work duties when they were not "on the clock." As a result, Plaintiffs and the Proposed Collective were not paid for all time worked, including overtime to which they are entitled under the FLSA. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs and other Delivery Associates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and did not pay proper overtime premiums. The Defendants paid Delivery Associates a fixed amount per day and regularly did not pay overtime premiums for hours worked more than 40 in a work week. The Defendants failed to accurately record Delivery Associates' time worked and failed to properly pay overtime, as required by the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed as Delivery Associated by the Defendants. Cargo Leasing supplies last-mile delivery services to Amazon via its participation in Amazon's Delivery Service Provider ("DSP") program.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Krysten Connon, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (267) 256-9973 Fax: (617) 994-5801 Email: ssb@llrlaw.com kconnon@llrlaw.om - and - Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq. WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON 1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 656-3600 Fax: (215) 567-2310 Email: rhancock@wwdlaw.com - and - Michaela Wallin, Esq. Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-3000 Fax: (215) 875-4620 Email: mwallin@bm.net apiazza@bm.net CCI & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay Inspectors' OT Wages, Wood Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JERROD WOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CCI & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-01624 (S.D. Tex., May 2, 2023) is a class action suit alleging that the Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members at the rate of time and one half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the FLSA by misclassifying the Plaintiff and Putative Collective Members as exempt from overtime. The Plaintiff commonly worked at least 12 hours during the majority of days that he worked for the Defendant. As a result, the Plaintiff frequently worked in excess of 60 hours per week, the Plaintiff claims. The Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members were paid on a day rate basis. The Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members were not paid a guaranteed weekly salary. The Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members regularly worked more than 40 hours each week and were not paid overtime for those hours worked in excess of 40, the lawsuit adds. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from February 2019 to October 2021 as an inspector for Defendant's locations in West Virginia, Oklahoma, and Texas. CCI & Associates is part of the CCI Inc. Group of Companies, and provides inspection services to the construction industry, pipeline industry, utilities, environmental projects, and other industries in Canada and the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, LLP 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com CENTIMARK CORP: Discovery & Mediation Order Issued in Lingle Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California enters an order regarding discovery and mediation in the case, ANTHONY LINGLE, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. CENTIMARK CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania Corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-CV-01471-KJM-JDP (E.D. Cal.). The Plaintiff filed the action on Dec. 2, 2021, and alleges in the operative Complaint that the Defendant failed to pay minimum wages, failed to pay overtime wages, failed to provide meal and rest periods, failed to provide accurate wage statements, failed to timely pay final wages, failed to reimburse expenses, engaged in unfair competition, and the Defendant is liable for statutory penalties and civil penalties for violations of the California Labor Code. On Nov. 4, 2022, the Defendant filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike the Second Amended Complaint, which the Plaintiff opposed on Nov. 18, 2022. The Court issued an order on April 14, 2023, denying the motion, in part, and granting the motion, in part, with leave to amend. The order also set out certain litigation deadlines, including, but not limited to, deadlines for filing an amended pleading, initial disclosure, fact discovery, initial expert disclosures, rebuttals to the initial expert disclosures, expert discovery, and filing a motion for class certification. The Parties have met and conferred and have agreed to proceed with mediation with Lou Marlin, Esq. on Aug. 21, 2023. In order to preserve the resources of the Court and the Parties, the Parties wish stay the case pending mediation, including the deadlines set forth in the April 14, 2023, order. Therefore, the Parties agree and stipulate as follows: 1. The Parties jointly request the Court to stay all calendar dates of the litigation, including the Plaintiff's deadline to amend the complaint, until Sept. 20, 2023, which is 30 days after the scheduled mediation. 2. The Parties jointly request the Court to schedule a status conference on Sept. 20, 2023 to re-schedule the dates set forth in the Court's April 14, 2023 Order. 3. The Defendant reserves the right to respond to the Plaintiff's amended complaint by Sept. 20, 2023. 4. The Parties agree to stay all formal discovery until Sept. 20, 2023. 5. Prior to the mediation, the Parties will meet and confer in good faith regarding an informal exchange of information reasonably necessary to evaluate the parties' respective claims and defenses. Having considered the foregoing stipulation of the parties, Judge Mueller orders that all calendar dates of the action are taken off calendar until at least 30 days following the Parties' mediation on Aug. 21, 2023. She says the Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint must be filed by Sept. 20, 2023. She continues the Defendant's deadline to respond to the Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint to 30 days after the filing of the Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint. Judge Mueller sets a status conference on Sept. 21, 2023, at 2:30 p.m., to re-schedule the dates in the Court's April 14, 2023, order. A Joint Status Report is due 14 days prior to this conference. The Parties will notify the Court of the status of a settlement within five days following the mediation date. They will meet and confer in good faith regarding an informal exchange of information reasonably necessary to evaluate their respective claims and defenses in advance of mediation. A full-text copy of the Court's May 2, 2023 Order is available at https://rb.gy/jpq60 from Leagle.com. Galen T. Shimoda -- attorney@shimodalaw.com -- Justin P. Rodriguez, Renald Konini -- rkonini@shimodalaw.com -- Shimoda & Rodriguez Law, PC, Elk Grove, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff ANTHONY LINGLE. Michael J. Nader -- michael.nader@ogletree.com -- Paul M. Smith -- paul.smith@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Sacramento, CA, Attorneys for CENTIMARK CORPORATION. CHICAGO CUBS: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Lateano Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- COLIN LATEANO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHICAGO CUBS BASEBALL CLUB, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02757 (N.D. Ill., May 2, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Allegedly, the Chicago Cubs sent automated telemarketing text messages to Mr. Lateano to promote the sale of its baseball tickets. On July 21, 2022, Plaintiff responded to one of these messages with a message saying "Stop." However, The Chicago Cubs failed to institute the procedures necessary to honor do-not-call requests and did fail to honor Plaintiff's do-not-call request. The Defendant's actions harmed Plaintiff by intruding upon his seclusion, interfering with the legitimate use of his phone, wasting his time, and invading his privacy, says the suit. Chicago Cubs Baseball Club, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq. Keith J. Keogh, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD. 55 W. Monroe St., Ste. 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 E-mail: tsostrin@keoghlaw.com Keith@KeoghLaw.com CHICAGO, IL: Blind Walkers Won Class Suit Over Pedestrian Safety ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff McMurra of WBEZ Chicago reports that after a retinal disease left him legally blind, architect John Gleichman was struck by a taxicab while walking home near Chicago's Lincoln Park Zoo -- at the same intersection where a 4-year-old girl was killed by a hit-and-run driver years earlier. Although Maya Hirsch's death in 2006 ignited a citywide crusade for pedestrian safety improvements, almost all the electronic upgrades since then have been for people who can see. Nearly 3,000 Chicago intersections are now equipped with visual crossing signals, yet fewer than three dozen include audible cues. In a landmark victory for blind residents challenging the accessibility of a major city's signalized crosswalks, a federal judge in March ruled in a class-action lawsuit that such disparity in the nation’s third-largest city violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. "Every time I go out to go downtown for a meeting, I have to think I could get hit on May 7, 2023 and not make it home," said Gleichman, 65, who has been struck four times times by vehicles while navigating the city with his white cane since being diagnosed as legally blind in 2005. He considers himself fortunate to have escaped serious injury each time. A future hearing could decide how many audible crossing signals Chicago must install, but a similar case in New York City suggests it could be substantial. A federal judge there appointed an independent monitor and in December 2021 gave officials a decade to gradually make at least 10,000 of its approximately 13,000 signalized intersections accessible to blind pedestrians. It's already well ahead of schedule. "It's been huge progress. It's a game-changer to the blind and visually impaired community," said Terence Page, president of the Greater New York Council of the Blind. "As new cities begin to build infrastructure, we want accessibility to not be an afterthought but work in parallel with the upgrades." Accessible pedestrian signals, known as APS, have been around for decades, though the technology has evolved. Many of Chicago's few APS-equipped intersections -- including on a busy street outside The Chicago Lighthouse, which provides services to blind and low-vision residents -- still rely on beeps or cuckoo chirps to announce when it's safe to cross. Newer models actually speak the words "walk" or "don't walk," and feature tactical buttons to clarify directions so blind pedestrians don't stray into traffic. Many also convey the time remaining before the light turns red. Sandy Murillo, a lifelong Chicago-area resident who was born with glaucoma and lost her sight at age 2, said she didn’t even know about APS until she heard a strange voice say "walk" during a childhood family trip to southern California. "That kind of made it dawn on me," said Murillo, who produces a radio show for The Chicago Lighthouse and writes a blog on issues facing the blind community. "I thought, 'Oh, so that's what it is. They're there for people like me.'" Chicago's Department of Transportation declined to comment on the judge's ruling, citing the ongoing litigation. But spokesperson Erica Schroeder told The Associated Press in an email that APS devices are installed at 35 intersections and "under construction, in design, or in procurement" at more than 150 others. The department estimates a $50,000 to $200,000 price tag per intersection to install APS, although grant money is available through the 2021 federal infrastructure law to help cities defray some costs. Advocates for Chicago's blind residents say they pushed the city for years to add APS with little success before taking legal action. Kathy Austin, a community engagement specialist at Second Sense -- a downtown organization serving blind residents -- recalls a meeting in 2017 or 2018 in which she and others in the blind community presented a list of the most dangerous intersections, only to be told by city officials that APS was too difficult to install in many of those places. "There was a laundry list of excuses," Austin said. Blind residents know from their mobility training to wait to hear the sounds of parallel traffic before crossing a street. That's often difficult in noisy downtowns like Chicago's with its overhead "El" train stations and other ambient noises. Then, when the pandemic hit and downtown traffic steeply declined, they encountered the opposite problem -- not enough vehicles or even people around to help decipher when to walk or stop. "Sometimes I would stand at an intersection for like half a minute and no car would come by," Gleichman said. "So you either ask somebody walking by, 'Do I have the light?' or you just go out in the road and hope you don't get hit." London-based Waymap, which created a smartphone navigation app for blind pedestrians that Washington, D.C.'s subway system uses as an accessibility tool, found in a study that blind people average just 2.5 regular routes -- such as from home to the office or grocery store and back -- if they use a cane or 3.5 if they use a guide dog. Celso Zuccollo, Waymap's chief operating officer, said the study found that people who lack independent mobility were far more likely to experience depression. Maureen Reid, a job-placement counselor at The Chicago Lighthouse, said she feels more comfortable than many of her blind friends moving about the city because of her familiarity with its sidewalks and the help of her guide dog, Gaston. But she acknowledges there's room for numerous safety improvements -- including more tactile strips at pedestrian crosswalks and transit stations. Her previous dog slipped off a platform edge at an "El" station and dangled from his harness over the commuter train track as Reid yelled for help. The dog was unharmed. San Francisco voluntarily entered a settlement with blind residents nearly two decades ago to add APS, and numerous other U.S. cities as well as the state of Maryland require it, said Torie Atkinson, senior staff attorney with Disability Rights Advocates, which represents plaintiffs in both the New York and Chicago cases. Matt Baker, vice president of sales and marketing at Greenville, Texas-based Polara, a leading manufacturer of APS products, said the Chicago market has been one of the toughest to crack -- with just a few intersections equipped with Polara devices. Baker said that could change due to the court ruling and expectations that the federal board reviewing public right-of-way issues will eventually require APS at most new or rebuilt signalized intersections nationwide. Either way, Chicago will almost certainly be compelled to include the technology in future construction. Atkinson said the Chicago verdict expanded on the New York ruling in several key areas, reinforcing the need for Chicago to equip all its signalized intersections with APS. "I would genuinely hope these lawsuits are a wake-up call," Atkinson said. [GN] CHOBANI LLC: Gershzon Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Mikhail Gershzon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CHOBANI LLC, Case No. CGC-22-603042 was removed from the San Francisco Superior County Court, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on May 2, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-02140. The Plaintiff filed his Complaint on November 18, 2022. The complaint states, by mislabeling its Product in violation of federal and state regulation, the Defendant induced the Plaintiff and members of the Class to purchase Products that were of lesser value and quality than advertised thereby enriching itself at consumers' expense. The Plaintiff seeks an order for the restitution and disgorgement of all monies from the sale of the Defendant's Products that were unjustly acquired through unlawful acts.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Claudia M Vetesi, Esq. Lena Gankin, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Phone: 415.268.7000 Facsimile: 415.268.7522 Email: CVetesi@mofo.com LGankin@mofo.com CK SALES: Appeals Court Exempt Bakery Distributors From Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Wiessner of Reuters reports that distributors for a commercial bakery can pursue claims that they were misclassified as independent contractors in court rather than arbitration, a U.S. appeals court ruled on May 5, 2023. A unanimous three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said distributors for bakery Flowers Foods Inc were "transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce," qualifying them for an exemption in federal law from having to arbitrate wage claims. The ruling creates a split with the New York-based 2nd Circuit which came to the opposite conclusion last year in a separate case involving a Flowers subsidiary. The question of whether the exemption applies is crucial because it determines whether workers can bring large-scale class actions or must individually arbitrate legal claims. Arbitration is often impractical because of the small sums at stake in individual cases. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a brief with the 1st Circuit last year backing Flowers. The Chamber said a ruling against the company would "engender costly and protracted disputes" over how the arbitration exemption applies. Georgia-based Flowers did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Nor did lawyers for the distributors who sued the company. Flowers' distributors purchase the rights to sell and deliver the company's baked goods along specific routes in Massachusetts, according to the decision. The plaintiffs in 2021 filed a proposed class action against Flowers and two subsidiaries in Boston federal court, claiming they had been misclassified as independent contractors rather than the companies' employees. They say they are owed unpaid wages, overtime pay and other damages. Flowers moved to send the claims to individual arbitration, citing agreements the distributors had signed. The company argued that distributors were not transportation workers because they owned their businesses and their primary job was selling baked goods to retailers. The 1st Circuit on May 5, 2023 disagreed. "Plaintiffs' additional membership in a class of workers who own companies . . . does not remove them from the class of workers who deliver goods," Circuit Judge William Kayatta wrote. The panel also included Circuit Judges Sandra Lynch and O. Rogeriee Thompson. Appeals courts in recent years have increasingly been asked to decide when the arbitration exemption applies. The U.S. Supreme Court last year said Southwest Airlines baggage handler supervisors qualified for the exemption even though they do not cross state lines. The 1st and San Francisco-based 9th Circuits have said Amazon.com Inc "last mile" delivery drivers are exempt from arbitration, while the Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit last week said Uber Technologies Inc drivers are not. The case is Canales v. CK Sales Co LLC, 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 22-1268. For the plaintiffs: Benjamin Rudolf and Sarah Varney of Murphy & Rudolf For CK Sales: Amanda Rice of Jones Day; Peter Bennett of the Bennett Law Firm [GN] CLASSICAL INSIGHTS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Classical Insights, LLC. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Classical Insights, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03731 (S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Classical Insights, LLC doing business as Z Naturals -- http://www.znaturalfoods.com/-- dedicated to bringing exceptional organic & all natural superfoods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com COMFORT SYSTEMS: $60K Settlement in Maddison Suit Wins Prelim. Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, KEVIN T. MADDISON and DAVID WALTON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COMFORT SYSTEMS USA (SYRACUSE), INC. d/b/a ABJ FIRE PROTECTION CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:17-CV-359 (LEK/ATB) (N.D.N.Y.), Judge Lawrence E. Kahn of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York grants the motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. Plaintiffs Maddison and Walton brought a putative class action against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime payments and prevailing wages Defendant allegedly withheld from them. After five years of litigating the action, the parties have reached a settlement in the amount of $60,000. Now before the Court is an unopposed Motion from the Plaintiffs requesting the following: (1) preliminary approval of the proposed settlement agreement; (2) certification of the settlement class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3); (3) scheduling of a fairness hearing to consider final approval of the settlement; (4) an order directing that notice of the proposed settlement and final approval hearing be provided to absent class members in a manner consistent with the settlement agreement and notice plan; and (5) entering of the proposed order for preliminary approval that the Plaintiffs have attached. The only remaining claims concerned the Defendant's failure to credit intra-day travel toward overtime pay under New York labor law. Following several months of negotiation, the parties filed a notice of settlement on Aug. 15, 2022. The settlement figure amounted to $60,000, which includes $27,449.13 in payments to 35 class members, $2,500 to each named Plaintiff as an incentive award, $8,000 in settlement administration costs, and $19,950.87 in attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs calculated the $27,449.13 in payments based on the Defendant's payroll documents. Despite the settlement, the Defendant maintains that it did not engage in any unlawful conduct. The settlement agreement also permits the Plaintiffs to appeal the grant of summary judgment on their prevailing wage claims. Moreover, the class Plaintiffs seek to certify is defined as follows: All individuals who worked for Comfort Systems USA (Syracuse), Inc. d/b/a ABJ Fire Protection Co., Inc. from March 30, 2011 through May 30, 2015 performing electrical or sprinkler work such as installing, maintaining, inspecting, testing, repairing and/or replacing fire alarm, fire sprinkler and security system equipment. The class members eligible to receive payments are those who do not submit a valid and timely opt-out form. Judge Kahn finds that (i) the proposed settlement is the product of an arm's length negotiation; (ii) the maintenance of the class would not be guaranteed if the settling Defendant; (iii) the proposed method of distributing relief to the class appears reasonable and rational; and (iv) the proposed award of attorney's fees which is approximately one-third of the class action settlement weighs in favor of preliminary approval. Judge Kahn further finds that (i) there is no evidence on the record that the Defendant could not withstand a greater judgment; (ii) the successful motion practice by Defendant in dismissing the Plaintiffs' previous claims, and potential for future dismissal of their remaining claims, counsel in favor of approval; (iii) the settlement agreement's release provisions do not raise any relevant equitable concerns; and (iv) the class satisfies Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b). Having approved the class action in its preliminary stage, Judge Kahn must ensure that the parties are given an opportunity to be heard before the Court approves the settlement. Accordingly, he schedules a final fairness hearing for final approval of the settlement class on Nov. 2, 2023, at 10:30 a.m. at the James T. Foley U.S. Courthouse, 445 Broadway, Albany, New York 12207, or by videoconference or teleconference if determined by separate order. The fairness hearing will provide a forum for proponents and opponents of the settlement proposal to explain, describe, or challenge the proposed terms. The Class Counsel's application for an award of attorney's fees and costs and Settlement Class Representative Award for Named Plaintiffs will be heard at the time of the Final Approval Hearing. Accordingly, Judge Kahn grants the motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. The notice of the proposed settlement and final approval hearing will be provided to the absent class members in a manner consistent with the settlement agreement and notice plan, and in the form and content substantially as set forth in the settlement agreement. The parties and their counsel must adhere to the settlement procedures delineated in the Order titled Order Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement. The Clerk will serve a copy of the Memorandum-Decision and Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules. A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2023 Memorandum-Decision & Order is available at https://rb.gy/71dkz from Leagle.com. COMPASS GROUP: Borrero Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Andres Borrero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Compass Group USA, Inc. doing business as: Canteen, Case No. 8:22-cv-02407 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on May 4, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-00586-SRW to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Compass Group USA, Inc. -- https://www.compass-usa.com/ -- retails prepared foods and drinks for on-premise consumption. The Company offers catering, dining, and support services for foodservice events.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward H. Zebersky, Esq. Kimberly Slaven-Hauth, Esq. Zebersky Payne Shaw Lewenz, LLP 110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2900 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 989-6333 Fax: (954) 989-7781 Email: ezebersky@zpllp.com kslaven@zpllp.com - and - Anthony Jenkins, Esq. Mike Arias, Esq. Robert Merrill Partain, Esq. ARIAS, SANGUINETTI, WANG & TOORIJOS, LLP 6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90045 Phone: (310) 844-9696 Fax: (310) 861-0168 Email: mike@asstlawyers.com robert@aswtlawyers.com - and - Daniel S. Levy, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD, LLC 1010 Market Street, Suite 1645 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 241-5799 - and - Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq. GOLDENBERG HELLER PC 2227 S. State Route 157 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Phone: (618) 650-7122 Fax: (618) 656-6230 Email: rick@ghalaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Jonathan B. Morton, Esq. K & L GATES, LLP Southeast Financial Center 200 S Biscayne Blvd Ste 3900 Miami, FL 33131-2370 Phone: (305) 539-3300 Fax: (305) 358-7095 Email: jonathan.morton@klgates.com CONSUMER CREDIT: Pinn Suit Transferred to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Kelly Pinn, an individual, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Consumer Credit Counseling Foundation, Inc., National Budget Planners of South Florida, Inc., Ishwinder Judge 1-25, Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants; Digital Media Solutions LLC, Non-Party, Movant; Case No. 2:22-mc-00233 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on May 3, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-80134 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Consumer Credit Counseling Foundation, Inc. -- http://www.cccfusa.org/-- offers budgeting, credit and financial education and counseling services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ethan Preston, Esq. PRESTON LAW OFFICES 4054 McKinney Avenue Suite 310 Dallas, TX 75204 Phone: (972) 564-8340 Fax: (866) 509-1197 Email: ep@eplaw.us CONTRACT PHARMACAL: Reyes Sues Over Manual Workers' Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------- BRYAN SALMERON REYES, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONTRACT PHARMACAL CORP., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-03240 (E.D.N.Y., April 28, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations for failure to pay overtime wages, failure to timely pay wages owed, failure to provide accurate wage statements for each pay period, as well as damages for retaliation for engaging in protected activity under the New York State Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a "manual worker" within the meaning of NYLL at Defendant's manufacturing facilities located in New York. Contract Pharmacal Corp. engages in the manufacture and distribution of pharmaceutical products and supplements.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Barnhorn, Esq. Peter A. Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 CRUNCH TIME: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Drummond Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- NESHA DRUMMOND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CRUNCH TIME d/b/a FASHION SHOES-ALL SHOES $8.88, Defendants, Case No. CACE-23-013242 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., May 3, 2023) seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls. CRUNCH TIME d/b/a FASHION SHOES-ALL SHOES $8.88 owns and operates a basketball specialist store. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Dover, Esq. DEMESMIN & DOVER, PLLC 1650 SE 17th Street, Suite 100 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (866) 954-6673 Facsimile: (954) 916-8499 Email: SPAM-Pleadings@attorneysoftheinjured.com Jdover@attorneysoftheinjured.com DELAWARE COUNTY, PA: Summary Judgment in Burford Suit Affirmed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TONY BURFORD, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellant v. COUNTY OF DELAWARE; ANGELA L. MARTINEZ, Delaware County Prothonotary, in her Individual and Official Capacities; PATRICIA ORESKOVICH, Director of Court Financial Services, in her Individual and Official Capacities; PHILIP F. PISANI, Director of Court Financial Services, in her Individual and Official Capacities, Case No. 22-1673 (3d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirms the District Court's grant of summary judgment for Appellees Delaware County and Martinez. Burford appeals the District Court's grant of summary judgment for Appellees Delaware County and Martinez. He argues that they violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause when they withheld bail money that was owed to him. In March 2017, a jury acquitted Burford of criminal charges in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania. Following his acquittal, the Court's Financial Services Office mailed Burford a bail refund check, but it failed to reimburse him for $1,116.80 in fees for "Constable and Live Scan Charges." Noticing that he had not received a full refund, Burford called the Financial Services Office, the number for which was listed on the back of the reimbursement check. When Burford asked why he did not receive all of his money back, a Financial Services employee told him that he was not entitled to the $1,116.80. Nearly two years later, in February 2019, Burford filed this individual and putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging federal claims and a state law conversion claim against Delaware County, Martinez in her individual capacity and in her official capacity as the Delaware County Protonotary, and Financial Services employees Patricia Oreskovich and Philip F. Pisani in their individual and official capacities. After learning of the error and lawsuit, Martinez offered on behalf of the County to pay Burford the proper refund amount. Burford declined the refund, preferring to proceed with litigation. The complaint alleged the following six claims, the first five claims being asserted under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, against all defendants: a Fourteenth Amendment violation of procedural due process (Count I); a Fourteenth Amendment violation of substantive due process (Count II); an Eighth Amendment violation for imposition of excessive fines (Count III); a Fifth Amendment violation for taking of property (Count IV); and a Monell liability claim (Count V). The sixth claim was for conversion under Pennsylvania law (Count VI). Burford then filed an amended complaint, which repeated the Monell claim but only against Delaware County and Martinez in her official capacity, and which alleged the conversion claim against only Delaware County and Martinez in her individual capacity, but which was otherwise identical to the original complaint. The District Court dismissed the substantive due process claim, the conversion claim against Delaware County, all claims against Oreskovich and Pisani, and all federal claims against Martinez. Burford then filed a motion to compel Delaware County to produce bail receipts for the past five years. The District Court denied that motion without prejudice. In March 2022, the District Court granted summary judgment for Delaware County on all remaining federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the ancillary Pennsylvania law claim for conversion against Martinez. This timely appeal followed, challenging the grant of summary judgment only as to the procedural due process and takings claims. Burford asserts that Delaware County and Martinez violated his Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights when they improperly withheld the Constable and Live Scan Charges from his bail refund without first providing him notice and an opportunity to be heard. He argues that Delaware County could have provided him with various kinds of notice. The Third Circuit opines that because the mistake in the case was a random and unauthorized clerical act that deviated from established procedure, and because there were sufficient post-deprivation remedies available to Burford to obtain the full reimbursement owed to him, there was no procedural due process violation. Burford next argues that the District Court erred in granting the Defendants summary judgment as to his Fifth Amendment takings claim. He asserts that contrary to the District Court's holding, he never received just compensation, or any compensation for the money that the Appellees admit was wrongfully taken from him. As the District Court correctly observed, the Third Circuit says the Appellees have already offered to provide the Plaintiff with the entirety of amounts erroneously withheld ($1,116.80). Accordingly, this alleged taking is not without just compensation. It is therefore unsurprising that Burford has not identified a single instance in which we have held that a property deprivation resulting from a government employee's mistake and one that the government offers to correct, amounts to an unconstitutional taking. Clerical errors are not constitutional violations. The Third Circuit concludes that because the money was withheld due to a random and unauthorized act of a Delaware County employee, rather than pursuant to any established procedure, there was no violation of Burford's constitutional rights. It, therefore, affirms the judgment of the District Court. A full-text copy of the Court's May 2, 2023 Opinion is available at https://rb.gy/uusun from Leagle.com. DELTONA CITY, FL: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anson, et al., v. City of Deltona, Florida, Case No. 6:23-cv-00766 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. -- The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Real Property - Torts to Land. Deltona is a city in Volusia County, Florida, United States. It is located on the northern shore of Lake Monroe along the St. Johns River.[CC] DEUTSCHE BANK: Lead Plaintiff Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Deutsche Bank Akteingesellschaft, et. al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10018-JSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Lead Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 moves the Court for an order: 1. certifying this action pursuant to Rule 23 as a class action; 2. appointing her as the Class Representative; 3. appointing Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Edwards Pottinger LLC, and Paul Cassell as Class Counsel; and 4. granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Deutsche Bank is a German multinational investment bank and financial services company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pazedn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Boies, Esq. Andrew Villacastin, Esq. Sabina Mariella, Esq. Sigrid McCawley, Esq. Daniel Crispino, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY Telephone: (212) 446-2300 Facsimile: (212) 446-2350 E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com avillacastin@bsfllp.com smariella@bsfllp.com smccawley@bsfllp.com dcrispino@bsfllp.com - and - Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. Brittany N. Henderson, Esq. EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC 425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 524-2820 Facsimile: (954)-524-2822 E-mail: brad@epllc.com brittany@epllc.com - and - Paul G. Cassell, Esq. S.J. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW AT THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 383 S. University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: (801) 585-5202 Facsimile: (801) 585-6833 E-mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu DIESTEL TURKEY: Court Stays Discovery in Wetzel Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CYNTHIA WETZEL, on behalf of herself and all other New Mexico consumers similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DIESTEL TURKEY RANCH, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-1213 DHU/DLM (D.N.M.), Magistrate Judge Damian L. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico: a. denies without prejudice the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel ESI Discovery and DTR's Motion for Protective Order, without prejudice and with leave to refile, as appropriate, after the Court has ruled on DTR's motion to dismiss; and b. stays the discovery in the matter pending a ruling on DTR's motion to dismiss. The lawsuit is a putative consumer class action brought by Wetzel against Diestel Turkey Ranch (DTR), which markets and sells premium-priced turkey products. Wetzel filed her Class Action Complaint on Nov. 19, 2020. In November 2018, Wetzel bought a DTR turkey at a Whole Foods grocery store. She chose the turkey based on information she read on its packaging and on in-store signage that advertised the bird as thoughtfully raised with high animal welfare standards. Wetzel alleges that DTR's advertising is false and misleading, and she brings a putative class action on behalf of similarly situated consumers. Wetzel defines the class to include New Mexico consumers, who bought a DTR turkey on or after Nov. 19, 2016. The parties have been engaging in discovery relevant to class certification and the merits. Wetzel moves to compel electronically stored information (ESI) concerning DTR's marketing and advertising across a variety of platforms, such as its website, social media, and brochures. DTR opposes the motion and moves for a protective order. It contends that because Wetzel only claims an injury based on information she read in the store, she lacks Article III standing to bring claims on behalf of consumers who saw advertisements outside of a store. DTR made this same argument in a motion to dismiss that is still pending. DTR filed its motion to dismiss on April 14, 2021. It argues that because Wetzel asserts she purchased the turkey based on information on the packaging and on signage in Whole Foods, she has not sufficiently alleged an injury arising from advertising on other platforms. DTR contends that Wetzel lacks both Article III and statutory standing to assert false advertising claims based on advertisements that she does not allege she ever saw and DTR products she never purchased. On Feb. 8, 2022, Wetzel served DTR with her opening Interrogatories and RFPs. At issue are RFPs 7-9, 11-13, and 18: RFP 7: All documents concerning any contemplated, potential, or actual changes, revisions or modifications to the products' labels or advertisements during the class period, including drafts of such documents. RFP 8: All documents sufficient to show when and where each statement advertisement, or label related to the turkey products appeared. RFP 9: For documents concerning the reasons for, plans, proposals, and motivations for any change to the label or advertising of any product. RFP 11: All documents concerning your strategy for marketing, advertising, or selling the turkey products in the United States [sic] and New Mexico during the class period. RFP 12: All documents referencing or reflecting any call center feedback for the turkey products. RFP 13: All documents that discuss the challenged statements. RFP 18: Any communication between you and any customer in response to any complaint about the ingredients or processing of the products. Wetzel defines the proposed class as: "All persons in New Mexico who purchased one or more of Diestel's Turkey Products on or after Nov. 19, 2016." She moves to compel the use of specific ESI search terms that will return documents concerning DTR's marketing that all potential class members may have seen during the class period across all advertising platforms (i.e., social media, website, brochures, etc.). She would like to review all responsive documents before deposing DTR's representative and drafting the motion for class certification. In each of its responses to RFPs 7, 9, and 11, DTR objects in relevant part on the basis that the RFPs seek information that "is not tailored" to Wetzel's claims or tied to the product(s) she purchased, to products DTR sold or were available for purchase in New Mexico, or to marketing or advertising DTR undertook in New Mexico. DTR asks the Court for a protective order that limits the ESI search terms and responsive documents to those directly related to the signage and labeling that Wetzel saw in Whole Foods. It argues again that Wetzel lacks standing to bring her claims. Judge Martinez finds that a stay of all discovery pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss is appropriate. He opines that (i) a delay of discovery at this juncture does not delay Wetzel's ability to move forward with the matter once DTR's motion to dismiss is resolved; (ii) a stay is particularly appropriate in this case where there is a pending motion to dismiss that involves a jurisdictional question, where there are discovery motions that hinge on the same question, and where further discovery would create a significant burden on at least one party; (iii) delaying the matter until the motion to dismiss is resolved serves to preserve court resources by not requiring the Court to rule on matters that may ultimately be determined to be moot should the Court grant the motion to dismiss; and (iv) staying discovery in this matter is appropriate. The Court will reconvene with the parties to discuss resetting discovery deadlines and a briefing schedule after the motion to dismiss has been decided. Because the issue of standing is central to both the dispositive and discovery motions, Judge Martinez finds it appropriate to stay discovery pending a decision on DTR's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff's Motion to Compel ESI Discovery and DTR's Motion for Protective Order are denied without prejudice and with leave to refile, as appropriate, after the Court has ruled on DTR's motion to dismiss. Discovery in the matter is stayed pending a ruling on DTR's motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2023 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://rb.gy/p0i6o from Leagle.com. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Response to Class Cert Bid Due June 7 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as M.J. et al., v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01901 (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Ana C. Reyes entered an order setting class certification deadlines: -- Motion for Class Certification May 17, 2023 and Appointment of Class Counsel due by: -- Response due by: June 7, 2023 -- Reply due by: June 28, 2023 The suit alleges violation of the American with Disabilities Act.[CC] DOLLAR TREE STORES: Salluce Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. The case is styled as Jacob Salluce, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0004385 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 1, 2023). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Dollar Tree, Inc. -- https://www.dollartree.com/ -- is an American multi-price-point chain of discount variety stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP 515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316 Phone: 213-488-6555 Fax: 213-488-6554 Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com EL RINCONCITO: Migues Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------- YAQUELIN L. MIGUES, on behalf of herself and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff v. EL RINCONCITO ARGENTINO BAKERY INC., EDUARDO MAMANI, and FLORA FERNANDEZ MAMANI, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-21601 (S.D. Fla., April 29, 2023) seeks to recover from Defendants overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a non-exempted full-time hourly bakery and cafeteria attendant from approximately November 1, 2017 to April 16, 2023, or more than five years. She asserts that the Defendants willfully failed to pay her overtime wages at a rate of time and a half her regular rate for every hour that she worked in excess of 40. El Rinconcito Argentino Bakery is an Argentinian bakery, deli/ cafeteria, and minimarket.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com EMERSON'S SHOES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Emerson's Shoes, Inc. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Emerson's Shoes, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03669 (S.D.N.Y., May 2, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Emerson's Shoes, Inc. doing business as Simons Shoes -- https://www.simonsshoes.com/ -- offers a large selection of men's & women's shoes online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Schuman Sues Over Anticompetitive Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------ KIMBERLY SCHUMAN and KYLE KELLEY, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC.; and WAL-MART, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-02093 (N.D. Cal., April 28, 2023) arises from agreements between the Defendants to inflate wholesale and retail prices for disposable batteries and disposable-battery-dominated lighting products above competitive levels in violation of the Sherman Act, California's Cartwright Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, Energizer and Walmart, its largest customer, agreed to a scheme to slow price decline and ensure that both companies could charge higher-than-competitive prices for battery products. The scheme had two components to which Energizer agreed under pressure from Walmart. First, Energizer agreed to inflate its wholesale prices above competitive levels for Energizer battery products to its wholesale customers other than Walmart. Energizer's wholesale customers purchase Energizer battery products at wholesale, and compete with Walmart in selling those products at retail. Second, Energizer agreed to provide Walmart additional protection from price competition, the suit asserts. The alleged scheme caused direct purchasers of Energizer and Duracell battery products from Walmart, like Plaintiffs Schuman and Kelley, to pay higher prices than they otherwise would have, adds the suit. Energizer Holdings, Inc. is an American manufacturer, marketer, and distributor of batteries, lighting products, and household batteries.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd M. Schneider, Esq. Jason H. Kim, Esq. Matthew S. Weiler, Esq. Mahzad K. Hite, Esq. 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 E-mail: TSchneider@schneiderwallace.com JKim@schneiderwallace.com MWeiler@schneiderwallace.com MKhite@schneiderwallace.com - and - Joshua P. Davis, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 505 Montgomery St., Ste. 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (800) 424-6690 E-mail: jdavis@bm.net - and - Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 E-mail: rmr@classlawgroup.com kjg@classlawgroup.com FOSSIL GROUP: Cantu Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ JESSE CANTU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FOSSIL GROUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation d/b/a www.zodiacwatches.com, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-03337(C.D. Cal, May 2, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's violation of the Video Protection Privacy Act. When Plaintiff played the video on the Defendant's website, the Defendant knowingly disclosed the title to Google, along with Plaintiff's personally identifiable information (PII). The Defendant also uses the videos to collect and disclose viewers’ PII so it can later retarget them for advertisements, says the suit. Fossil Group, Inc. is a for-profit Delaware corporation that sells fashion accessories with an emphasis on watches. 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 FRENCH BULL LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against French Bull, LLC. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. French Bull, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03656-PGG-JLC (S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. French Bull -- https://www.frenchbull.com/ -- designs bowls, melamine, outdoor dinnerware, plates, kid's meal time, lazy susans, and more to celebrate the everyday.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com FRONT LINE EMS: Chaffer FLSA Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Shane Chaffer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Front Line EMS LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00181 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on May 3, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00562 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Front Line EMS -- https://frontlineems.org/ -- offers emergency medical care services, rapid disaster response, remote area standby services, and deployments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melinda Arbuckle, Sr., Esq. Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM, LLP 400 North Saint Paul Street, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 210-2100 Fax: (469) 399-1070 Email: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com - and - Emily A. Mac Master, Esq. MACMASTER LAW, PLLC 300 W. Main Street, Suite 202 Boise, ID 83702 Phone: (208) 608-2235 The Defendant is represented by: Benjamin Thomas Cramer, Esq. Jennifer M. Walrath, Esq. IDAHO EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, PLLC 1112 W. Main Street, #105 Boise, ID 83702 Phone: (208) 510-7159 - and - Emil Sadykhov, Esq. Mark D. Temple, Esq. Peter J. Stuhldreher, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 811 Main Street, Suite 1100 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 646-1319 Fax: (713) 751-1717 Email: esadykhov@bakerlaw.com mtemple@bakerlaw.com pstuhldreher@bakerlaw.com GEICO INDEMNITY: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in McCoy Suit --------------------------------------------------------- GEICO INDEMNITY CO. filed an appeal from the District Court's Opinion and Order dated April 13, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled Diane McCoy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GEICO Indemnity Company, a foreign corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-05597, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. This matter was initiated on May 6, 2020 after Plaintiff filed her complaint alleging that Defendant is an insurance provider and Plaintiff obtained insurance coverage for her vehicle from Defendant. The Plaintiff thereafter suffered a total-loss of her insured vehicle and made a covered claim for physical damage under her policy. The policy provides that for "Collision" and "Comprehensive" coverages, Defendant will pay for each "loss" to an "owned auto" or "non-owned auto." The Plaintiff alleges that under the policy, Defendant's legal obligation to pay actual cash value on a first-party total-loss claim does not differ between a Collision total loss claim and a Comprehensive total-loss claim. Of particular relevance to Plaintiff's claim in this case, the complaint further alleges that Defendant does not pay the agreed-upon replacement costs such as title transfer fees and registration transfer fees -- mandatory vehicle replacement costs in New Jersey, says the suit. On October 19, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class. On the same day, the Defendant filed a motion to strike testimony and reports of Plaintiff's proposed expert Josephine Augello. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Zahid N. Quraishi entered an Opinion and Order on April 13, 2023 granting Plaintiff's motion to certify class and denying Defendants' motion to strike. The appellate case is captioned as Diane McCoy v. Geico Indemnity Co., Case No. 23-8022, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on April 27, 2023.[BN] Defendant-Petitioner GEICO INDEMNITY CO, a foreign corporation, is represented by: Alexander Fuchs, Esq. Kymberly Kochis, Esq. Francis X. Nolan, IV, Esq. EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND 1114 Avenue of the Americas The Grace Building, 40th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 389-5082 Plaintiff-Respondent DIANE MCCOY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Rachel N. Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW 3331 Sunset Avenue Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (305) 610-5223 - and - Mark A. DiCello, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT 7556 Mentor Avenue Mentor, OH 44060 Telephone: (440) 953-8888 GF ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Diaz Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ Ramon Diaz, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. G.F. Enterprises LLC, GFE Nostrand Avenue LLC, and George Fellows, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-03340 (E.D.N.Y., May 2, 2023) alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and Articles 6 and 19 of the New York State Labor Law, and their supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations. Plaintiff Diaz was employed as crew member at Defendants' Taco Bell franchise located at: (i) 491 Nostrand Ave., Brooklyn, New York from on or around December 2022 to, through and including the present date. Allegedly, Diaz was not compensated with the applicable minimum hourly wage. In addition, he was not paid with overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Now, Diaz seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, spread-of-hours, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the FLSA, NYLL, and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act. G.F. Enterprises LLC is a foreign limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Mizrahi, Esq. Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0048 E-mail: Jason@levinepstein.com GOOGLE LLC: Singh Suit Transferred to S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Sunny Singh, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Google LLC, Alphabet Inc., Delaware Corporation, Meta Platforms Inc., Case No 2:23-cv-02539 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on May 1, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-03651-PKC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. Google LLC -- http://www.google.com/-- is an American multinational technology company focusing on online advertising, search engine technology, cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce, artificial intelligence, and consumer electronics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina C. Sharp, Esq. Jordan Elias, Esq. Scott M. Grzenczyk, Esq. Mikaela M. Bock, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 981-4800 Fax: (415) 981-4846 Email: dsharp@girardsharp.com jelias@girardsharp.com scottg@girardsharp.com mbock@girardsharp.com HAPPY COOKER: Tracz Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Carolyn Tracz, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. Happy Cooker Restaurant, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company, Todd Fetter and Audra Fetter, a married couple, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00885-JRK (N.D. Ohio, April 28, 2023) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor policies and practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Revised Code. The Plaintiff was employed as a server and bartender at Defendants' Buffalo Wings & Rings restaurant located in Ohio from 2018 until approximately June 3, 2022. She asserts that Defendants require her and the Collective Members in a given workweek to perform non-tipped labor unrelated to their tipped occupations and not in direct support of tip-producing work. She further contends that the Defendants failed to pay one and one-half times the applicable regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week, and made deductions from her and the Collective Members' paychecks and/or tips. Happy Cooker Restaurant, LLC is an American restaurant based in Lima, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq. Christopher J. Bendau, Esq. BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC P.O. Box 97066 Phoenix, AZ 85060 Telephone: (480) 382-5176 E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 5000 Rockside Road Liberty Plaza Building, Suite 520 Independence, OH 44131 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com HAWAIIUSA FEDERAL CREDIT: Smith Files Suit in D. Hawaii ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HawaiiUSA Federal Credit Union. The case is styled as Joseph Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HawaiiUSA Federal Credit Union, Case No. 1:23-cv-00201-JMS-RT (D. Hawaii, May 2, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.). HawaiiUSA Federal Credit Union -- https://www.hawaiiusafcu.com/ -- is a not-for-profit federally insured financial cooperative owned and operated by their members.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Margery S. Bronster, Esq. Noelle Emi Chan, Esq. Robert M. Hatch, Esq. BRONSTER FUJICHAKU ROBBINS Pauahi Tower 1003 Bishop St, Ste 2300 Honolulu, HI 96813 Phone: (808) 524-5644 Fax: 599-1881 Email: mbronster@bfrhawaii.com nchan@bfrhawaii.com rhatch@bfrhawaii.com HOAG MEMORIAL: Davis Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Kelly Davis, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Case No. 30-02023-01312941 was removed from the Orange County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 3, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-00772 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Hoag -- http://www.hoag.org/-- is a not-for-profit regional health care delivery network in Orange County, California.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Teresa C. Chow, Esq. BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: (310) 979-8480 Fax: (310) 820-8859 Email: tchow@bakerlaw.com HOAG MEMORIAL: Doe Suit Remanded to Orange County Superior Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Cormac J. Carney of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, grants the Plaintiff's motion to remand the case, JANE DOE, Plaintiff v. HOAG MEMORIAL PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL, Defendant, Case No. SACV 23-00444-CJC (ADSx) (C.D. Cal.), to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange. On Jan. 13, 2023, Doe filed a putative class action in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange against the Defendant, alleging that its online practices effectuate various invasions of privacy. The Defendant removed the case to this Court on March 10, 2023, pursuant to the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1). According to the Defendant, it uses a tool provided by Facebook called Meta Pixel as a component of its website analytics practices to drive patients to its websites and to the patient portal. It asserts that the federal government, through the "Meaningful Use" program, has incentivized and directed providers who participate in the Medicare and Medicaid program (like the Defendant) to offer patients online access to their health records, and to optimize patient engagement with their medical information. The Plaintiff alleges that since at least 2020, the Defendant has disclosed information about prospective and actual patients to Facebook and other third parties without the patients' knowledge, authorization, or consent. Specifically, she asserts that the Defendant discloses protected health information through the deployment of various digital marketing and automatic rerouting tools embedded on its websites that purposefully and intentionally redirect Personal Health Information to Facebook, which exploits that information for advertising purposes. This is accomplished using the Meta Pixel tool, which the Plaintiff alleges is installed on "almost every page" of the Defendant's website. As a result, each time the Plaintiff or any other putative class member entered a search term on the Defendant's website, Meta Pixel recorded the information she entered and transmitted it to Facebook, along with identifying information that let Facebook know exactly who the Plaintiff was. Now before the Court is the Plaintiff's motion to remand the case. The Defendant asserts that it is entitled to be treated like a federal officer because in helping the federal government develop a nationwide infrastructure for health information technology," it "acted within the penumbra of federal action and office. The Plaintiff responds that providing patient records is a private function, not a governmental task, and mere regulation or incentives through the Meaningful Use Program cannot turn a private hospital into an entity 'acting under' a federal officer. Judge Carney finds that the Defendant has not shown that it acted under the direction of a federal officer or agency. Despite the federal government's expressed desire to encourage the implementation of interoperable health information technology infrastructure, the Meaningful Use program neither authorizes nor obligates the federal government to create such an infrastructure itself. Furthermore, while the Meaningful Use program may subject private entities like the Defendant to some degree of government control, simply complying with a law or regulation is not enough to bring a private person within the scope of the statute. In short, the Defendant has established only that it is subject to "highly detailed" regulations and that its "activities are highly supervised and monitored." That is not sufficient to invoke federal officer removal. For these, Judge Carney grants the Plaintiff's motion to remand. He remands the action back to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange. A full-text copy of the Court's May 2, 2023 Order is available at https://rb.gy/pfyha from Leagle.com. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Faces Thomas Suit Over Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Dasani Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00245-DRC (S.D. Ohio, April 29, 2023) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 arising from Honeywell's failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees all earned minimum and overtime wages. The Plaintiff was employed by Honeywell as an assembler from approximately January 2019 through approximately August 2021. Honeywell is an American publicly traded, multinational conglomerate corporation that primary operates in safety technologies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. 8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Telephone: (847) 986-5889 Facsimile: (847) 673-1228 E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 5000 Rockside Road Liberty Plaza, Suite 520 Independence, OH 44131 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com HOUSE OF SHANGHAI: Wong Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- JOYCE Y. WONG formerly known as Yuet-Ying Chan, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. HOUSE OF SHANGHAI, INC. and SACHIKO M. YAHASHI, Case No. 1:23-cv-00585 (E.D. Va., March 28, 2023) seeks payment of unpaid tips and minimum wages, as provided under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff's duties included taking orders, collecting payments, and serving food. The Plaintiff was entitled to tips left by Restaurant customers. Not all of the tips left by customers to which the Plaintiff was entitled to were paid to the Plaintiff or to other restaurant employees. Some of the tips left by Restaurant customers were retained by the Defendants and used to pay kitchen staff, the lawsuit alleges. Accordingly, because the Defendants did not provide the required FLSA "notice" to the Plaintiff or the Class Members, the Defendants were not permitted under the FLSA to pay the Plaintiff or the Class Members at the "tip credit" rate and/or an hourly rate below the full Federal minimum wage rate. For the entire Class Period, for violations of the FLSA minimum wage compensation requirement, the Defendants now owe Plaintiff and the Class Members (i) unpaid back wages equal to the difference between $2.13 per hour (the direct wage rate paid) and the full Federal minimum wage rate; (ii) a return of all tips deducted or assigned; (iii) statutory liquidated damages; (iv) pre / post- judgment interest; and (v) attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiff Wong is an adult resident of Virginia. House of Shanghai is a Virginia Corporation that operates a restaurant located at 6715 Lowell Ave, McLean known as Tachibana Japanese Restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew T. Sutter, Esq. SUTTER & TERPAK, PLLC 7540A Little River Turnpike Annandale, VA 22003 Telephone: (703) 256-1800 Facsimile: (703) 991-6116 E-mail: matt@sutterandterpak.com HOUSING AUTHORITY: Fuentes Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Corrine Fuentes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, and DOES 1-25, Case No. 23STCV06544 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, City of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 1, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-03295. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff states "This is a consumer class action brought by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other individuals whose personally identifiable information ("PII") were lost or unlawfully disclosed by Defendants."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jon P. Kardassakis, Esq. Brant H. Dveirin, Esq. Danielle E. Stierna, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.250.1800 Facsimile: 213.250.7900 Email: Jon.Kardassakis@lewisbrisbois.com Brant.Dveirin@lewisbrisbois.com Danielle.Stierna@lewisbrisbois.com HS SUPPLIES LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HS Supplies, LLC. The case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HS Supplies, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03622-JGK (S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. HS Supplies, LLC -- http://www.hssupplies.net/-- is a business categorized under Hydroponic Equipment.[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 IRVINE COMPANY: Alexander Sues Over Artificially Inflated Prices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nancy Alexander, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE IRVINE COMPANY, LLC; REALPAGE, INC.; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC; LINCOLN PROPERTY CO.; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC.; FPI MANAGEMENT, INC.; RPM LIVING, LLC; BH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; MID-AMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.; MORGAN PROPERTIES, LLC; AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC; BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT COMPANY; AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC.; HIGHMARK RESIDENTIAL, LLC; EQUITY RESIDENTIAL; ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC; ZRS MANAGEMENT, LLC; CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST; UDR, INC.; TRUST; UDR, INC.; CONAM MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; CORTLAND PARTNERS, LLC; THRIVE COMMUNITIES MANAGEMENT, LLC; SECURITYSECURITY PROPERTIESPROPERTIES INC.; INC.; CWS APARTMENT HOMES, LLC; PROMETHEUS REAL ESTATE GROUP; SARES REGIS GROUP OPERATING, INC.; MISSION ROCK MISSION ROCK RESIDENTIAL, LLC; and MORGAN GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00440 (M.D. Tenn., May 2, 2023), is brought challenging a cartel among lessors of multifamily residential real estate leases ("Lessors") to artificially inflate the prices of multifamily residential real estate in the United States above competitive levels. Until 2016, and potentially earlier, many of the nation's largest Lessors priced their leases based upon their own assessments of how to best compete against other Lessors. Prior to 2016, Lessors generally priced their units competitively to maximize output by maximizing physical occupancy (that is, maximizing the percentage of multifamily residential leaseholds that were occupied by paying tenants). Lessors had an incentive to lower their prices to attract lessees away from their competitors, until all available leases were sold. In this way, competition drove rent levels to reflect available supply of rental units and lessee demand. Lessors also independently determined when to put their leases on the market, resulting in unpredictable supply levels--a natural phenomenon in a competitive market. When supply exceeded demand, Lessors cut prices. However, beginning in approximately 2016, and potentially earlier, Lessors replaced their independent pricing and supply decisions with collusion. Lessors agreed to use a common third party that collected competitively sensitive real-time pricing and supply levels from them, and then used that data to make unit-specific pricing and supply decisions for Lessors. Lessors also agreed to adhere to these decisions, on the understanding that competing Lessors would do the same. That third party is RealPage, Inc. ("RealPage"). RealPage provides software and data analytics to Lessors. RealPage also serves as the mechanism by which Lessors collude and avoid competition, increasing lease prices to Plaintiff and other members of the proposed Class. RealPage openly boasts that its services "balance supply and demand to maximize Lessors' revenue growth." And that is precisely what RealPage has done, facilitating an agreement among participating Lessors not to compete on price, and allowing Lessors to coordinate both pricing and supply through at least two mutually reinforcing mechanisms in furtherance of their agreed aim of suppressing price competition for multifamily residential real estate leases. First, Lessors "outsource daily pricing and ongoing revenue oversight" to RealPage, replacing separate centers of independent decision-making with one. RealPage collects up-to-the-minute data on the historical and contemporaneous pricing from participating Lessors, data that, according to RealPage, is updated "every time Lessors make or change a lease renewal offer," spanning over "16 million units," which is a "very large chunk of the total inventory in the country." It standardizes this data to account for differences in the characteristics or "class" of the property in question. RealPage then runs this massive dataset through its pricing algorithm, whereby RealPage and its "Pricing Advisors" set prices for participating Lessors through application of a common formula. RealPage touts that it sets pricing for Lessors' "properties as though we own them ourselves"--i.e., the participating Lessors' cartel replicates the market outcomes one would observe if they were a single seller or monopolist of residential leases. Second, RealPage allows participating Lessors to coordinate supply levels to avoid price competition. In a competitive market, there are periods where supply exceeds demand, and that in turn puts downward pressure on market prices as firms compete to attract lessees. To avoid the consequences of lawful competition, RealPage provides Lessors with information sufficient to "stagger" lease renewals to avoid oversupply. Lessors thus held vacant rental units unoccupied for periods of time (rejecting the historical adage to keep the "heads in the beds") to ensure that, collectively, there is not one period in which the market faces an oversupply of residential real estate properties for lease, keeping prices higher. RealPage is proud of its role in the exploding increase in the prices of residential leases. In a marketing video used to attract additional Lessors to the cartel, a RealPage Vice President, Jay Parsons discussed the recent and never-before seen price increases for residential real estate leases, as high as 14.5% in some markets. If left unchecked, RealPage and its participating Lessors' cartel stand to break the multifamily residential real estate lease market and continue to exacerbate the affordable housing crisis facing this Nation. The cartel Plaintiff challenges is unlawful under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, says the complaint. The Plaintiff rented a multifamily residential unit in a property managed by Lessor Defendant Greystar in Asheville, North Carolina. RealPage provides software and services to the residential real estate industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc Walwyn, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARC WALWYN 412 Georgia Avenue, Suite 102 Chattanooga, TN 37403 Phone: (423) 954-7266 Facsimile: (423) 565-0125 Email: marc@walwynlegal.com - and - Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq. Brant D. Penney, Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD 332 Minnesota Street, Suite W1050 Phone: (651) 287-2100 Facsimile: (651) 287-2103 Email: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com b.penney@rwblawfirm.com - and - William G. Caldes, Esq. Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq. Icee N. Etheridge, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF PC 2001 Market Street, Suite 3420 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 Phone: (215) 496-0300 Email: Bcaldes@srkattorneys.com Jspector@srkattorneys.com Ietheridge@srkattorneys.com JAJ CONTRACT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Burgos Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ MIGUEL BURGOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JAJ CONTRACT FURNITURE INC.; and JAMONE COUNCIL, Defendants, Case No. 7:23-cv-03739 (S.D.N.Y., May 3, 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 Burgos was employed by the Defendants as a laborer. JAJ CONTRACT FURNITURE, INC. manufactures in the USA and supplies premium quality furniture for corporate, hospitality, country clubs, theaters, healthcare, retail, education and other related contract facilities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clara Lam, Esq. BROWN KWON & LAM, LLP 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (212) 295-5828 Facsimile: (718) 795-1642 Email: clam@bkllawyers.com JHONNYS TOWING: Torterolo Seeks General Assistants' Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- ADRIAN TORTEROLO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JHONNYS TOWING INC., a New Jersey corporation, and EDGARD PERALTA, an individual, Case No. 1-D13D-4730-B4A2-F (D.N.J., May 2, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and unpaid minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law and seeks compensatory damages and liquidated damages, including applicable interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable remedies this Court deems appropriate. The Defendants allegedly failed to pay the Plaintiff any overtime premium (time and a half) for hours worked over 40 in each workweek. The Plaintiff further seeks certification of this action as a collective action on behalf of the Plaintiff individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former employees of the Defendants. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from January 2020 through March 2023. He was employed to perform activities as a general assistant. His job included moving vehicles, cleaning, simple mechanical work, and any other task or job that he was assigned at any given time. Jhonnys Towing is a towing and roadside assistance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Erik M. Bashian, Esq. BASHIAN & PAPANTONIOU, P.C. 500 Old Country Road, Ste. 302 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 279-1554 Facsimile: (516) 213-0339 E-mail: eb@bashpaplaw.com - and - Nolan Klein, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A. 5550 Glades Road, Ste. 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (954) 745-0588 E-mail: klein@nklegal.com amy@nklegal.com melanie@nklegal.com JONES LANG LASALLE: Ramirez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jones Lang Lasalle Americas, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Javier Ramirez, as an individual and on behalf of all employees similarly situated v. Jones Lang Lasalle Americas, Inc., Does 1 Through 50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC23606331 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 3, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Jones Lang Lasalle Americas, Inc. -- https://www.us.jll.com/ -- provides commercial real estate and investment management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lilit Tunyan, Esq. TUNYAN LAW, APC 1336 Rossmoyne Ave. Glendale, CA 91207 KANSAS CITY ROYALS: Concepcion Appeals Fee Awards Ruling in Senne ----------------------------------------------------------------- Objectors DANIEL CONCEPCION, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's March 29, 2023 Order entered in the lawsuit entitled AARON SENNE, et al., Plaintiffs v. KANSAS CITY ROYALS BASEBALL CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-cv-00608 JCS, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Plaintiffs are minor league baseball players who assert claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the wage-and-hour laws of California, Arizona, and Florida against Major League Baseball ("MLB"), MLB Commissioner Bud Selig, and 22 MLB franchises ("Franchise Defendants"). Plaintiff Sedlock is a current minor league baseball player; the remaining plaintiffs are former minor league baseball players. Early on in the case, the Franchise Defendants brought a Motion to Dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint in Part for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim. In that motion, the Franchise Defendants asked the Court to dismiss certain state law causes of action under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the basis that Plaintiffs lacked standing as to these claim and/or that they failed to state a claim. The Court disagreed, concluding that it was appropriate to defer ruling on standing until the class certification stage of the case. Dkt. No. 420 ("Article III Standing Order"). In March 2016, the Plaintiffs moved the Court to certify Rule 23(b)(3) and Rule 23(b)(2) classes under the laws of eight states' laws to pursue minimum wage and overtime violation claims for baseball activities performed throughout the year. The Court denied the motion in full. It found, inter alia, that because Plaintiffs sought compensation for work players performed during the offseason, it would be difficult to determine class membership. It denied certification of the Rule 23(b)(2) classes for the additional reason that all of the named Plaintiffs at that time were former minor league players and therefore, they did not have standing to seek injunctive and declaratory relief. The Plaintiffs subsequently brought a motion for reconsideration, asking the Court to certify narrower classes under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). In particular, they asked the Court to certify under Rule 23(b)(3) an Arizona class and a Florida class for work performed in those states during spring training, extended spring training, and the instructional leagues. They also asked the Court to certify under Rule 23(b)(3) a California class that included players who participated in the California League during the championship season. In addition, the Plaintiffs requested certification of Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive relief classes consisting of current minor league players who participate in spring training, extended spring training, or the instructional leagues in Florida and Arizona. On July 23, 2021, Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff Cody Sedlock's Motion for Rule 23(b)(2) Class Certification. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Spero entered an order on March 29, 2023 granting the Plaintiffs' fee motion and awards in the following amounts: -- 30 percent of the common fund in attorneys' fees ($55,500,000); -- litigation costs in the amount of $4,654,538.33; -- incentive payments in the amount of $15,000 each for the class representatives, and $7,500 each for the named plaintiffs who are not class representatives. The Court further ordered that $995,000 be set aside from the common fund for settlement administration expenses. The Court will make a final determination as to the reasonable amount of administration fees as set forth in its March 6, 2023 Order Regarding Deadlines for Requesting Disbursement of Administration Fees by Administrator. The appellate case is captioned as Aaron Senne, et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, et al., Case No. 23-15632, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 28, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants Aldemar Burgos, Daniel Concepcion, Sidney Duprey Conde and Anthony Garcia Mediation Questionnaire was due May 5, 2023; -- Transcript shall be ordered by May 30, 2023; -- Transcript is due on June 30, 2023; -- Appellants Aldemar Burgos, Daniel Concepcion, Sidney Duprey Conde and Anthony Garcia opening brief is due on August 7, 2023; -- Appellees Craig Bennigson, Ryan Kiel, Matt Lawson, Michael Liberto, Brad McAtee, Kyle Nicholson, Oliver Odle, Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, Cody Sedlock, Allan Huber Selig, Aaron Senne and Kyle Woodruff answering brief is due on September 7, 2023; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Objectors-Appellants DANIEL CONCEPCION, ALDEMAR BURGOS, SIDNEY DUPREY CONDE, and ANTHONY GARCIA are represented by: Samuel Kornhauser, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson St. San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 981-6281 Plaintiffs-Appellees AARON SENNE, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, et al., are represented by: Jamie L. Boyer, Esq. Benjamin Ernest Shiftan, Esq. THE BRUNING LAW FIRM 555 Washington Avenue, Suite 600A St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 735-8100 - and - Garrett R. Broshuis, Esq. Stephen M. Tillery, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY, LLC 505 N 7th Street, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63101-1625 Telephone: (314) 241-4844 - and - Rachel Jenny Geman, I, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 - and - Samuel Kornhauser, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAMUEL KORNHAUSER 155 Jackson St. San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 981-6281 - and - Brian Murray, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 77 Water Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 382-2221 - and - Thomas Jerome Nolan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS J. NOLAN 530 S Lake Avenue Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (818) 928-1115 - and - Clifford Harris Pearson, Esq. Michael H. Pearson, Esq. Bobby Pouya, Esq. Daniel Leon Warshaw, Esq. PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 - and - Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 519 W 7th Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 - and - Anne Shaver, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 - and - George A. Zelcs, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY, LLC 205 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1950 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 899-5063 Defendants-Appellees OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL, DBA Major League Baseball, and ALLAN HUBER SELIG are represented by: Elise M. Bloom, Esq. Mark David Harris, Esq. Adam M. Lupion, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 11 Times Square New York, NY 10036-8299 Telephone: (212) 969-3000 - and - John E. Roberts, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP One International Place Boston, MA 02110 LASERSHIP INC: Fails to Pay Overtime and Minimum Wages, Ortiz Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MAYROBIS ORTIZ, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LASERSHIP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 7:23-cv-03676 (S.D.N.Y., May 2, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Ortiz was employed by Defendant full time from around August 2016 to around March 2020 at one of Defendant's locations in Orange County at 157 Bracken Road in Montgomery, New York. Allegedly, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff the required overtime pay of time and one-half for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week and failed to pay them the required minimum wage for all hours worked. Lasership, Inc. describes itself as the largest regional e-commerce parcel carrier in the country and the leader in e-commerce last-mile delivery. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq., 675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810, New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (718) 669-0714 E-mail: mgangat@gangatpllc.com LOS ANGELES REHABILITATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cuadras Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ARTURO CUADRAS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOS ANGELES REHABILITATION & WELLNESS CENTRE, LP d/bla "Country Villa Rehabilitation Center"; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV09959 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 4, 2023) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Cuadras was employed by the Defendants as licensed vocational nurse. LOS ANGELES REHABILITATION & WELLNESS CENTRE, LP provides inpatient nursing and rehabilitative services to patients who require continuous health care. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg Lander, Esq. Emil Davtyan, Esq. Vanessa M. Ruggles, Esq. DAVTYAN LAW FIRM 1635 Pontius Avenue, Floor 2 Los Angeles, CA 90025-3361 Telephone: (424) 320-6420 Facsimile: (424) 320-6454 Email: Emil@davtyanlaw.com Gregg@davtyanlaw.com Vanessa@@davtyanlaw.com LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES INC: Faces Voight Class Suit in Louisiana ------------------------------------------------------------ Lumen Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2023, that the Company faces the Voigt class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. On March 3, 2023, a purported shareholder of Lumen filed a putative class action complaint captioned Voigt v. Lumen Technologies, Inc., et al., Case 3:23-cv-00286-TAD-KDM, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. The complaint alleges that Lumen and certain of its current or former officers violated the federal securities laws by omitting or misstating material information related to Lumen's expansion of its Quantum Fiber business. The complaint seeks money damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief. Lumen Technologies, Inc. doing business as CenturyLink, Inc. is a telecommunications company that provides telephone and data communication services, including telephone, television, and high speed internet services, to residential and commercial consumers in Clark County, Nevada and throughout many other parts of the United States.[BN] LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Houser Class Suit Remanded to District Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lumen Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2023, that the appellate court remanded the Houser shareholder class suit to district for further proceedings. Lumen and certain Lumen Board of Directors members and officers were named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed on June 12, 2018 in the Boulder County District Court of the state of Colorado, captioned Houser et al. v. CenturyLink, et al. The complaint asserted claims on behalf of a putative class of former Level 3 shareholders who became CenturyLink, Inc. shareholders as a result of our acquisition of Level 3. It alleged that the proxy statement provided to the Level 3 shareholders failed to disclose various material information of several kinds, including information about strategic revenue, customer loss rates, and customer account issues, among other items. The complaint seeks damages, costs and fees, rescission, rescissory damages, and other equitable relief. In May 2020, the court dismissed the complaint. Plaintiffs appealed that decision, and in March 2022, the appellate court affirmed the district court's order in part and reversed it in part. It then remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Lumen Technologies, Inc. doing business as CenturyLink, Inc. is a telecommunications company that provides telephone and data communication services, including telephone, television, and high speed internet services, to residential and commercial consumers in Clark County, Nevada and throughout many other parts of the United States.[BN] MARRIOTT RESORTS: Rubio Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jose Rubio, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MARRIOTT RESORTS HOSPITALITY CORPORATION, a corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 30-2022-01294436-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 3, 2023, and assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-00773-FWS-ADS. On March 3, 2023, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). The FAC seeks to allege nine causes of action for: Failure to Pay Minimum and Straight Time Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Indemnify Employees for Expenditures; Unfair Business Practices; and Civil Penalties Under PAGA.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Mark D. Kemple, Esq. Rana Ayazi, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121 Phone: 310.586.7700 Facsimile: 310.586.7800 Email: Rana.Ayazi@gtlaw.com kemplem@gtlaw.com - and - Samuel S. Hyde, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1201 K Street, Suite 1100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916.442.1111 Facsimile: 916.448.1709 Email: hydes@gtlaw.com MATTEL INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mattel Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In December 2019 and January 2020, two stockholders filed separate complaints styled as class actions against Mattel, Inc. and certain of its former officers (the "Mattel Defendants"), as well as others, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging violations of U.S. federal securities laws. The two complaints were consolidated in April 2020 and an amended complaint was filed in May 2020. The complaints rely on the results of an investigation announced by Mattel in October 2019 regarding allegations in a whistleblower letter and claim that Mattel misled the market in several of its financial statements beginning in the third quarter of 2017. The lawsuits allege that the defendants' conduct caused the plaintiffs and other stockholders to purchase Mattel common stock at artificially inflated prices. The court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in September 2021. Following a mediation on October 25, 2021, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the class action lawsuits, which was later approved by the court. In February 2022, the Mattel Defendants paid $86 million in settlement of the claims against them, which was funded in full by Mattel's insurers. A single stockholder appealed the court's approval of the settlement, but the appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute in March 2023. The settlement does not entail any admission of fault or liability by the Mattel Defendants, which the Mattel Defendants have expressly contested throughout the pendency of the litigation. Mattel Inc. is a toy company headquartered in El Segundo, California. MAXIM HEALTHCARE: 2020 Data Breach Settlement Granted Prelim OK --------------------------------------------------------------- DataBreaches.net reports that Maxim HealthCare Services provides staffing for nursing services that include in-home services. A breach in October - December 2020 affected staff but also affected patients who received in-home care. The breach was not disclosed until November 4, 2021, and was described as a hacking incident involving several employees' email accounts. The types of information included provider name, address, date of birth, contact information, medical history, medical condition or treatment information, medical record number, diagnosis code, patient account number, Medicare/Medicaid number, and username/password. For a limited number of individuals, their Social Security number may also have been accessible. According to the settlement agreement, Maxim notified 28,425 patients by mail and offered them one year of free credit monitoring. The number notified by mail does not match the number reported to HHS on the same date when Maxim reported to HHS that 65,267 patients were affected. The settlement presumably applies to those who received a notification letter, and it is not yet clear to DataBreaches what happens to the other approximately 40,000 people. The case is Wilson, et al. v. Maxim Healthcare Services Inc., Case No.: 37-2022-00046497-CU-MC-CTL, in the Superior Court of the State of California County of San Diego. The official settlement site is maximsettlement.com. As always, DataBreaches looked at the settlement agreement to see if there was any mention of improved security going forward. In this case, we found the following provision: 2.6 Business Practices Changes. Plaintiff has received assurances that Maxim has implemented or will implement certain reasonable steps to adequately secure its systems and environments, including taking the steps listed in EXHIBIT E to this Agreement (which is not attached due to its confidential nature), which may be filed under seal. There was no total cap in terms of cost to Maxim put on the settlement that was announced. [GN] MEDALLION LANDSCAPE: Torres Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medallion Landscape Management LLC. The case is styled as Lino Torres, as an individual and on behalf of similarly situated employees v. Medallion Landscape Management LLC, Case No. 23CV415465 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., May 1, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Unlimited." Medallion Landscape Management -- https://www.mlmi.com/ -- provides landscape maintenance, installations, renovations, irrigation, water conservation & design services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amir H. Seyedfarshi, Esq. EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS LAW GROUP, APC 6380 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1602 Los Angeles, CA 90048-5032 Phone: 424-777-0964 Email: amir@employmentrightslawgroup.com Website: www.employmentrightslawgroup.com MEDICREDIT INC: Loses Bid to Toss or Strike Saggio's Class Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JASON SAGGIO, Plaintiff v. MEDICREDIT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:22-CV-01005 (E.D. Mo.), Judge John A. Ross of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint or strike the class allegations in the action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In July 2022, Saggio, a Florida resident, alleges that he received a "prerecorded robotic message" from Medicredit, a medical debt collector incorporated and headquartered in Missouri, attempting to collect a consumer debt from an individual named Lucy. The message instructed the recipient to "press 2 if you are not this person." The Plaintiff pressed 2, and the call ended. He then filed the putative class action, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, seeking statutory damages and injunctive relief. The proposed class consists of: All persons or entities within the United States who (1) within four years of the commencement of this action, (2) received a nonemergency telephone call from Medicredit, (3) to a cellular telephone line, (4) through the use of an artificial or prerecorded voice, and (5) who did not provide express consent to receive calls from Medicredit at that cellular telephone number. The Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., arguing that the Plaintiff suffered no injury in fact and therefore lacks standing to sue. Alternatively, it seeks to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, arguing that the facts pleaded in the Plaintiff's complaint fail to establish a TCPA violation. Should the Court declines to dismiss the complaint entirely, the Defendant seeks to strike the class allegations pursuant to Rule 12(f). First, the Defendant argues that Golan v. FreeEats.com, Inc., 930 F.3d 950 (8th Cir. 2019), is distinguishable based on the number of calls and how and where they were received. Next, it contends that, even if the Plaintiff suffered a concrete injury, he failed to plead facts demonstrating that it caused it. The Defendant then asserts that the Plaintiff fails to state a claim because he insufficiently pleads the absence of consent. As to the class certification, the Plaintiff states class allegations under Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3). The Defendant seeks to strike them based on an "absence of predominance and cohesiveness" between the individual class members, arguing that there are individualized issues with standing and consent that preclude class certification. Finally, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff has failed to establish his standing, and that of the class, to pursue injunctive relief to enjoin it from committing future violations. Judge Ross concludes that while the Plaintiff's injury may be de minimus in extent, the nature of the injury is the salient inquiry, and the Plaintiff alleges the type of intrusion intended to confer standing under the TCPA at least sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The same holds true with respect to the Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief clearly available under the statute. Likewise, accepting the allegations as true at this stage, Judge Ross declines to strike the Plaintiff's class allegations at this time notwithstanding the potential deficiencies raised by the Defendant. He will consider the scope and composition of the class, as well as the Plaintiff's suitability as class representative, in later proceedings on a more adequate record. Accordingly, Judge Ross denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint or strike Plaintiff's class allegations. An order requiring the parties to submit a joint proposed scheduling plan will be issued separately. A full-text copy of the Court's May 2, 2023 Memorandum & Order is available at https://rb.gy/dyqti from Leagle.com. MEDTRONIC INC: Jankowski Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Anne Jankowski, on behalf of herself and current and former aggrieved employees v. MEDTRONIC, INC.; AEROTEK, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV09757 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 2, 2023), is brought pursuant for recovery of unpaid minimum, overtime wages and for penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") and to recover civil penalties and address an employer's violations of the California Labor Code. The Defendants' violated of the Labor Code based on the Defendants' failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage and all overtime hours worked at the overtime rate of pay; indemnification for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by employees in direct consequence of discharging their duties; statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements; statutory waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in an hourly position at the Defendants' location in Los Angeles from February 6, 2022, until May 6, 2022. MEDTRONIC, INC. is authorized to do business within the State of California and is doing business in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Danielle E. Montero, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 Email: ilavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com dmontero@lelawfirm.com WHT2@lelawfirm.com META PLATFORM: Continues to Defend Consolidated Advertisement Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------- Meta Platforms Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from consolidated advertisement-related class suits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Beginning on August 15, 2018, multiple putative class actions were filed against the Company alleging that it inflated its estimates of the potential audience size for advertisements, resulting in artificially increased demand and higher prices. The cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and seek unspecified damages and injunctive relief. In a series of rulings in 2019, 2021, and 2022, the court dismissed certain of the plaintiffs' claims, but permitted their fraud and unfair competition claims to proceed. On March 29, 2022, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On June 21, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the Company's petition for permission to appeal the district court's class certification order, and the district court subsequently stayed the case. The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit, and is vigorously defending it. Meta Platforms, Inc. (referred to herein by its previous name of "Facebook") is an American multinational technology company.[BN] METRO SUPPLY CHAIN: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Metro Supply Chain (USA) Inc. The case is styled as Rosa Linda Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Metro Supply Chain (USA) Inc., Ghirardelli Chocolate Company, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0004566 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 1, 2023). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Metro Supply Chain -- https://www.metroscg.com/ -- designs, builds and runs innovative supply chain operations that evolve with business needs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM 9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: 949-379-6250 Fax: (949) 379-6251 Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com MKS INSTRUMENTS: Sharma Files Suit in D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against MKS Instruments, Inc. The case is styled as Rishav Sharma, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MKS Instruments, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-10948-DLC (D. Mass., May 1, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. MKS Instruments, Inc. -- https://www.mks.com/ -- is an American process control instrumentation company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina Xenides, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 1005 Congress Avenue, Suite 925-C36 Austin, TX 78701 Phone: (512) 265-5622 Email: cxenides@sirillp.com MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Kermani Suit Transferred to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Elizabeth Kermani, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MONDELEZ GLOBAL LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-1988-JGK was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on May 3, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00800-DMS-AHG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Mondelez International, Inc. -- http://www.mondelezinternational.com/-- is an American multinational confectionery, food, holding and beverage and snack food company based in Chicago.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bahar Sodaify, Esq. Alan Gudino, Esq. Ryan Ardi, Esq. Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Phone: (213) 788-4050 Fax: (213) 788-4070 Email: bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com agudino@clarksonlawfirm.com rardi@clarksonlawfirm.com rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Kate T. Spelman, Esq. Alexander M. Smith, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 515 S. Flower Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2054 Phone: (213) 239-5100 Facsimile: (213) 239-5199 Email: kspelman@jenner.com asmith@jenner.com - and - Dean N. Panos, Esq. JENNER AND BLOCK LLP 353 North Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 923-2765 Fax: (312) 527-0484 - and - Kelly Morrison, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 1099 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20001-4412 Phone: (202) 639-6000 Email: kmorrison@jenner.com MORGAN STANLEY: Antitrust Class Suit Certification Bid Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Stanley disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2023, that the Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System purported antitrust class suit certification motion is pending in the Southern District of New York. In August of 2017, the Firm was named as a defendant in a purported antitrust class action in the United States District Court for the SDNY styled Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System et al. v. Bank of America Corporation et al. Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that the Firm, together with a number of other financial institution defendants, violated U.S. antitrust laws and New York state law in connection with their alleged efforts to prevent the development of electronic exchange-based platforms for securities lending. The class action complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class of borrowers and lenders who entered into stock loan transactions with the defendants. The class action complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the class of plaintiffs and treble damages. On September 27, 2018, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the class action complaint. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was referred by the District Court to a magistrate judge who, on June 30, 2022, issued a report and recommendation that the District Court certify a class. The motion for class certification and the parties' objections to the report and recommendation are pending before the District Court. Morgan Stanley, a financial holding company, provides various financial products and services to corporations, governments, financial institutions, and individuals in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. The company operates through Institutional Securities, Wealth Management, and Investment Management segments. Morgan Stanley was founded in 1924 and is headquartered in New York, New York. MYLAN NV: Mivtachim Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 2nd Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- Movants Menorah Mivtachim Insurance Ltd., et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Memo Endorsement dated August 11, 2022, Opinion and Order dated March 30, 2023, and Judgment dated March 31, 2023, entered in the lawsuit entitled In re Mylan N.V. Securities Litigation, Case No. 16-CV-7926, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case is a securities fraud class action against Mylan N.V. and several of its current and former officers. The liability theory advanced by the Plaintiffs reflects "claims within claims" -- that the Plaintiffs misled investors by obscuring underlying violations of antitrust law and regulatory law. The Plaintiffs offer three such claims: one alleging that Mylan's statements to investors became misleading due to its antitrust violations in marketing the EpiPen; the second based on the theory that Mylan misled investors about its statutory rebating practices; and the third alleging that Mylan's statements to investors about the generic drug market were misleading due to its participation in an antitrust conspiracy in the generics market. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Oetken of the Southern District of New York entered an Order on March 30, 2023 granting the motion for summary judgment filed by Mylan N.V. In their motion for summary judgment, the Defendants first challenged the existence of a predicate statutory violation of either the Sherman Act or the Medicare Drug Rebate Program statute. Second, they argued that even if such a violation did exist, summary judgment would still be appropriate for want of scienter, a showing of materiality, or loss causation. The Plaintiffs also moved for partial summary judgment as to their MDRP-related claims, seeking a judgment that (1) Mylan did misclassify the EpiPen for drug rebate purposes; (2) this was omitted in Mylan's disclosures and was material; and (3) Mylan acted with the requisite scienter that it was violating the MDRP in so doing. The Court has previously dismissed the Plaintiffs' generic drug allegations for failing to meet the evidentiary standards required by . . . the Sherman Act. The Court previously held that, to survive at summary judgment, the Plaintiffs must demonstrate that Mylan violated the Sherman Act in a manner also satisfying the elements of a securities fraud claim -- including loss causation and scienter -- for each individual generic drug challenged. The Court found that the Plaintiffs' securities fraud claim premised on an underlying exclusive dealing violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act -- fails for lack of scienter, even if the Plaintiffs had a stronger case on the substantive antitrust portion of their claim. On March 31, 2023, Clerk of Court entered Judgment that for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated March 30, 2023, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED; Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED; and the outstanding evidentiary motions are DENIED; accordingly, the case is closed. The appellate case is captioned as In Re: Mylan N.V. Securities Litigation, Case No. 23-720, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 28, 2023.[BN] Movants-Appellants Menorah Mivtachim Insurance Ltd., et al., are represented by: Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 3rd Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Defendants-Appellees Mylan N.V., et al., are represented by: Rory A. Leraris, Esq. CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP Worldwide Plaza 825 8th Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 474-1000 NABORS COMPLETION: Lecain Recovers $86.6K in Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ALLEN LECAIN, Petitioner v. NABORS COMPLETION & PRODUCTION SERVICES CO., a Delaware corporation, now known as C&J Well Services, Inc., Respondent, Case No. 2:22-cv-07348-DDP-JPRx (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California orders that: a. Lecain will recover against NABORS in the amount of $86,579.10 in unpaid wages, interest thereof through Jan. 24, 2022, in the amount of $75,642.05, continuing interest from Jan. 25, 2022, at a rate of $23.72 per day until all wages are paid, attorney's fees in the amount of $160,493, and costs in the amount of $4,284 as awarded by the Arbitrator; and b. Lecain will recover additional post-arbitration attorneys' fees in the amount of $8,959 and for costs in the amount of $402. 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 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 Allen LeCain, a putative class member in the Ridgeway class action, commenced an individual arbitration at JAMS. LeCain' individual claims were adjudicated by JAMS Arbitrator Hon. Franz E. Miller (Ret.) resulting in an Interim Award issued April 4, 2022 and a Final Arbitration Award issued Oct. 5, 2022, in favor of LeCain. On Oct. 10, 2022, LeCain 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 May 1, 2023, the Court granted LeCain' motion and confirmed the Final JAMS Arbitration Award issued by Arbitrator Hon. Franz E. Miller (Ret.) on May 24, 2022, in the Arbitration JAMS Case No. 1220058930 and denied NABORS' request to vacate the award. A full-text copy of the Court's May 2, 2023 Judgment is available at https://rb.gy/ek30n from Leagle.com. Richard E. Donahoo -- rdonahoo@donahoo.com -- Sarah L. Kokonas -- skokonas@donahoo.com -- DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES, Tustin, CA. NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Hall Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 2nd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Wayne J. Hall, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum and Order and Judgment dated March 31, 2023 entered in the lawsuit WAYNE J. HALL, REINA HERNANDEZ, and FLORIDALMA PORTILLA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NASSAU COUNTY, DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENT OF NASSAU COUNTY, ASSESSMENT REVIEW COMMISSION OF NASSAU COUNTY, and JOHN DOES 1–25, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-893, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Central Islip). According to the complaint filed on Feb. 14, 2019, the Plaintiffs are "nonwhite" owners of residential properties in a "nonwhite community" in the Village of Hempstead, New York. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants continued to persist in their discriminatory conduct throughout the remainder of 2018, before the reforms could take effect. For example, Defendants granted tax reductions to a majority of the 200,000 property owners who submitted grievances that year, most of whom were "white and wealthy." This, according to Plaintiffs, has exacerbated a $1.7 billion tax burden that the previous system shifted from properties in "wealthier, white communities in [the County] to lower income, nonwhite communities." The Plaintiffs also allege that the prospective nature of the reforms do nothing to compensate for the "grossly disproportionate taxes that Defendants imposed in prior years." On this basis, the Plaintiffs maintain that the reforms actually perpetuate, rather than inhibit, the discriminatory tax disparities at issue, says the suit. On March 31, 2023, Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall entered a Memorandum and Order granting Defendants' December 5, 2019 motion to dismiss. The Clerk of Court signed a Judgment that Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted; and that Plaintiffs' complaint is dismissed in its entirety. The appellate case is captioned as Hall v. Nassau County, Case No. 23-685, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 27, 2023.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Wayne J. Hall, Reina Hernandez, and Floridalma Portillo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Andrew Martin McNeela, Esq. KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP 250 Park Avenue New York, NY 10177 Telephone: (212) 371-6600 Defendants-Appellees County of Nassau, et al., are represented by: Regina Calcaterra, Esq. CALCATERRA POLLACK LLP 1140 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 899-1766 NATURA MANAGEMENT: Hicks Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Natura Management LLC, et al. The case is styled as Antwone Hicks, on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Natura Management LLC, et al., Case No. 23CV000888 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 2, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Natura Management LLC -- https://o.natura.io/ -- are a team of passionate people whose goal is to improve everyone's life through disruptive Cannabis products.[BN] NATURE'S BOUNTY: Baines Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 2nd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Mashon Baines, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Adoption Order and Judgment dated March 28, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled MASHON BAINES on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATURE'S BOUNTY (NY), INC. and THE BOUNTIFUL COMPANY (NY) Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05330, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The suit, filed on September 24, 2021, is a class action on behalf of a nationwide and New York class of consumers, seeking redress for Defendants' deceptive practices associated with the advertising, labeling and sale of its Nature's Bounty 1400 mg. Fish Oil. According to the complaint, the Defendants manufacture, label and sell a product which they claim to be 1400 mg. of Fish Oil containing of 647 mg. of Eicosapentaenoic Acid (EPA) and 253 mg. of Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA) -- the essential omega-3 fatty acids that naturally occur in fish. However, contrary to what is represented on the label, the product is not fish oil, nor does it contain a single milligram of EPA or DHA. On February 7, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint. On March 28, 2023, Judge Joanna Seybert entered order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss; granting the February 7, 2022 motion of Defendants to amend/correct/supplement; adopting the Report and Recommendations regarding Defendants' motion to dismiss amended complaint. On the same day, the Clerk of Court entered Judgment that Plaintiffs Mashon Baines and Nancie Froning take nothing of Defendants; that Defendants' judicial notice motion is granted to the extent articulated in the March 28, 2023 Adoption Order; that Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted; and that this case is closed. The appellate case is captioned as Baines v. Nature's Bounty (NY), Inc., Case No. 23-710, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 28, 2023.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Mashon Baines and Nancy Froning, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Michael David Braun, Esq. KUZYK LAW 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (213) 401-4100 Defendants-Appellees Nature's Bounty (NY), Inc. and The Bountiful Company (NY) are represented by: William A. Delgado, Esq. DTO LAW 601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2130 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 335-6999 NCS PEARSON: Faces Tanav Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------------ Henry Tanav, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. NCS Pearson, Inc., d/b/a Pearson Vue Testing Center Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-21596 (S.D. Fla., April 28, 2023) is an action brought by the Plaintiff to recover monetary damages for regular unpaid wages and retaliation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Tanav was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempted, full-time test administrator from approximately October 15, 2020, to August 23, 2022, or 97 weeks. He contends that Defendant violated the law by failing to pay him and other similarly situated individuals the proper compensation for every regular and overtime hour worked at the rate of time and one-half their regular rate. He further asserts that he was terminated on August 23, 2023 due to his constant complaints about the number of working hours paid to him. NCS Pearson, Inc. develops and markets enterprise application software. The Company provides software applications and technologies for education, testing, assessment, and complex data management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Bylaws Violates Delaware Law, Casey Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- TAYLOR WAYNE CASEY, v. NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS, a Delaware Corporation, ROBERT B. CHESS, HOWARD W. ROBIN, JEFFREY R. AJER, DIANA M. BRAINARD, MYRIAM J. CURET, KARIN EASTHAM, R. SCOTT GREER, and ROY A. WHITFIELD, Case No. 2023-0484 (Del. Ch., May. 2, 2023) is a verified class action complaint against Nektar and members of the Company's board of directors for declaratory relief relating to the Company's violation of Delaware General Corporation Law Section 228(a). Under Delaware law stockholders have the right to take certain actions by consent. The Company's current bylaws, adopted and maintained by the Defendants, has a provision in which the Company purports to eliminate this right of its stockholders. There is one exception to the rule, which the Company’s provision concerning consent does not meet. The Company's certificate of incorporation, however, does not eliminate its stockholders' right to act by consent. Instead, the prohibition is in the Bylaws. The Plaintiff brings this class action pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 23, on behalf of himself and the Class, consisting of all owners of shares of Nektar common stock who have been injured or are threatened with injury arising from Defendants' unlawful conduct, including, but not limited to, Defendants' intrusion upon the statutory stockholder right to act by consent. Accordingly, the Defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class by maintaining the unlawful Bylaws provision, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or declaratory relief with respect to the Class as a whole. Plaintiff Casey is and has been an owner of Nektar shares of common stock. Nektar is a clinical stage, research-based drug discovery biopharmaceutical company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake A. Bennett, Esq. Andrew A. Ralli, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. The Nemours Building 1007 N. Orange St., Suite 1120 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984-3800 Facsimile: (302) 984-3939 E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com aralli@coochtaylor.com - and – Brian P. Murray, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave., Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com - and – Werner R. Kranenburg, Esq. KRANENBURG 80-83 Long Lane London EC1A 9ET United Kingdom E-mail: werner@kranenburgesq.com NETFLIX INC: La. App. Affirms Dismissal of Kenner Suit W/ Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CITY OF KENNER v. NETFLIX, INC., AND HULU, LLC, Case No. 22-CA-466 (La. App.), the Court of Appeal of Louisiana for the Fifth Circuit affirms the trial court's judgment sustaining exceptions of no right of action and no cause of action filed by the Defendants and dismissing Kenner's putative class action lawsuit. The City of Kenner appeals the trial court's judgment that sustained exceptions of no right of action and no cause of action filed by Netflix and Hulu. The case concerns the application of Louisiana's Consumer Choice for Television Act ("CCTA"), La. R.S. 45:1361 et seq., which authorizes subdivisions of the State to collect franchise fees from certain cable service or video service providers as defined in the Act. Enacted in 2008, the CCTA authorizes the Secretary of State to issue a certificate of franchise to those providers who construct or operate wireline networks in public rights of way. By centralizing the franchise authority, the CCTA alleviates the previous scheme in which service providers had been required to negotiate and obtain separate franchises from each local government subdivision for use of its public rights of way -- a much more laborious process. After a service provider obtains the necessary franchise certificate, a local governmental subdivision will allow the holder of a certificate to install, construct, and maintain a network within public rights of way and will provide the holder of a certificate with open, comparable, nondiscriminatory, and competitively neutral access to the public rights of way. Governmental subdivisions may enact ordinances in conjunction with the CCTA which allows them to collect franchise fees from the certificate holders, which fees are not to exceed 5% of the holder's gross revenues. On Jan. 22, 2021, Kenner enacted Ordinance Number 11,813, which provides for the collection of franchise fees pursuant to the CCTA. Effective May 22, 2022, the Legislature amended La. R.S. 45:1363(14), which references streaming content offered over the internet, specifically excluding it from the definition of "video service." On the same day that Kenner's City Council enacted the franchise-fee ordinance in 2021, Kenner filed the putative class action lawsuit on behalf of itself and all of Louisiana's political subdivisions similarly situated to collect franchise fees from defendants Netflix and Hulu. Netflix and Hulu asserted exceptions of no right of action, arguing that they were not franchise "holders" under the CCTA; and exceptions of no cause of action, contending that various provisions of the CCTA do not require streaming service providers to obtain franchise certificates or pay franchise fees. The trial court sustained the Defendants' exceptions of no cause of action and no right of action, dismissing with prejudice Kenner's lawsuit against them. The trial court's Judgment states that first, the CCTA does not confer upon the Plaintiff a right of action or cause of action against Netflix and Hulu. Second, under the CCTA, the Defendants are not required to obtain a franchise before they make their content available to their customers, and they are not subject to the CCTA. Third, even if the Defendants were otherwise subject to the CCTA, the Defendants' content is accessed by their customers over the networks of third-party Internet service providers, whose service allows the Defendants' customers to access content over the public Internet, i.e., the Internet. Kenner now appeals. It assigns three errors on appeal: (1) the trial court erred in finding that the CCTA did not confer on it a right of action or cause of action against Netflix and Hulu; (2) the trial court erred by finding that Netflix and Hulu are not required to obtain a franchise before they make their content available to their customers and that Netflix and Hulu are not subject to the CCTA; and (3) the trial court erred by finding that Netflix and Hulu's video content is excluded from the definition of "video service." As to the first assignment of error, the Court of Appeal finds that the trial court correctly determined that Kenner has no right of action to enforce the provisions of the CCTA against Netflix and Hulu, who do not hold franchise certificates. It further finds that Kenner's allegations fail to satisfy the pleading requirements necessary to state a cause of action against Netflix and Hulu under the CCTA. Accordingly, it affirms the trial court's ruling sustaining Netflix's and Hulu's exceptions of no cause of action. As to the second assignment of error, the Court of Appeal holds that for the reasons expressed in its discussion of the Defendants' exceptions of no cause of action, it finds no merit to Kenner's second assignment of error. As to the third assignment of error, because the Court of Appeal already has determined that Netflix and Hulu do not fit within the definition of "video service provider" under the former statutory language, it declines to address Kenner's third assignment of error. For these reasons, the trial court's judgment granting the exceptions of no right of action and exceptions of no cause of action, and dismissing with prejudice the claims of the City of Kenner against the Defendants, is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2023 Order is available at https://rb.gy/n8u9d from Leagle.com. Joseph M. Bruno, Sr., Malvern C. Burnett -- info@burnettlawoffices.com -- Joshua C. Joseph, Elvin L. Kistner, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT CITY OF KENNER. Glenn L. M. Swetman, Brandie M. Thibodeaux -- bthibodeaux@mgmlaw.com -- Mary A. Reed -- mreed@mgmlaw.com -- Mary Rose Alexander -- mary.rose.alexander@lw.com -- Robert C. Collins, III -- robert.collins@lw.com -- Jean A. Pawlow -- jean.pawlow@lw.com -- Peter E. Davis -- peter.davis@lw.com -- Henry Adrian van Seventer -- henry.vanseventer@lw.com -- COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE NETFLIX, INC. Martin E. Landrieu -- mlandrieu@gamb.com -- Phillip J. Antis, Jr. -- pantis@gamb.com -- Victor Jih -- vjih@wsgr.com -- Praatika Prasad -- pprasad@wsgr.com -- COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE HULU, LLC. NETGAIN TECHNOLOGY: USA Dismissed From Doe Class Suit W/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NETGAIN TECHNOLOGY, LLC; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-01587-BEN-DDL (S.D. Cal.), Judge Robert T. Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California: (1) grants the Plaintiff and the United States' Joint Motion to Dismiss the United States without prejudice; (2) denies as moot the United States' Motion to Dismiss; and (3) remands to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, the remaining claims lodged against Netgain. Plaintiff Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, brings the action for violation of federal and state law related to an alleged data breach against Netgain and the United States of America. Before the Court is: (1) the Plaintiff and the United States' Joint Motion to Dismiss; (2) the United States' Motion to Dismiss; and (3) the Plaintiff's request to remand to state court the remaining state law claims. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit alleging state law violations of California's Confidentiality of Medical Information Act ("CMIA") relating to a data breach involving the Plaintiff and the Class members' medical and personal information. The Plaintiff was a patient of, received medical treatment and diagnosis from, and provided her personal information, including her name, address, date of birth, social security number, phone number and email address to Neighborhood. She alleges that Neighborhood maintains an online Patient Portal to allow patients to securely access and review their health information, as well as to update their personal information. At all relevant times, Neighborhood maintained and continues to maintain 'medical information,' within the meaning of CMIA. The Plaintiff alleges that between Oct. 22, 2020, and Dec. 3, 2020, the Defendants failed to properly maintain, preserve, and/or store confidential, medical and personal identifying information of the Plaintiff and all other persons similarly situated which allowed an unauthorized person to gain access to the information. Neighborhood and Netgain's negligent creation, maintenance, preservation and/or storage of the medical information constituted a disclosure in violation of CMIA. The Plaintiff maintains that she and the Class have the right to expect that the confidentiality of their medical information in possession and/or derived from the Defendants be reasonably preserved and protected from unauthorized viewing, exfiltration, theft, and/or disclosures. She alleges she and the Class fear that disclosure and/or release of their medical information could subject them to harassment or abuse. On June 1, 2021, the Plaintiff filed her initial class action lawsuit in state court against Defendants Neighborhood, Netgain, and Health Center Partners of Southern California ("Health Center Partners"). Specifically, her Complaint sought damages, restitution, and injunctive relief for violations of: (1) CMIA, California Civil Code sections 56, et seq., against all Defendants; (2) California's Security Notification Laws, California Civil Code section 1798.82, against Health Center Partners; and (3) California's Unfair Competition Law, California Business & Professions Code sections 17200, et seq., against all Defendants. On Sept. 8, 2021, the Plaintiff filed her First Amended Class Action Complaint alleging the same causes of action against the same Defendants. On Sept. 9, 2021, Neighborhood removed the case to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction and a federal defendant. It argued that it was immune from suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 233(a) and that the Plaintiff's exclusive remedy was against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"). Neighborhood subsequently filed a Motion to Substitute the United States as a Defendant, and on Sept. 8, 2022, the Court granted Neighborhood's Motion and substituted the United States as a Defendant in place of Neighborhood. On Sept. 9, 2022 the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Defendant Health Center Partners, leaving the United States and Netgain as the only remaining Defendants in the litigation. On Nov. 7, 2022, the United States filed the instant Motion to Dismiss. On Nov. 28, 2022, the Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. The United States did not file a reply. On May 1, 2023, the Plaintiff and the United States filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss the United States from the action without prejudice. The United States' original Motion to Dismiss argues that the Court lacks federal jurisdiction, because the Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies pursuant to the FTCA. The Plaintiff's Opposition concedes that she did not exhaust her administrative remedies but requests that if the Court dismisses the case, it do so without prejudice. She further requests that the remaining state law claims against Netgain be remanded to state court. She and the United States subsequently filed a Joint Motion asking the Court to dismiss the United States from this litigation without prejudice. Because the parties now agree to a dismissal of the United States without prejudice, Judge Benitez denies as moot the United States' original Motion to Dismiss. He grants the parties' Joint Motion seeking dismissal of the United States. Accordingly, pursuant to the parties' Joint Motion, the United States is dismissed without prejudice. Although the Court substituted the United States as a Defendant pursuant to the FTCA, it did so without a formal certification from the Attorney General. Therefore, Judge Benitez holds that removal was not based on section 2679(d)(2), and nothing in the record indicates that the Attorney General ever issued a Westfall Act certification. As such, exclusive jurisdiction has not been established for purposes of section 2679(d)(2). Because the Court has discretion to remand the litigation and no party opposes remand, he remands the remaining claims lodged against Netgain to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2023 Order is available at https://rb.gy/q9mff from Leagle.com. NEW YORK, NY: B.G. Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York City. The case is styled as B.G., a child by her Parent and Natural Guardian, Stacey Haynes; A.R., a child by her Parent and Natural Guardian Alana Campbell; C.K., a child by her Parent and Natural Guardian Flavia Franco-Karelis; S.S., a child by her Parent and Natural Guardian Meggi Sweeney; United Federation of Teachers, Local 2; Anna Vianna Balzano, Zavier Sabio, Eileen Lograno, Rita Fattorusso, Roy Stelzer, Patrick Norman, Darren Fudenske, Elise Brady, and all similarly situated individuals v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Board of Education of the City School District of The City of New York, David C. Banks, in his official capacity as Chancellor of the City School District of the City of New York, Case No. 5:23-cv-03761 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. New York City -- https://www.nyc.gov/ -- comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clara R. Smit, Esq. 100 Horizon Center Boulevard Hamilton, NJ 08691 Phone: (732) 843-6600 Email: crsmitlaw@aol.com NEW YORK: Intervenors Appeal Rulings in Greater Chautauqua Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Intervenors Bartel Miller and Western New York Law Center filed an appeal from the District Court Opinion and Order dated March 31, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled GREATER CHAUTAUQUA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, BOULEVARD FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, GREATER NIAGARA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HON. LAWRENCE K. MARKS, in his official capacity as Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts, SHERIFF JAMES B. QUATTRONE, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Chautauqua County, New York, SHERIFF JOHN C. GARCIA, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Erie County, New York, SHERIFF MICHAEL J. FILICETTI, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Niagara County, New York, and LETITIA JAMES, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the State of New York, Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-2753, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit filed on April 4, 2022 is brought by the Plaintiffs under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The Defendants' acts, orders, policies, practices, customs, and processes to implement S.B. 5724A, 244th Leg. Sess., c. 831, or the Amendment, will deprive Plaintiffs of their property without just compensation or due process. In bringing these claims, Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of similarly situated New York judgment holders consisting of all holders of unsatisfied judgments based on consumer debt, as defined in the Amendment, and entered in New York State courts prior to April 30, 2022. On March 31, 2023, Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered an OPINION AND ORDER DENYING INTERVENTION AND RESOLVING MOTIONS TO DISMISS. Specifically, the Order states that the motion to intervene filed by the Western New York Law Center and Bartel Miller on May 27, 2022 is denied; the motion to dismiss filed by Judge Marks on June 13, 2022 is granted; the motion to dismiss filed by the Attorney General on June 13, 2022, joined by the Sheriff Defendants motion filed on June 15, 2022, is granted in part and denied in part; and the Attorney General's request for oral argument is denied. The appellate case is captioned as Greater Chautauqua Federal Credit Union v. Quattrone, Case No. 23-733, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 28, 2023.[BN] Intervenors-Appellants Bartel Miller and Western New York Law Center are represented by: Michael N. Litrownik, Esq. MOBILIZATION FOR JUSTICE, INC. 100 William Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 417-3858 Plaintiffs-Appellees Greater Chautauqua Federal Credit Union, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by: Elizabeth Rinehart, Esq. VENABLE LLP 750 East Pratt Street Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 244-4646 NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Turner Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case is styled as Judy Turner, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the State of California and other aggrieved persons v. Northrop Grumman Corporation, Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV04404 was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 1, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-03282 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Northrop Grumman Corporation -- https://www.northropgrumman.com/ -- is an American multinational aerospace and defense technology company.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. NYTDA INC: Faces NU-Electric Suit Over Parking Ticket Management ---------------------------------------------------------------- NU-ELECTRIC; SOMA HUSSEIN; UNIFIRST CORP.; BLUE SKY WINDOWS; THE BEVERAGE WORKS; and THE SHADE COMPANY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NYTDA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 513427/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., May 4, 2023) is a civil action seeking monetary damages, restitution, and declaratory relief from the Defendant, arising from the assessment and collection of fees and fines from the New York City Department of Collections (NYC) on transactions related to parking tickets on commercial vehicles. According to the complaint, although the Defendant accepted monies from the Plaintiffs, it failed to take care of the Plaintiffs' parking tickets resulting in unpaid parking tickets, past due bills from NYC, and their commercial vehicles being towed and impounded. The Plaintiffs and other NYTDA customers have been injured by NYTDA's practices. The Plaintiffs seek damages, restitution and injunctive relief for NYTDA's breach of contract and deceptive practices. NEW YORK TRUCKING & DELIVERY ASSOCIATION (NYTDA) is a for-profit business and lobbying firm that offers memberships to commercial trucking businesses, delivery and service companies, promising to give a voice to trucking, delivery and service companies operating in New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: By: Paul T. Sabaj, Esq. SABAJ LAW, P.C. 121A Nassau Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11222 Telephone: (212)518-8270 OAKHURST INDUSTRIES: Guzman Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Joseline Guzman, an individual, on behalf of herself, all other aggrieved employees, and the general public v. OAKHURST INDUSTRIES, INC. d/b/a FREUND BAKING CO, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV09674 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 1, 2023), is brought challenging the Defendants' employment practices with respect to their non-exempt, hourly workers employed in the State of California at Defendants' bakery facility locations (hereinafter "Bakery Employees"), based on Defendants' policy and practice of failing, among other things, to provide legally compliant meal and rest breaks, denying earned wages, including overtime pay, and failing to provide accurate wage statements from February 24, 2022 to the present ("Relevant Time Period"). In particular, the Defendants fail to provide timely and adequate meal and rest breaks, fail to timely compensate employees for all wages earned, and fail to properly and accurately calculate overtime and report wages earned, hours worked, and wage rates. The Defendants' compensation scheme did not fully compensate the Plaintiff with at least minimum wages and/or designated rates for all hours worked. The Defendants' compensation scheme did not fully compensate the Plaintiff with overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff commenced her employment with Defendants in February 2, 2021 working in the Production Department as a Bun Aligner at Defendants' bakery facility located in Glendale, California. Oakhurst Industries, Inc. doing business as Freund Baking Co. is a family-owned baking company located in the greater Los Angeles area that processes and distributes hamburger and hotdog buns to retail fast food stores throughout California and elsewhere.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael H. Boyamian, Esq. BOYAMIAN LAW, INC. 550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500 Glendale, CA 91203-1922 Phone: 818.547.5300 Facsimile: 818.547.5678 Email: michael@boyamianlaw.com OAKLAWN JOCKEY CLUB: Phillips Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oaklawn Jockey Club, Inc. The case is styled as Christopher Phillips, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Oaklawn Jockey Club, Inc., Case No. 6:23-cv-06055-SOH (W.D. Ark., May 1, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Oaklawn Jockey Club, Inc. -- https://oaklawn.com/ -- provides gambling facilities. The Company offers horse race wagering, poker, reel games, table games, and dining services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com ONE BROOKLYN: Burwell Sues Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------- Tijanay Burwell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ONE BROOKLYN HEALTH SYSTEM, INC; Case No. 513009/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., May 2, 2023), is brought against the Defendant's violations of New York General Business Law as a result of the Defendant's negligence with the Plaintiff's Personal Identifying Information ("PII"). In the course of serving Brooklynites, OBH collected a significant amount of data, including employees' and patients' names, health insurance information, medical bill or claim information, medical records numbers, and medical treatment information. Data of this type is classified as Personal Identifying Information ("PII"). This is the PII that was exposed for Plaintiff Burwell. Other victims also had their Social Security numbers and payment/banking/financial information compromised as well. When patients and employees disclosed this PII to Defendant, they did so under the impression that it would be protected in a manner consistent with how valuable this subset of PII is. However, in April 2023, Defendant disclosed that the PII of over 235,000 current or former OBH patients and employees, including the PII of Plaintiff and the putative Class, had been compromised in connection with a cyberattack that occurred in November of 2022 (the "Data Breach"). To make matters even worse, although the intrusion into OBH's computer system occurred on July 9, 2022, the intrusion was not discovered by OBH until November 19, 2022, when the cybercriminals shut down OBH's computer systems using malicious hacking at one or more of OBH's hospitals. This means that OBH was either not monitoring its computer network for infiltrations of any sort, or that its monitoring (if any) was woefully deficient at protecting OBH's servers and network from intrusions like the one at issue. This mistake harmed nearly a quarter of a million Brooklynites and other persons who mistakenly entrusted OBH with their PII, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a patient at OBH during (time period) and provided OBH her name, health insurance information, medical bill or claim information, and other sensitive PII. OBH is a major hospital system located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Israel David, Esq. Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. Madeline Sheffield, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 17 State Street, Suite 4010 New York, NY 10004 Phone: 212-739-0622 Fax: 212-739-0628 Email: israel.david@davidllc.com blake.yagman@davidllc.com madeline.sheffield@davidllc.com OUR GRACE: Fails to Pay OT and Minimum Wages, Knighten Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE KNIGHTEN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. OUR GRACE, LLC and LACEISHA KING, Case No. 3:23-cv-00334-SDD-SDJ (M.D. La., May 2, 2023) alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act for misclassifying their direct service workers as "independent contractors" and failing to pay overtime and/or minimum wage compensation for all hours worked. The Plaintiff is domiciled in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, and was employed by Defendants from approximately November 18, 2020 through July 7, 2022 as a direct service worker who provided companionship services in the homes of Defendants' clients. The Plaintiff's hours varied from week to week but she regularly worked more than 40 hours a week, says the suit. Our Grace, LLC is a Louisiana limited liability company with its principal place of business located at 11940 Bricksome Avenue, Suite D, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Bohrer, Esq. Scott E. Brady, Esq. BOHRER BRADY, LLC 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: (225) 231-7000 E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com scott@bohrerbrady.com PAULA'S CHOICE: Faces Munoz Suit Over Data Privacy Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- CIEARA MUNOZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PAULA'S CHOICE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-03426 (C.D. Cal., May 5, 2023) alleges violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that when someone watches a video on www.paulaschoice.com (the "Website"), the Defendant reports the "viewing event" to TikTok, which is owned by ByteDance Ltd. The Plaintiff and Class members did not provide the Defendant with any form of consent, written or otherwise, to disclose their PII to third parties, specifically the People's Republic of China, says the suit. PAULA'S CHOICE, LLC sells skin care and lifestyle products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Joint Bid to File Responses Under Seal Nixed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Francisco Berlanga, et al., v. Polaris Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00949-KJM-DMC (E.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order denying the renewed joint request to file under seal an April 2018 presentation of consumer survey responses. The Court said, "The parties ask to seal an April 2018 presentation of consumer survey responses. It is unclear why a five6 year-old presentation would risk competitive harm today. Setting aside the presentation's age, the parties have not explained why all of the information in the presentation should be concealed. One page, for example, reports the commonsense conclusion that some people decide not to replace specific vehicle components because the replacement is not worth the money. The presentation also includes dozens of charts and tables, but for all of these charts and tables, the parties offer a single generic explanation: the information is "related to" market research and "reflects Polaris strategic objectives. " These reasons are not "compelling. " They also do not reflect any consideration by the parties of the possible narrowed option of redaction of only truly confidential information, if any qualifies." Polaris is an American manufacturer of snowmobiles, atv, and neighborhood electric vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VtLNg6 at no extra charge.[CC] PORCELANA CORONA: Appeals Ruling in Cone Suit to 5th Cir. --------------------------------------------------------- Porcelana Corona De Mexico, S.A. DE C.V. filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 31, 2023 and Final Order and Judgment dated April 13, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled STEVEN CONE, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. SANITARIOS LAMOSA S.A. DE C.V., ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-CV-1, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman. On January 1, 2017, Steven and Joanna Cone filed their Original Complaint and Class Action on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, asserting claims against Sanitarios Lamosa S.A. DE C.V. also known as Vortens, Inc., now known as Porcelana Corona De Mexico, S.A. DE C.V. Originally, Plaintiffs were suing both Sanitarios Lamosa S.A. DE C.V. and Vortens, Inc. as two separate Defendants litigation progressed, however, who Plaintiffs should be suing became clear and, now, the only Defendant is Porcelana. In the Original Complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that the defective tanks included tank models #3464, #3412, #3404, #3425, #3408 and #3571 manufactured, produced, designed, marketed, or distributed by Defendant between 2004 and 2012. On March 27, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint and Class Action. On January 19, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint or the Operative Complaint. In the Operative Complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that the defective tanks included tank models #3464, #3412, #3404, #3425, and #3436 manufactured, produced, designed, marketed, or distributed by Defendant between 2004 and 2012. On March 31, 2023, District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III entered Memorandum Opinion and Order and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Final Order and Judgment that Defendant Porcelana Corona De Mexico, S.A. de C.V.'s Motion for Entry of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and Plaintiffs' and Class Counsel's Motion for Entry of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It was further ORDERED that Defendant Porcelana Corona De Mexico, S.A. de C.V.'s Motion for Leave to File Exhibit to Proposed Findings of Fact is GRANTED; and that Plaintiffs' and Class Counsel's Opposed Motion for Leave to File Objections to Porcelana's Sur-Reply and New Evidence is DENIED as MOOT and Plaintiffs' and Class Counsel's Unopposed Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record in Light of Joint Status Report on Claims Administration is DENIED as MOOT. The appellate case is captioned as Cone v. Porcelana Corona De Mexico, Case No. 23-40266, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on April 28, 2023.[BN] Defendant-Appellant Porcelana Corona De Mexico, S.A. DE C.V., formerly known as Sanitarios Lamosa S.A. DE C.V., also known as Vortens is represented by: Melissa Dorman Matthews, Esq. STEPTOE & JOHNSON, P.L.L.C. 500 N. Akard Street Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 251-8509 Plaintiffs-Appellees Steven Cone, et al., on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, are represented by: Nathan Scott Carpenter, Esq. CARPENTER & SCHUMACHER, P.C. 2500 Dallas Parkway Plano, TX 75093 Telephone: (972) 403-1133 PREMIUM BRANDS: Engles Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Kathryn Jeanine Fagan Engles, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. PREMIUM BRANDS OPCO LLC dba LOFT OUTLET, an Ohio limited liability company, ASCENA RETAIL GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2023-01309041-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 3, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-03380. The Complaint seeks damages, penalties, and restitution on behalf of a putative class for: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to authorize and permit rest periods; failure to timely pay wages during employment; failure to timely pay wages owed upon separation from employment; failure to reimburse necessary expenses; knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized wage statement provisions; and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Carrie A. Gonell, Esq. David J. Rashe, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653 Phone: +1.714.830.0600 Fax: +1.714.830.0700 Email: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com david.rashe@morganlewis.com PRINCE TELECOM: Denial of Arbitration Bids in Roman Suit Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MANUEL ROMAN; JIQUELLE KINNARD; ANTHONY HAYWARD v. PRINCE TELECOM LLC; COMCAST CORP; COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT LLC, PRINCE TELECOM LLC, Appellant in 22-1348, COMCAST CORP; COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT LLC, Appellants in 22-1349, Case Nos. 22-1348, 22-1349 (3d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirms the District Court's order denying Prince Telecom's and Comcast's motions to compel arbitration and to dismiss or stay the suit without prejudice. Appellees Roman, Kinnard, and Hayward worked as cable installation technicians for Prince Telecom and Comcast. They filed a collective and class action complaint against their employers, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and various state laws. Pointing to an arbitration agreement in the Appellees' employment contracts, Prince Telecom and Comcast each filed a motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss or stay the suit. The District Court denied their motions without prejudice, ordered the parties to engage in limited discovery concerning the validity and enforceability of the arbitration agreements, and granted Prince Telecom and Comcast leave to file a renewed motion to compel arbitration to be considered under the summary judgment standard. Prince Telecom and Comcast have appealed that ruling. The Appellees filed their collective and class action complaint in April 2021, alleging that Prince Telecom pressured cable installation technicians to underreport the amount of hours worked, altered wage-calculation codes that the cable technicians submitted so that lower pay rates applied, deducted meal periods from their hours worked even when technicians did not take lunch breaks, required technicians to incur significant expenses in the course of their work that reduced their minimum and overtime wages, and failed to maintain proper time records of completed work. Based on those allegations, the complaint asserts eight claims -- a claim for a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, five claims for violations of various Pennsylvania and Massachusetts wage and hour laws, and two claims for unjust enrichment -- against Prince Telecom and Comcast. In addition to the three named Plaintiffs, eight Opt-In Plaintiffs filed consent forms with the court to join the lawsuit. Prince Telecom and Comcast each separately filed motions to compel arbitration and to dismiss or stay the Appellees' claims. In opposition to the motions to compel arbitration, Appellee Roman and six Opt-In Plaintiffs who were purportedly presented with the arbitration agreement via UltiPro all submitted sworn declarations. They also alleged that they were never provided a copy of the agreement, and they did "not recall signing the Agreement" that Prince Telecom produced. Appellee Hayward and one Opt-In Plaintiff who were purportedly presented with the arbitration agreement via DocuSign made similar statements in their sworn declarations. The District Court denied Prince Telecom's and Comcast's motions without prejudice, allowed the parties to engage in limited discovery concerning the validity and enforceability of the arbitration agreements, and granted Prince Telecom and Comcast leave to file a renewed motion to compel arbitration to be considered under the standard applicable at summary judgment. The District Court observed that none of the complaint's factual allegations allude to an arbitration agreement, nor does the complaint rely on an arbitration agreement to state a claim, and the Plaintiffs have responded to the motions to compel with additional facts regarding the validity and enforceability of the arbitration agreements. Following the Third Circuit's decision in Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution LLC, 716 F.3d 764, 774 (3d Cir. 2013), which directs district courts to allow limited discovery concerning the validity of an arbitration agreement and use a summary judgment standard to assess a renewed motion to compel arbitration when the opposing party presents reliable evidence that it did not intend to be bound by the arbitration agreement, the District Court concluded that limited discovery is warranted in this matter to decide the validity and enforceability of Prince Telecom's arbitration agreements. Prince Telecom and Comcast timely appealed, and their appeals were consolidated. Prince Telecom and Comcast argue that the District Court erred when it denied their motions to compel arbitration because the district court should defer ruling on the motion only where the non-moving party unequivocally denies entering into the arbitration agreement and the Appellees did not unequivocally deny entering into the arbitration agreements or submit admissible evidence sufficient to place the agreements in issue. They also argue that even if the District Court's decision to consider their motions under a summary judgment standard is correct, discovery is unnecessary because the Appellees failed to show the existence of any genuine dispute as to any material fact regarding the making of the arbitration agreement. The Third Circuit opines that the District Court correctly concluded that the present motion to compel arbitration should be decided under the summary judgment standard because none of the complaint's factual allegations allude to an arbitration agreement, nor does the complaint rely on an arbitration agreement to state a claim. The District Court was also correct to conclude that the summary judgment standard was applicable to the motions to compel arbitration. The Appellees presented sworn statements in support of their claims and also demonstrated discrepancies in how the arbitration agreements were supposedly signed. Prince Telecom and Comcast argue that discovery is unnecessary because the Appellees did not even request permission to take discovery or attempt to show that they were unable to present their opposition to their motions without first conducting discovery. Although discovery was not requested, the Third Circuit opines that the Appellees presented sufficient proof that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the formation of an agreement to arbitrate -- including how the agreement's "click-to-sign" icon was presented to the cable technicians. The District Court was well within its discretion in ordering limited discovery. A full-text copy of the Court's May 2, 2023 Opinion is available at https://rb.gy/xqeeh from Leagle.com. PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN: Amendment of Scheduling Order Sought ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEDDRICK BROWN, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:21-cv-00175-TCB (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order amending the Consolidated Amended Scheduling Order to accommodate the efficient coordination of discovery between this action and the Costello action. Event Current Proposed Deadline Deadline Close of Expert Discovery May 19, 2023 June 2, 2023 Reply ISO Class Cert May 26, 2023 June 9, 2023 Opposition to Daubert Motions May 5, 2023 June 9, 2023 Reply in Support of Daubert May 19, 2023 June 30, 2023 Motions The Plaintiffs move unopposed for an extension of their deadlines to file a reply in support of their motion for class certification, and to file oppositions to the Defendants Progressive Mountain Insurance Company and Progressive Premier Insurance Company of Illinois' Daubert motions. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants in this action are, respectively, represented by the same lead counsel as the plaintiff and defendant in Costello v. Mountain Laurel Assurance Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-00035-TAV-CRW (E.D. Tenn.). The Plaintiffs in this action and in the Costello action disclosed the same experts -- i.e. Jason Merritt, Kirk Felix, Dr. Michelle Lacey, and Jeffrey Martin -- and Progressive took one deposition of each expert that it is using in each of these two cases. Progressive Mountain operates as an insurance firm. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 2, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3M3m0br at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hank Bates, Esq. Lee Lowther, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 519 W. 7th Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com llowther@cbplaw.com - and - Michael J. Lober, Esq. William Greg Dobson, Esq. LOBER & DOBSON, LLC Robert E. Lee Building, Suite 201 830 Mulberry Street Macon, GA 31201 Telephone: (478) 745-7700 E-mail: wgd@lddlawyers.com mjlober@lddlawyers.com - and - R. Brent Irby, Esq. IRBY LAW, LLC 2201 Arlington Avenue S Birmingham, AL 35205 E-mail: birby@mhcilaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Christopher Gold, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com chris@edelsberglaw.com PRUDENTIAL OVERAL: Larson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prudential Overal Supply, et al. The case is styled as Ofelia Garcia Larson, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Prudential Overal Supply, et al., Case No. 23CV000907 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 2, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Prudential Overall Supply -- https://www.prudentialuniforms.com/ -- provides professional work uniform rental services, laundry and cleaning programs, cleanroom services and facility supplies.[BN] RANCHO GORDO INC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rancho Gordo, Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Rancho Gordo, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03753 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Rancho Gordo -- https://www.ranchogordo.com/ -- specializes in selling Heirloom beans as well as other grocery items online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com RANDALL MECHANICAL: Employees Win Conditional Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY FIXL, v. RANDALL MECHANICAL, INC.; and JEFFREY S. CONDELLO, Case No. 6:22-cv-00901-RBD-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Roy Dalton Jr. entered an order 1. conditionally certifying the following 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) collective: "All Employees of Randall who: (1) worked in the electrical or fire divisions during the preceding three years; (2) were paid an hourly rate; and (3) worked more than forty hours in a workweek without being paid proper overtime compensation as a result of the time shaving or banked hours practices. 2. appointing the Plaintiff Mary Fixl as class representative; 3. appointing N. Ryan LaBar, Esq. and Scott C. Adams, Esq. as class counsel; 4. By Friday, May 12, 2023, directing the Defendants to provide Plaintiff with the full name, job title, dates of employment, last known address, telephone number, and email address for each individual in the certified collective in a computer readable format; 5. approving the Plaintiff's proposed notice and consent form; and 6. authorizing Plaintiff to send the approved notice and consent form to each collective member via email and U.S. mail within five days after Defendants provide Plaintiff with the contact information. Fixl and ten others filed affidavits averring that they were hourly employees in the electrical or fire divisions who were not paid overtime due to Randall's "timeshaving" and "banked hours" policies. Randall is a construction company that provides electrical and fire protection services. Ms. Fixl worked for Randall as an administrator in the electrical and fire divisions, where she processed timesheets for employees. Randall provides engineering and construction services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LWkFDf at no extra charge.[CC] REALPAGE INC: Blosser Sues Over Price Fixing Conspiracy ------------------------------------------------------- Hannah Blosser, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REALPAGE, INC.; THOMA BRAVO L.P.; AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL LLC; BH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; ALLIANCE RESIDENTIAL REALTY, LLC; ASSET LIVING, LLC; CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST; CORTLAND PROPERTIES, INC; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC.; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC; HIGHMARK RESIDENTIAL, LLC; LINCOLN PROPERTY CO.; MID-AMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.; MORGAN PROPERTIES, LLC; RPM LIVING LLC; and SECURITY PROPERTIES INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00445 (M.D. Tenn., May 4, 2023), is brought arising from the Defendants' conspiracy and actions in concert to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize rental housing prices in the State of Tennessee, particularly in the metropolitan areas of Nashville, Memphis, Chattanooga, and Knoxville. RealPage's algorithm uses the gathered data to generate a rental price for each of RealPage's client's available units, pricing which is updated daily. RealPage ensures that the other Defendants know that to maximize revenues, they must accept the software's rental price at least 80%-90% of the time, and RealPage's "Revenue Management Advisors" monitor their compliance with the recommendations. RealPage and the Defendant property managers who use RealPage's revenue management services constitute a price-fixing cartel, and the revenue growth they have achieved is possible only through carefully concerted price setting. With the assurance that their competitors set Tennessee rental prices using the same algorithm, each Defendant property manager can hold vacant a larger share of its units while maintaining higher rental prices across all properties. This RealPage strategy and process increased Defendants' revenue and profits at the expense of renters such as the Plaintiff. As the property managers acknowledge, they are competitors. Yet, RealPage's clients shared a common goal of increasing rent prices across the board and understood that RealPage – which has been explicit that its aim is to help its clients "outperform the market by 3% to 7%" – was the method to do it. RealPage's clients include many of the largest property managers in the State of Tennessee, who control a majority of the rental units in desirable neighborhoods. A recent analysis revealed that rents in areas where RealPage clients control a high percentage of rental units have increased at significantly higher rates than those where RealPage's influence is weaker. In the metro Nashville Tennessee area, both rents and vacancy rates had been trending higher from 2014-2020, demonstrating that the forces of supply and demand no longer control the price of rent. The Defendants' price-fixing conspiracy is a per se unlawful restraint of trade under Section 1 of the federal Sherman Act. The conspiracy has resulted in artificially inflated rent prices and a diminished supply of rental units in Tennessee, especially in larger metropolitan areas such as Nashville and Memphis. Plaintiff, who rents in Nashville, and the Class, who rents across Tennessee, from property managers that use RealPage's software, paid significant overcharges on rent, suffering economic harm from the reduced availability of rental units they could reasonably afford, says the complaint. The Plaintiff rented a residential unit in a property known as Brentwood Oaks in Nashville, Tennessee from 2021 to the present. RealPage provides software and services to managers of residential rental apartments, including the YAI Revenue Management software.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Roe Frazer III, Esq. T. Roe Frazer II, Esq. J. Grant LaBar, Esq. FRAZER PLC 30 Burton Hills Blvd, Ste 450 Nashville, TN 37215 Phone: (615) 647-6464 Email: roe@frazer.law trey@frazer.law grant@frazer.law REALPAGE INC: Spencer Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Elaine Spencer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RealPage, Inc., Sterling Apartment Homes, Air Communities REIT Corp, Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC, Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., Lincoln Property Co., Bozzuto Property Management, Cortland Partners LLC, FPI Management, Inc., Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc., Avenue5 Residential, LLC, Equity Residential, Camden Property Trust, and Essex Property Trust, Inc., Case No 2:23-cv-01019 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on May 1, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00415 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. RealPage -- https://www.realpage.com/ -- provides data analytics, property management software, and services to efficiently manage rental properties and real estate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Heo, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 2001 Market Street 3300 Two Commerce Square Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 963-0600 Email: aheo@barrack.com The Defendants are represented by: Kenneth L. Racowski, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP Cira Centre 2929 Arch Street, Suite 800 Philadelphia, PA 19104 Phone: (215) 252-9580 Fax: (215) 867-6070 Email: kenneth.racowski@hklaw.com RED ROBIN: McInerny Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Nicholas J. McInerny, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS RED ROBIN BURGER SPIRITS EMPORIUMS, a Nevada corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV06410 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 2, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-03338. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts 9 causes of action against the Defendant for alleged unpaid minimum wages; unpaid overtime; failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit rest periods; failure to pay wages owed upon separation from employment; inaccurate wage statements; unlawful deductions; failure to reimburse business expenses; and violation of the Unfair Competition Law under California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. ("UCL").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Adam Y. Siegel, Esq. Martin P. Vigodnier, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 Email: Adam.Siegel@jacksonlewis.com Martin.Vigodnier@jacksonlewis.com - and - Philip J. Smith, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4615 Phone: (415) 796-5433 Email: Philip.Smith@jacksonlewis.com REPTILES LOUNGE: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reptiles Lounge, LLC. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Reptiles Lounge, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03654 (S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Reptiles Lounge is on a mission to make reptiles more accepted in society by providing resources and lifestyle products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com REPUBLIC SERVICES: Abendroth Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Derrek Abendroth, individually and for others similarly situated v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., a Delaware for profit corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-00769-CDB (D. Ariz., May 3, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act (MPWA). Like the Putative Class, the Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours in a week. But the Defendant did not pay for all the hours they worked. Instead, the Defendant deducted 30 minutes a day from these employees' work time for so-called meal breaks. The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were thus not paid for that time. But the Defendant fails to provide the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members with bona fide meal breaks. Instead, the Defendant requires the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members to remain on-duty throughout their shifts and continuously subjects them to interruptions during their unpaid "meal breaks." The Defendant's meal break deduction policy violates the FLSA and the MPWA by depriving the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members of wages, including overtime pay, for all hours worked, including those worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. In addition to failing to pay the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members for time worked during their unpaid "meal breaks," the Defendant also failed to pay these employees for work they completed "off the clock" before their scheduled shifts. Specifically, prior to clocking in for their shifts, the Defendant required the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members to prepare their vehicles to ensure they began driving their routes as soon as their shifts began. the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were thus not paid for that pre shift "off the clock" work. the Defendant's uniform pre-shift vehicle preparation practice violates the FLSA and MPWA by depriving the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members of wages, including overtime pay, for all hours worked, including those worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Finally, like many companies across the United States, the Defendant uses Kronos timekeeping and payroll systems. In December 2021, Kronos experienced a ransomware attack that caused an outage to all Kronos timekeeping and payroll systems, including the Defendant's. As a result, the Defendant's non-exempt employees, including the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members, did not timely receive their agreed wages for the hours they actually worked during the Kronos outage. the Defendant easily could have implemented a system to accurately record time and properly pay these employees until the Kronos outage was resolved. But the Defendant did not do so. Instead, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members a set amount, regardless of the actual number of hours they worked during the Kronos outage. the Defendant's failure to timely pay the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members proper wages, including overtime wages, for all hours worked during the Kronos outage violates the FLSA and MPWA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a short-haul Driver in Minnesota. Republic is a waste disposal company that provides non-hazardous solid waste collection, waste transfer, waste disposal, recycling, and energy services to communities across the United States, including in Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel R. Randall, Esq. RANDALL LAW PLLC 4742 North 24th Street, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phone: 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 Phone: 713.352.1100 Facsimile: 713.352.3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com RESURGENT CAPITAL: Farraj Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resurgent Capital Services, L.P. The case is styled as Raed Farraj, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Resurgent Capital Services, L.P., Case No. 0:23-cv-60816-AHS (S.D. Fla., May 2, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Resurgent Capital Services is a manager and servicer of domestic and international consumer debt portfolios for credit grantors and debt buyers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin E. Zeig, Esq. ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC 3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 103 Hollywood, FL 33021 Phone: (754) 217-3084 Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com REVOLUTION HOSPITALITY: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Revolution Hospitality, LLC. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Revolution Hospitality, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03317-DLI-JRC (E.D.N.Y., May 2, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Revolution Hospitality, LLC -- https://revolutionhospitality.net/ -- are a premier hospitality company based in Central Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com RIDGE WALLET: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Ridge Wallet LLC. The case is styled as Frangie Espinal, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. The Ridge Wallet LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03703 (S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Ridge Wallet -- https://ridge.com/ -- is an expanding minimalist wallet that protects cards and cash.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (917) 796-7437 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com ROUNDY'S ILLINOIS: District Court Dismisses Costner Labor Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SEVCAN COSTNER, Plaintiff v. ROUNDY'S ILLINOIS, LLC, d/b/a MARIANO'S, Defendant, Case No. 22 CV 4049 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Manish S. Shah of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss. Costner worked as a People Services Manager at a Mariano's grocery store from January 2016 to June 2017. On Feb. 21, 2020, he opted into a collective action filed against Roundy's Illinois (Mariano's owner) by another former People Services Manager, James Haugen -- Haugen v. Roundy's Illinois, LLC d/b/a Mariano's, 18-cv-07297. Haugen alleged that Roundy's violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and state and local labor laws by misclassifying People Services Managers to make them exempt from overtime-pay requirements. The case was assigned to Judge Bucklo. Judge Bucklo conditionally certified the Haugen class, allowing them to proceed with discovery. On Aug. 5, 2021, Judge Bucklo found the opt-in employees weren't sufficiently similarly situated. She therefore decertified the class and dismissed the opt-in plaintiffs. On Aug. 30, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a motion to clarify whether the dismissal of the opt-in plaintiffs was with or without prejudice. They also moved on that date to toll the statute of limitations for the decertified claims from each plaintiff's opt-in date to the date when they filed individual claims. Judge Bucklo clarified that Individual Plaintiffs were dismissed without prejudice and granted the motion to toll. On Oct. 8, 2021, 23 of the dismissed plaintiffs filed a complaint in a new case, which was assigned to Judge Kendall -- Cunningham v. Roundy's Illinois, LLC d/b/a Mariano's, 21-cv-05368. The plaintiffs alleged that their claims involved common questions of law and arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions (i.e., that they were properly joined under Rule 20). Roundy's moved to sever. Judge Kendall granted the motion and said plaintiffs had 30 days to individually file amended complaints. Judge Kendall kept the lead plaintiff's now-individual case; the other plaintiffs' cases were distributed across the district. Roundy's then moved to dismiss each case on the same theory: that the cases had already been dismissed with prejudice by the time plaintiffs filed jointly with Judge Kendall. Because the Defendant's argument to dismiss was identical in each case, Cunningham moved to consolidate the cases before Judge Kendall. Judge Kendall didn't rule on that motion but did grant Roundy's motion to dismiss Cunningham's case. Judges in nine of the other individual cases followed suit, agreeing with Judge Kendall's reasoning and dismissing the cases with prejudice -- Jackson (Powers), 22-cv-03922; Milbourn, 22-cv-03988; Garcia, 22-cv-04056; Ellis, Jr., 22-cv-04050; Larson, 22-cv-04030; Kearney, 22-cv-0405; Qazi, 22-cv-04058; Razzak, 22-cv-03990; Prgam, 22-cv-04034. The parties make the same arguments in the present case as they did in the other cases the Defendant says that October 4th was the date by which the Plaintiffs had to file their individual complaints to avoid the dismissal without prejudice converting to a dismissal with prejudice. Costner says that can't be the case because Judge Bucklo never specified that the dismissal without prejudice would convert to a dismissal with prejudice if the Plaintiffs didn't file by October 4th. Instead, he says the October 4th date was when tolling ended, and the statute of limitations resumed. Judge Shah says it doesn't matter that Judge Bucklo didn't explicitly say that the dismissal would turn into a dismissal without prejudice if the plaintiffs didn't file by that date. As Judge Kendall explained in her opinion, a case is dismissed with prejudice when a plaintiff fails to fulfill a condition precedent to reinstate a dismissed complaint within a discreet timeframe even without formal entry of final judgment. Costner argues that Otis v. City of Chicago is inapplicable. Costner says Otis holds that a party can appeal from a conditional order of dismissal after the time to satisfy the condition has expired. But Judge Shah says the court in Otis reached that holding by adopting a line of cases that stood for the proposition that when the condition is no longer satisfiable, the dismissal becomes one with prejudice, hence final, and thus appealable. What's more, Davis v. Advocate Health Center Patient Care Express, 523 F.3d 681 (7th Cir. 2008), cited by Judge Kendall, cleared up any uncertainty Otis may have left. Judge Shah holds that the dismissal of Costner's complaint automatically converted to a dismissal with prejudice after he missed Judge Bucklo's October 4th deadline; res judicata therefore bars his claims. And for the reasons stated by Judge Kendall, the Defendant did not waive its res judicata defense by not asserting it in its motion to sever. The Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. Judgment is entered and the civil case is terminated. A full-text copy of the Court's May 2, 2023 Order is available at https://rb.gy/tuzbh from Leagle.com. SAFEWAY INC: Agrees to Settle Energy Tax Class Suit for $8.75-M --------------------------------------------------------------- Kristine de Leon of The Oregonian/OregonLive reports that Safeway has agreed to pay up to $8.75 million to settle a class action lawsuit over allegations that the grocer improperly passed a Portland clean energy tax on to shoppers. Two Safeway customers sued last year, accusing the grocer of adding a surcharge to Portland patrons' total. The added line item was apparently in response to 1% city tax on certain large retailers tied to the Portland Clean Energy Fund that voters approved in November 2018. [GN] SAVE RITE MEDICAL.COM: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Save Rite Medical.com, LLC. The case is styled as Jovan Campbell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Save Rite Medical.com, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03675 (S.D.N.Y., May 2, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Save Rite Medical -- https://www.saveritemedical.com/ -- is New York's leading online retailer for home medical equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com SAZERAC COMPANY: Fischer Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Angela Fischer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sazerac Company, Inc., Does 1 through 10, Case No. 23SL-CC01308 was removed from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on May 3, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-00583-SRC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Sazerac Company, Inc. -- https://www.sazerac.com/ -- is a privately held American alcoholic beverage company headquartered in Metairie in the metropolitan area of New Orleans, Louisiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel F. Harvath, Esq. HARVATH LAW GROUP LLC 75 W. Lockwood, Suite 1 St. Louis, MO 63119 Phone: (314) 550-3717 Email: dharvath@harvathlawgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Cicely I. Lubben, Esq. Sandra Jane Wunderlich, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP - St Louis 100 S. 4th Street, Suite 600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Phone: (314) 256-2550 Fax: (314) 256-2549 Email: cicely.lubben@tuckerellis.com sandra.wunderlich@tuckerellis.com SCHOLLY INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Baker Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- TYLER BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCHOLLY INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-82 (D. Vt., May 3, 2023) seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls. SCHOLLY INC. is an online search platform that helps high school seniors, current undergraduates, and graduate students match and win scholarships. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wendy E. Radcliff, Esq. LANGROCK SPERRY & WOOL, LLP 111 South Pleasant Street Middlebury, VT 05753-0351 Telephone: (802) 388-6356 Facsimile: (802) 388-6149 Email: wradcliff@langrock.com SENIOR HEALTHCARE: Chapman Files TCPA Suit in W.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Senior Healthcare Advisors, LLC. The case is styled as Brian Chapman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Senior Healthcare Advisors, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00396 (W.D.N.Y., May 4, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Senior Healthcare Advisors, LLC -- https://seniorhealthcareadv.com/ -- is a health insurance agency in Deerfield Beach, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer A. Hurley, Esq. BLOCK, LONGO, LAMARCA & BRZEZINSKI, P.C. 9276 Main Street Clarence, NY 14031 Phone: (716) 320-3150 Email: jhurley@hurleylawfirm.net SKULLCANDY INC: Cody Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Annette Cody, an individual v. SKULLCANDY INC. a Delaware corporation, Case No. 23STCV06828 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 3, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-03356. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts two claims against Defendant: violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code Section 631; and violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code Section 632.7.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Michael J. Chilleen, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993 Phone: 714.513.5100 Facsimile: 714.513.5130 Email: mchilleen@sheppardmullin.com SOUTHEAST ENERGY: Harman Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------ ROBERT L. HARMAN, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHEAST ENERGY CONSULTANTS L.L.C., a Florida company, and VIA RENEWABLES, INC., a Delaware registered corporation, Defendants, Case No. 8:23-cv-00959-TPB-SPF (M.D. Fla., May 2, 2023), arises out of the Defendants' alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. Plaintiff Harman received an unsolicited call from the Defendants to his cell phone, from 315-303-2139 on March 3, 2023. The call was not answered but a pre-recorded voicemail was left on Plaintiff’s cell phone asking him to call Defendant Southeast Energy back at 855-276-9372. Plaintiff Harman made two additional stop requests by calling 855-276-9372 during the first 2 weeks of March, 2023. In both of the calls, Plaintiff specifically asked the employees to stop calling. However, continues to place calls to consumers even after its employees have been instructed to stop calling, says the Plaintiff. Southeast Energy Consultants LLC operates energy deregulation call centers based in Holiday, Florida. On the other hand, Via Renewables, Inc., is a corporation registered in Delaware and headquartered in Houston, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN PLLC 66 West Flagler Sreet Suite 900 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com - and - Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, Floor 4 Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com SOUTHEASTERN INDIANA HEALTH: Elkins Suit Removed to S.D. Indiana ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Brian Elkins, Annie Elkins, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Southeastern Indiana Health Management, Inc. d/b/a Columbus Regional Health, Case No. 49D01-2303-PL-012709 was removed from the Marion County Superior Court 1, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on May 4, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00765-TWP-MKK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability. Southeastern Indiana Health Management, Inc. doing business as Columbus Regional Health -- https://www.crh.org/ -- is a nationally recognized health system serving a 10-county region in southeastern Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Matthew Thomas Albaugh, Esq. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 3500 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 713-3500 Email: malbaugh@taftlaw.com SPORTMAN'S WAREHOUSE: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sportman's Warehouse Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Frangie Espinal, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Sportman's Warehouse Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03783 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sportsman's Warehouse -- http://investors.sportsmans.com/-- is an American outdoor sporting goods retailer which operates in 29 states across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (917) 796-7437 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com STANTEC CONSULTING: Gotta's Bid for Class Certification Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Samantha Gotta, et al., Plaintiffs v. Stantec Consulting Services Incorporated, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-20-01865-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz.), Judge G. Murray Snow of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, and the Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The Plaintiffs filed their motion to certify on July 22, 2022, and the Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on April 14, 2023. Both motions are effectively unopposed. The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class: "all persons, except Defendants and their immediate family members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan, at any time between September 24, 2014, and the date of judgment." They also ask the Court to appoint Plaintiffs Samantha Gotta and Michael De Sena as the Class Representatives and Edelson Lechtzin LLP and McKay Law LLC as the Class Counsel. Judge Snow grants these requests. He explains that to certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, a class action must satisfy two sets of criteria. First, it must satisfy Rule 23(a)'s requirements, which are commonly referred to as (1) numerosity, (2) commonality, (3) typicality, and (4) adequacy of representation. Second, a class action must satisfy at least one of three requirements listed in Rule 23(b), one of which is that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. The party seeking certification bears the burden of demonstrating that it has met the requirements. Judge Snow conducts a "rigorous analysis" to determine whether the Plaintiffs have met their burden under Rule 23. He finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 23(a)'s requirements. First, their proposed class contains 10,639 members. Second, the commonality requirement is met because the Plaintiffs' claims are virtually the same for every member of the class as the allegations of fiduciary mismanagement would apply in roughly the same way to every class member. Third, because the key issues in this case concern Defendants' conduct, not individual actions taken by the Plaintiffs, the typicality requirement is also met. Fourth, the Plaintiffs have shown that they (and their counsel) have no conflicts of interest. Likewise, Judge Snow finds that the Plaintiffs have also made the requisite showing under Rule 23(b) because, in the Ninth Circuit, ERISA breach of fiduciary duty claims are properly certified under Rule 23(b)(1)(A). Importantly, the Defendants do not contest that the Plaintiffs meet Rule 23's requirements. Accordingly, he certifies the Plaintiffs' proposed class. Samantha Gotta and Michael De Sena will fairly and adequately protect the class's interest. Accordingly, having received no objection from the Defendants, Judge Snow appoints Gotta and De Sena as the Class Representatives. Last, the Plaintiffs propose Edelson Lechtzin LLP and McKay Law LLC as the Class Counsel. Judge Snow finds that the counsels' experience suggests adequate knowledge of applicable law and a probable understanding of the resources needed to represent a class of this size on claims of this nature. The Defendants also do not object to the Plaintiffs' proposed counsel. Accordingly, Edelson Lechtzin LLP and McKay Law LLC are appointed as the Class Counsel. The Defendants move for partial summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' request for prospective injunctive relief by alleging that the Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue this claim because they no longer participate in the plan. Judge Snow grants the motion on the Plaintiffs' claims for prospective injunctive relief. He finds that to the extent that the Plaintiffs seek prospective injunctive relief, their injuries are not redressable because they will not benefit from future changes in the execution of the Defendants' fiduciary duties. The parties agree that De Sena and Gotta are not Stantec employees, and they do not assert that they will work at Stantec again. Thus, there is no plausible basis that they will suffer injury because of any future breaches of Defendants' fiduciary duties. Indeed, the Plaintiffs do not oppose the partial motion for summary judgment because they do not intend to seek prospective injunctive relief on behalf of the Stantec 401(k) Plan. A full-text copy of the Court's May 2, 2023 Order is available at https://rb.gy/oox4t from Leagle.com. STATE FARM: Ct. Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Jackson-Johnson ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jackson-Johnson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-01014-JES-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. State Farm offers vehicle, auto, accident, homeowners, condo owners, renters, life and annuities, fire and casualty, health, disability, flood, business, and boat insurance products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pgVdPS at no extra charge.[CC] STUART H. KAPLAN: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stuart H. Kaplan, M.D. The case is styled as Jovan Campbell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Stuart H. Kaplan, M.D., Case No. 1:23-cv-03680 (S.D.N.Y., May 2, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Stuart H. Kaplan, M.D. -- https://www.kaplanmd.com/pages/dr-kaplans-clinic -- is a world renowned clinical and cosmetic Dermatologist.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com SUPER CARE: Agrees to Settle Retsky Breach Class Suit for $2.25-M ----------------------------------------------------------------- DataBreaches.net reports that SuperCare Health has agreed to pay $2.25 million to settle a lawsuit stemming from a July 2021 data breach. Patients had accused the provider of violating the Federal Trade Commission Act and California's Confidentiality of Medical Information Act in a breach that was reported to HHS in March of 2022 as affecting 318,379 patients. DataBreaches raised a number of questions about that breach and the entity's lack of willingness to answer questions about it. The case is Retsky, et al. v. Super Care Inc. d/b/a SuperCare Health, Case No. 22STCV16267, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. The settlement site is SuperCareDataIncidentSettlement.com. Reading the amended complaint, it appears the plaintiffs dropped allegations that data were in the public domain and seem to have amended allegations to be that that data were accessed and viewed. But were any data actually exfiltrated? The words "accessed," "exposed," and "viewed" appear in both the complaint and settlement, but the word "exfiltrated" does not appear anywhere (nor do synonyms such as "removed"). Did plaintiffs ever find out for sure whether any data was ever exfiltrated? As with all settlements, DataBreaches looked for security provisions in the settlement. In this case, we found: 2.4 Cybersecurity Enhancements. 2.4.1 SuperCare has agreed to implement and maintain certain cybersecurity and business practice enhancements after the Data Incident and due to this Settlement. The enhancements are detailed in Exhibit 6 to this agreement. Exhibit 6 says: CYBERSECURITY & BUSINESS PRACTICE ENHANCEMENTS -- Conducted penetration testing and security risk assessment to identify vulnerabilities and address results; -- Replaced prior Endpoint Detection & Response (EDR) solution with a new managed EDR tool on all systems; -- Implemented cloud-based identity and access management system and physical authentication token to replace soft authentication token for multifactor authentication; -- Increased network segmentation and implemented further restrictions on access to corporate services and resources; and -- Updated end user cybersecurity awareness training [GN] TAIM RESTAURANT: Hwang Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- JENNY HWANG on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Taim Restaurant Holdings, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-03233-NGG-PK (E.D.N.Y., April 28, 2023) arises from the Defendant's failure to maintain and operate its website, http://www.taimkitchen.com,to be fully accessible for Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Taim Restaurant Holdings' policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Taim Restaurant Holdings provides consumers with access to an array of Mediterranean dishes, beverages and restaurant services, which it offers in connection with their physical location.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC 108-26 64th avenue, Second Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (929) 324-0717 Facsimile: (929) 333-7774 E-mail: mars@khaimovlaw.com TERRAFORM LABS: Jump Trading Seeks Arbitration of Claims --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICK PATTERSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. TERRAFORM LABS, PTE. LTD., JUMP TRADING LLC, TRIBE CAPITAL, DEFINANCE CAPITAL/ DEFINANCE TECHNOLOGIES OY, THREE ARROWS CAPITAL PTE. LTD., NICHOLAS PLATIAS and DO KWON, Case No. 3:22-cv-03600-TLT (N.D. Cal.), Jump Trading requests that the Court compel Lead Plaintiff to arbitrate all of his claims against Jump Trading and dismiss this action. If there are any claims that Lead Plaintiff is not compelled to arbitrate, Jump Trading requests this Court exercise its discretion and stay this action. Lead Plaintiff must arbitrate his dispute against Jump Trading. As a threshold matter, Lead Plaintiff agreed to a clear and unmistakable delegation clause in the Anchor TOS that specifies that the arbitrator, rather than a court, should resolve any questions concerning arbitrability. Terraform Labs operates a price-stable cryptocurrency. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 2, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HNXgl6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jonathan D. Cogan, Esq. Steven W. Perlstein, Esq. Leif T. Simonson, Esq. Tapan R. Oza, Esq. Daniel A. Zaheer, Esq. KOBRE & KIM LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 488-1200 E-mail: jonathan.cogan@kobrekim.com steven.perlstein@kobrekim.com leif.simonson@kobrekim.com tapan.oza@kobrekim.com daniel.zaheer@kobrekim.com TERRY S. JOHNSON: Beers Sues to Recover Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew S. Beers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TERRY S. JOHNSON, in his official capacity as SHERIFF OF ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, Case No. 1:23-cv-00367 (M.D.N.C., May 5, 2023), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), seeking to recover overtime compensation and statutory penalties for himself, and all similarly situated employees ("Collective Members"). The Plaintiff brings his breach of contract claim pursuant to the class action provision of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and he seeks to recover unpaid wages and unpaid benefits (vacation pay, holiday pay, sick pay, and "Birthday" pay) for himself and any similarly situated employees ("Class Members") to remedy Defendant's practice and policy of willfully failing and refusing to pay Plaintiff and the Class Members all their earned and accrued wages and benefits, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is employed by Defendant as a Detention Officer. The Defendant is a duly elected public official and employer who operates the Alamance County Sheriff's Office in Alamance County, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq. Corey M. Stanton, Esq. Ethan L. Slabosky, Esq. GIBBONS LAW GROUP, PLLC 14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place, Suite 325 Charlotte, NC 28277 Phone: (704) 612-0038 Email: phil@gibbonslg.com corey@gibbonslg.com ethan@gibbonslg.com TEVA PHARMA: Court Narrows Claims in OTPPB Suit ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board, et al v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00558-SRU (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss: -- The Defendants' motion to dismiss on Pleading and Other Grounds, is granted in part and denied in part. -- The Defendants' motion to Dismiss New Claims and Claims Against New Defendants, is granted in part, and denied in part. -- The Defendants' motion to Dismiss State and Common Law Claims, is granted. The Ontario Class claims that, beginning in 2013, Teva adopted a concerted and secret strategy of raising prices on certain drugs in its generic drug portfolio. Between July 3, 2013 and April 6, 2016, Teva raised prices 76 times. The Ontario Class alleges that Teva undertook many of those price increases in tandem with competitors in the generic drug market. Teva Pharmaceuticals develops and produces medicines. A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p8gnQm at no extra charge.[CC] TMX FINANCE CORPORATE: Alex Files Suit in S.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against TMX Finance Corporate Services, Inc. The case is styled as Casaundra Alex, on bahalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. TMX Finance Corporate Services, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-00124-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga., May 4, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. TMX Finance Corporate Services, Inc. -- https://www.tmxfinancefamily.com/ -- provides consumer credit products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul W. Painter, III, Esq. BOWEN PAINTER, LLC PO Box 15008 Savannah, GA 31416 Phone: (912) 335-1909 Fax: (912) 335-3537 Email: paul@bowenpainter.com TMX FINANCE: Carrington Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ---------------------------------------------------------- Sheneequa Carrington, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TMX FINANCE CORPORATE SERVICES, INC. and TMX FINANCE LLC d/b/a "TitleMax," "TitleBucks," and "InstaLoan," Case No. 4:23-cv-00121-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga., May 2, 2023), against the Defendants to seek recovery on behalf of herself and over 4 million similarly situated people ("Class Members"), based upon TMX's failure to properly secure and safeguard the sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") of individuals receiving consumer financing services from TMX and/or its affiliates. Specifically, TMX failed to properly protect Plaintiff and Class Members' names, addresses, dates of birth, passport numbers, drivers' license numbers, federal/state identification card numbers, tax identification numbers, social security numbers and/or financial account information, and other information including phone numbers, addresses, and email addresses, which was collected by TMX. This information is considered PII because it can be used to distinguish or trace an individual 's identity, either alone or when combined with other personal or identifying information. An unauthorized actor gained access to TMX's computer systems starting in early December 2022 and extending to February 14, 2023. During that period, PII that was stored on TMX's computer systems was accessed and viewed by the unauthorized actor. TMX later determined that the PII accessed and viewed included Plaintiff and Class Members' PII (the "Data much"). TMX did not detect the suspicious activity on its systems until February 13, 2023. The Data Breach occurred because TMX did not implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols to protect Plaintiff and Class Members' PII. Because TMX's data security protocols and practices were deficient, unauthorized person(s) were able to access, view, and/or exfiltrate Plaintiff and Class Members' PII. TMX failed to properly safeguard Plaintiff and Class Members' PII TMX's negligence has caused millions of Class Members harm and puts them at a substantially increased risk of identity fraud, which will negatively impact them for years. TMX is wholly lesponsible for this Data Breach through its failure to implement and maintain adequate and reasonable data security safeguards, and failure to comply with industry-standard data security practices and federal and state laws and regulations governing data security and privacy, including security of PII, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a citizen of Clarke County, Virginia and received notice that her PII was improperly exposed to unauthorized third parties by TMX. TMX "provides consumer credit products under the TitleMax, TitleBucks, and InstaLoan brands. Since 1998, we have provided access to credit for consumers who are underserved by traditional lenders."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Bell, Jr., Esq. Pamela S. James, Esq. THE BELL FIRM PO Box 1547 Augusta, GA 30903-1547 Phone: (706) 722-2014 Email: john@belliirm.net pant@beilfirm.net - and - Lori G. Feldman, Esq. GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC 102 Half Moon Bay Drive Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 Phone: (917) 983-9321 Fax: (888) 421-4173 Email: lfeldman@4-Justice.com - and - David J. George, Esq. Brittany L. Brown, Esq. GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC 9897 Lake Worth Drive, suite 302 Lake worth, FL 33467 Phone: (561) 2324002 Fax: (888) 421-4173 Email: dgeorge@4-Justice.com bbrown@4-Justice.com eservice@4-Justice.com TWITTER INC: Court Dismissed Wrongful Termination Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Natalie Hanson of Courthouse News Service reports that billionaire and new Twitter owner Elon Musk won a first round in federal court on May 5, 2023 when a judge granted Twitter's motions to dismiss wrongful termination claims from employees fired last fall, ordering them to arbitration instead. Just-fired Twitter employees slapped the social media platform with a federal class action this past November -- claiming Musk's plan to lay off 50% of Twitter's workforce violates federal and California worker protection laws. Dmitry Borodaenko and Abhijit Mehta filed the putative class action claiming they are among many abruptly laid off -- represented by attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan, who represented plaintiffs in a similar lawsuit over layoffs at Musk's Tesla in June 2022. In the wake of completing the massive $44 billion purchase of Twitter last fall, Musk announced layoffs of thousands of Twitter employees across the U.S. Musk offered severances package on condition of waiving potential claims against the company. Musk claimed the layoffs were necessary due to a massive drop in revenue. Some fired employees claimed in a separate class action, also represented by Liss-Riordan, that the terminations violate the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, which requires at least 60 days of advance notice before large companies can initiate mass layoffs. According to that class action, Tesla also engaged in mass layoffs without notice and attempted to obtain releases from laid-off employees without informing them of their rights in exchange for severance pay of one to two weeks of salary. The fired employees want to ensure that Twitter complies with the law and provide requisite notices or severance payments with anticipated layoffs. Liss-Riordan said that nearly 2,000 individual arbitrations have been filed. In its Dec. 21 motions to dismiss and compel arbitration in Borodaenko's case, Twitter argues that the court lacks jurisdiction on discrimination claims. The company also claims that Borodaenko did not exhaust all administrative remedies before filing or give enough evidence of disability discrimination. U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr., in his nine-page order filed May 5, 2023, stayed Mehta's claims since Mehta did not opt out and is compelled to arbitration. The judge denied the motion to dismiss on Twitter's argument that plaintiffs did not seek leave to file right-to-sue notices from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the California Department of Fair Employment & Housing, or file them. "Despite defendant's urging, it was not 'sandbagged,' as it responded to plaintiff's filing anyway," Gilliam wrote. But he agreed with Twitter that Borodaenko did not adequately show he was terminated because of his disability. The original complaint said Musk declared that remote work would no longer be allowed, and that employees would have to work long hours at high intensity or resign. But Gilliam said that suggests employees were terminated because they refused to return to the office, not because of a disability. He said plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead a disparate impact claim, without proof that disabled employees resigned at higher rates than non-disabled colleagues. The judge also dismissed the full class action claims, since the plaintiffs in question were laid off and therefore not in a similar situation as others in the putative class who resigned because of the new policies. "The court notes that a growing number of courts (including this one) generally disfavor motions to strike, finding that they 'serve little useful purpose in modern federal practice, and are often wielded mainly to cause delay and inflict needless burdens on opposing parties,'" he said. Gilliam ordered the parties to file a report within four months and alert him within 48 hours of completing arbitration. The plaintiffs get three weeks to file amended claims, ahead of a case management conference on June 20. Liss-Riordan said the plaintiffs look forward to amending their claims with new evidence for Boradaenko's disability discrimination claim. "Elon Musk has shown his utter lack of regard for disabled employees through his words and conduct," Liss-Riordan said. "We will pursue these claims of discrimination vigorously, along with our other seven class action lawsuits and nearly 2,000 arbitrations against Twitter, and intend to show the formerly richest man in the world that he is not above the law." Attorneys for Twitter did not respond to a request for comment before press time. [GN] UNISYS CORPORATION: Brunswick FLSA Suit Transferred to D. Utah -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Nathan Brunswick, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. Unisys Corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-02906 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on May 4, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00289-JNP to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Unisys Corporation -- http://www.unisys.com/-- is an American multinational information technology services and consulting company founded in 1986 and headquartered in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Andrew S. Rosenman, Esq. Lauren A. Shurman, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 S Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 701-8744 - and - Lauren A. Shurman, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 201 S Main St., Ste. 1100 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: (801) 907-2700 Fax: (801) 880-2221 Email: lshurman@mayerbrown.com UNITED HEALTH: Class Certification Bid Filing Due April 17, 2024 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRYSTAL MITCHELL, v. UNITED HEALTH CENTERS OF SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-00060-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered a class action scheduling conference order: -- The Court opened discovery on class certification and the merits of the case. As discussed on the record, it is the Court's expectation that the parties will take non-expert discovery on the merits of plaintiff's claims, as well discovery in connection with class certification, with a deadline of January 26, 2024. -- The Court set February 15, 2024, as the deadline for expert witness disclosures regarding class certification, March 15, 2024, as the deadline for rebuttal expert witness disclosures regarding class certification, and April 12, 2024, as the deadline for expert discovery regarding class certification. -- The following deadlines is set with regard to the filing of class certification motions: Motion for Class Certification: April 17, 2024 -- A Mid-Discovery Status Conference will be held on October 16, 2023, at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 10 before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pddNsx at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED PARCEL: More Time to Oppose Class Certification Bid Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN BAKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., a Delaware corporation, and UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., an Ohio corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-00114-TOR (E.D. Wash.), the Defendants asks the Court to enter an order granting a two-week extension of time to respond to the Plaintiff Justin Baker's Motion for Class Certification and a corresponding two-week extension of time for the Plaintiff to file his Reply brief. On June 9, 2022, the Court issued a Partial Scheduling Order. Pursuant to the Partial Scheduling Order, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification was to be filed on or before March 17, 2023. The Defendants' opposition was due on April 21, 2023, and the Plaintiff's reply was due on May 12, 2023. On March 7, 2023, the Parties filed a Joint Motion to Extend Deadlines for Class Certification Briefing. The Court granted the Parties' Joint Motion to Extend Deadlines for Class Certification. On April 7, 2023, the Plaintiff filed the Motion for Class Certification. The Defendants' opposition is currently due May 12, 2023. Due to counsel's litigation schedules and other scheduling conflicts, the Defendants request a two-week extension of time within which to file their opposition, from May 12 to May 26, 2023. United Parcel is an American multinational shipping & receiving and supply chain management company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 2, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VG9eCW at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Sally W. Hameling, Esq. Jacob M. Knutson, Esq. JEFFERS, DANIELSON, SONN & AYLWARD, P.S. 2600 Chester Kimm Road, P.O. Box 1688 Wenatchee, WA 98807-1688 Telephone: (509) 662-5685 Facsimile: (509) 662-2452 E-mail: sallyh@jdsalaw.com jacobk@jdsalaw.com - and - James M. Nelson, Esq. Dominic E. Draye, Esq. Naomi G. Beer, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 2375 East Camelback Road, Suite 700 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 445-8000 Facsimile: (602) 445-8100 E-mail: nelsonj@gtlaw.com drayed@gtlaw.com beern@gtlaw.com UNITED PARCEL: Must Respond to Class Certification Bid by May 26 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Baker v. United Parcel Service Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-00114 (E.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Thomas O. Rice entered an order granting unopposed motion for extension of time. -- The Defendants' Response to the May 26, 2023 Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be filed no later than: -- The Plaintiff's Reply, if any, June 16, 2023 shall be filed no later than: The nature of suit Civil Rights -- Employment. United Parcel is an American multinational shipping and receiving and supply chain management company founded in 1907.[CC] UNITED STATES CELLULAR: Rensin Sues Over Misleading Statements -------------------------------------------------------------- HOWARD M. RENSIN, TRUSTEE OF THE RENSIN JOINT TRUST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES CELLULAR CORPORATION, LAURENT C. THERIVEL, DOUGLAS W. CHAMBERS, TELEPHONE AND DATA SYSTEMS, INC., LEROY T. CARLSON, JR., PETER L. SEREDA, and VICKI L. VILLACREZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02764 (N.D. Ill., May 2, 2023) seeks remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Between May 6, 2022 and November 3, 2022, the Defendants allegedly made materially false and misleading statements to investors concerning UScellular's ability to reduce its churn rate while balancing profitability via its promotional activity, including its "free upgrade" promotion. Contrary to Defendants' representations, despite UScellular's heavy promotional activity, including its "free upgrade" promotion, UScellular's postpaid churn rate actually increased while the promotional costs decimated its profitability. The Defendants omitted and/or misrepresented material facts in their publicly disseminated reports, press releases, and statements during the said period. As a result of Defendants' fraudulent activity, the market price of TDS's securities was artificially inflated during this period. UScellular is a corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business located in Chicago, Illinois. UScellular is a wireless telecommunications service provider that purportedly operates in 21 states that collectively represent a total population of 32 million. TDS is a corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business located in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. Gregory M. Potrepka, Esq. Nicholas R. Lange, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1111 Summer Street, Suite 403 Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: (203) 992-4523 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com gpotrepka@zlk.com nlange@zlk.com UNIVERSITY HEALTH: Cansler Appeals Case Dismissal to 4th Cir. -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff GEORGE CANSLER filed an appeal from the District Court's Order and Judgment dated March 27, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled GEORGE CANSLER, on his own behalf, and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEMS OF EASTERN CAROLINA, INC., EAST CAROLINA HEALTH-CHOWAN, INC., HALIFAX REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., ROANOKE VALLEY HEALTH SERVICES, INC., PITT COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., DUPLIN GENERAL HOSPITAL, INC., EAST CAROLINA HEALTH-BEAUFORT, INC., EAST CAROLINA HEALTH-BERTIE, INC., EAST CAROLINA HEALTH-HERITAGE, INC., THE OUTER BANKS HOSPITAL, INC., VIDANT MEDICAL GROUP AFFILIATES, LLC, VIDANT MEDICAL GROUP, LLC, VIDANT INTEGRATED CARE, LLC, and FIRSTPOINT COLLECTION RESOURCES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00014-FL, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina at Greenville. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit, filed on February 18, 2022, arises from the Defendants' unfair and deceptive billing and collection practices in violation of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the North Carolina Collection Agency Act. According to the complaint, Vidant and FirstPoint have operated a system that saddles patients with high medical bills. Vidant knows that the prices it charges patients for medical services are unreasonably high and when patients ask Vidant representatives about the cost of care before they receive a service, Vidant has had a policy of refusing to tell patients the price it plans to charge. Allegedly, Vidant made it impossible for patients, including the Plaintiff, to make an informed financial decision about their care, and patients could not -- and did not -- willingly consent to pay Vidant's unreasonable, undisclosed prices. On March 27, 2023, District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan entered an Order granting Defendants' August 25, 2022 motion to dismiss the case. Judge Flanagan signed a Judgment affirming Defendants' motion to dismiss in accordance with the Court's order, and for the reasons set forth more specifically therein. The appellate case is captioned as George Cansler v. University Health Systems, Case No. 23-1458, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on April 27, 2023.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant GEORGE CANSLER, on his own behalf, and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated, is represented by: Michael D. Lieberman, Esq. FAIRMARK PARTNERS LLP 1825 7th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (818) 585-2903 Defendants-Appellees UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEMS OF EASTERN CAROLINA, INCORPORATED, et al., are represented by: Gibeault C. Creson, Esq. Terrence Michael McKelvey, Esq. Erin P. Polly, Esq. Kaitlin E. White, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 501 Commerce Street Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 780-6730 - and - Robert J. Higdon, Jr., Esq. K&L GATES LLP 430 Davis Drive Morrisville, NC 27560 Telephone: (919) 314-5610 US NURSING CORPORATION: Guthrie Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SAC ProFloors, et al. The case is styled as Ebony Guthrie, Monique Lewis, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. U.S. Nursing Corporation and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 23CV032433 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., May 3, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." U.S. Nursing -- https://www.usnursing.com/ -- is the premier strike nurse agency provider of job action services in the US.[BN] VIKI INC: Ade Sues Over Disclosure of Subscribers' Identities ------------------------------------------------------------- Rita Ade, Lakshmi Kamalakar Nagireddi, and Darius Hammons, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VIKI, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-02161 (N.D. Cal., May 3, 2023), is brought against the Defendant, a subsidiary of Rakuten Group, Inc., for disclosing its digital subscribers' identities and video-viewing preferences to Meta Platforms Inc. ("Meta"), in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA" or "the Act") and the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). Meta owns the popular social networking platform Facebook. The VPPA prohibits "video tape service providers," such as the Defendant, from knowingly disclosing a consumer's personally identifiable information ("PII")--in particular, "information which identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific video materials or services from a video tape service provider"--unless the consumer expressly consented to the disclosure in a standalone consent form. The Defendant shares its members' personal information with Meta using a "Meta Pixel" or "Pixel"--a snippet of programming code that, once installed on a webpage, sends information to Meta. The Meta Pixel sends information to Meta in a data packet containing PII, such as the members' IP address, name, email, or phone number. Meta then stores this data on its own servers. The information that the Defendant shares with Meta includes its member's unique Facebook ID ("FID") and the titles of prerecorded videos that the member requested or obtained. A member's FID is linked to their Facebook profile, which generally contains a wide range of demographic and other information about the member, including pictures, personal interests, work history, relationship status, and other details. The Defendant discloses the member's FID and viewing content to Meta together in a single transmission. Because the member's FID uniquely identifies an individual's Facebook account, Meta--and any other ordinary person can use the FID to quickly and easily locate, access, and view the member's corresponding Facebook profile. In simplest terms, the Pixel allows Meta to know what video content one of its members viewed on the Defendant's website. The Defendant members do not consent to such sharing through a standalone consent form, as required by the VPPA. As a result, the Defendant violates the VPPA by disclosing this information to Meta, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs used their internet-connected device and the browsers installed on that device to visit and watch video content on Viki's website, https://www.viki.com. Viki--a subsidiary of Rakuten Group, Inc., Japan's leading Internet services company--is "the world's leading platform for Asian entertainment and culture where millions of people discover and consume primetime shows and movies subtitled in more than 200 languages by our community of avid fans."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam E. Polk, Esq. Simon Grille, Esq. Kimberly Macey, Esq. Reid Gaa, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 981-4800 Email: apolk@girardsharp.com sgrille@girardsharp.com kmacey@girardsharp.com rgaa@girardsharp.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Reis Files Suit in D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Maximillian Reis, Elpidio Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. doing business as: Audi of America, Inc., Audi of America, LLC, Audi AG, Volkswagen AG, Case No. 3:23-cv-02476-MAS-TJB (D.N.J., May 4, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Tort Product Liability. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. -- https://www.volkswagengroupofamerica.com/ -- is the North American operational headquarters, and subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group of automobile companies of Germany.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King Of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Fax: (310) 474-8585 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com WALMART INC: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Jessica -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jessica v. Walmart Inc. et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01174-JES-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. Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42pJ8Gr at no extra charge.[CC] WEBSTER FINANCIAL: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Whelan Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ FREDERICK F. WHELAN, JR. and MADELINE WHELAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. WEBSTER FINANCIAL CORPORATION dba WEBSTER BANK, Case No. 3:23-cv-00567-SVN (D. Conn., May 3, 2023) is a class action suit alleging that between November 27, 2022, and January 22, 2023, Webster lost control over its computer network and the highly sensitive personally identifiable information (PII) stored on the computer network in a data breach by cybercriminals. According to the complaint, Webster chose to allow its cybersecurity vendors access and control over its customers' highly sensitive PII. On January 26, 2023, Webster was first notified that its customers' PII had been involved in the Data Breach. An internal investigation revealed that cybercriminals had gained unauthorized access to Webster’s customers' PII including but not limited to names, financial information, and Social Security numbers. On April 10, 2023, five months after the unauthorized party first gained access to customers' PII and almost three months after Webster was informed of the Data Breach, Webster finally notified Class Members about the Data Breach. The Defendant's failure to timely report the Data Breach made the victims vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their PII. The Plaintiff is now subject to the present and continuing risk of fraud, identity theft, and misuse resulting from his PII being placed in the hands of unauthorized third parties. This injury was worsened by the Defendant's delay in informing the Plaintiff and Class Members about the Data Breach, the lawsuit contends. Plaintiff Frederick Whelan is a Webster customer. As a condition of receiving banking services from Webster, the Plaintiff provided it with his PII, including his name, Social Security number, and financial account information. Webster is a commercial bank that delivers financial solutions to businesses, individuals, families, and partners.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel J. Strauss Esq. Raina Borrelli Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson Street, Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com raina@turkestrauss.com - and - Kelly Fitzpatrick, Esq. KOSKOFF, KOSKOFF & BIEDER, PC 350 Fairfield Avenue Bridgeport, CT 06640 Telephone: (203) 336-4421 Facsimile: (203) 368-3244 E-mail: kfitzpatrick@koskoff.com WEC ENERGY: Munt Seeks Certification of Investment Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN MUNT, et al., v. WEC ENERGY GROUP, INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00555-JPS (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order 1. certify an Investment Class for this action as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(1); 2. appointing the Plaintiffs as representatives of the Investment Class; and 3. appointing Walcheske & Luzi, LLCas counsel for the Investment Class. WEC Energy is an American company based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin that provides electricity and natural gas. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 1, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/427tNKX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. Paul M. Secunda, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. Kirsten H. Hendra, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com psecunda@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com khendra@walcheskeluzi.com WEWORK INC: Hardev Sues Over General Corporation Law Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- Bhumi Hardev, on behalf of herself and the Class v. WEWORK INC., a Delaware Corporation, SANDEEP MATHRANI, BRUCE DUNLEVIE, ALEX CLAVEL, DANIEL HURWITZ, VERONIQUE LAURY, DEVEN PAREKH, VIKAS J. PAREKH, VIVEK RANADIVE, and DAVID TOLLEY, Case No. 2023-0492- (Del. Chancery Ct., May 4, 2023), is brought against WeWork and members of the Company's board of directors (the "Board") for declaratory relief relating to the Company's violation of Delaware General Corporation Law ("DGCL"). Under Delaware law the directors of a for-profit corporation are bound by the fiduciary duties and standards that accompany that form. The Company's currently effective stockholder rights plan (the "Tax Asset Preservation Plan" or the "Rights Plan"), adopted and maintained by Defendants, has a provision which purports to eliminate the liability of WeWork directors for breaches of fiduciary duty in violation of DGCL. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all other holders of the Rights against WeWork and members of its Board, seeking a declaratory judgment that the relevant Rights Plan provision violates Delaware law and public policy and is invalid, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a holder of WeWork's Class A Common Stock Purchase Rights and their respective underlying shares of WeWork's Class A common stock. WeWork is a provider of flexible workspace.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake A. Bennett, Esq. Andrew A. Ralli, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. The Nemours Building 1007 N. Orange St., Suite 1120 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: 302-984-3800 Fax: 302-984-3939 Email: bbennett@coochtaylor.com aralli@coochtaylor.com - and - Brian P. Murray, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave., Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Phone: 212-682-5340 Email: bmurray@glancylaw.com - and - Werner R. Kranenburg, Esq. KRANENBURG 80-83 Long Lane London EC1A 9ET United Kingdom Phone: +44-20-3174-0365 WHISKED INC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Whisked, Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Whisked, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03754 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Whisked -- https://www.whiskeddc.com/ -- is an award winning online bakery that delivers desserts across the nation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com WHOLE FOODS: Seeks to Strike Deloitte's Additional Analysis ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL MOLOCK, et al., v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-02483-APM (D.D.C.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order that Plaintiffs' use of Deloitte Financial Advisory Services, LLP's Additional Analysis of Whole Foods stores nationwide must be stricken. The Court should preclude Plaintiffs from relying on the privileged work of Whole Foods' consulting expert to support class Certification. Deloitte's Additional Analysis should be stricken because it is privileged consulting expert work that should not be a stand-in for Plaintiffs' failure to secure their own expert. Nothing after Deloitte's Payment Analysis is admissible or relevant to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs misrepresent Deloitte's Additional Analysis by claiming that it "indisputably identified improper labor transfers. "To the contrary, the Additional Analysis never concluded whether transfers were proper or improper. But regardless of whether it did or did not conclude what Plaintiffs mistakenly argue it concluded, allowing Plaintiffs to use the Additional Analysis against Whole Foods is prejudicial and it should be stricken, the Defendant alleges. By relying on Mr. Campanelli's work, Plaintiffs seek to avoid the cost and expense of retaining their own expert to perform this or any analysis—i.e., exactly the type of unfair advantage that the consulting-expert privilege seeks to prevent, the Defendant adds. Whole Foods owns and operates a chain of natural and organic foods supermarket. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 1, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LxYtxT at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Gregory J. Casas, Esq. David Sellinger, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 300 West 6th Street, Suite 2050 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 320-7238 Facsimile: (512) 320-7210 E-mail: casasg@gtlaw.com sellingerd@gtlaw.com - and - John H. Hempfling, Esq. WHOLE FOODS MARKET SERVICES, INC. 828 West 6th Street, Suite 200 Austin, TX 78703 Telephone: (512) 542-0213 Facsimile: (512) 482-7213 E-mail: john.hempfling@wholefoods.com WHOLE FOODS: Seeks to Strike Plaintiffs' Counsel Declaration ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL MOLOCK, et al., v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-02483-APM (D.D.C.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order striking the Plaintiffs' counsel's argument and declaration relating to Plaintiffs' counsel's analyses and determinations. In the alternative, if Plaintiffs are permitted to proceed with this opinion evidence and argument, the Plaintiffs have waived any claim of work product relating to its analysis, and should be compelled to produce documents, data, and testimony relating to Plaintiffs' counsel's analyses and determinations, and any work product generated. If the Court does not strike Plaintiffs' counsel's opinion evidence, the Plaintiffs should be compelled to produce documents and testimony from Plaintiffs relating to Plaintiffs' counsel's analysis and conclusions relating to allegedly unsupported labor shifting referenced in Mr. Zambri's declaration and footnote 22 of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, the Defendant contends. The Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit in 2017, and since then, the parties have exchanged hundreds of thousands of documents, engaged in numerous depositions, disclosed fact witnesses, expert witnesses, and expert reports. The Plaintiffs strategically decided to not identify or engage an expert to support their allegations against Whole Foods. In support of their motion for class certification, the Plaintiffs attempt to overcome their shortfalls by inserting Plaintiffs' counsel's ad hoc and undisciplined review of Whole Foods' documents in place of expert analysis that would comply with the methods and requirements set forth in Daubert, to try to demonstrate a common question and class-wide injury. Whole Foods owns and operates a chain of natural and organic foods supermarket. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 1, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NBf5rj at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Gregory J. Casas, Esq. David Sellinger, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 300 West 6th Street, Suite 2050 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 320-7238 Facsimile: (512) 320-7210 E-mail: casasg@gtlaw.com sellingerd@gtlaw.com - and - John H. Hempfling, Esq. WHOLE FOODS MARKET SERVICES, INC. 828 West 6th Street, Suite 200 Austin, TX 78703 Telephone: (512) 542-0213 Facsimile: (512) 482-7213 E-mail: john.hempfling@wholefoods.com WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATYA ALFONSO, v. WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES d/b/a WILLIAMS STARBUCK, DONALD H. WILLIAMS and DREW J. STARBUCK, Case No. 2:22-cv-00206-CDS-EJY (D. Nev.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. granting preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement reached with the Defendants. 2. preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement; 3. appointing Plaintiff, Katya Alfonso, as Class Representative; 4. appointing Mona Amini, Esq. and Gustavo Ponce, Esq. of Kazerouni Law Group, APC as Class Counsel; 5. appointing Simpluris, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator; 6. approving and directing dissemination of the Notice to Settlement Class Members; and 7. scheduling a final approval Hearing. The Settlement Class The Settlement Class members include: All individuals who were sent an initial written communication by Defendants in an attempt to recover sums due between February 28, 2021, and February 28, 2022. The Settlement Class consists of approximately 81 persons. Excluded from the Class are the Judge whom the Action is assigned, any member of the Court's staff and immediate family, and all persons who are validly excluded from the Class. Settlement Relief Defendants have agreed to pay Settlement Class members (who do not validly exclude themselves from the Settlement) each a Cash Settlement Payment up to $750, in the total amount of $60,750.00. The Defendants have agreed to have the Settlement Fund deposited with the Settlement Administrator with 30 days of the Effective Date. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 1, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NC17pb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gustavo Ponce, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 6787 W. Tropicana Ave., Suite 250 Las Vegas, NV 89103 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: gustavo@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com X MONDO HAIR LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against X Mondo Hair, LLC. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. X Mondo Hair, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03736-MKV (S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. XMONDO Hair -- https://xmondohair.com/ -- is an independent beauty company with offices in Jersey City, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com YETI COOLERS: Hernandez Sues Over Users' Personal Info Disclosure ----------------------------------------------------------------- GABRIELLA HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. YETI COOLERS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company d/b/a www.yeti.com, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00798-JLS-WVG (S.D. Cal., May 2, 2023), arises out of the Defendant's actions that violated the Video Privacy Protection Act. Allegedly, the defendant unlawfully disclosed the personally identifiable information of website visitors to a third party by using Tiktok Pixel, a piece of code that website owners can place on their website. Tiktok Pixel allows advertisers to share website visitor events with TikTok via browser. Yeti Coolers LLC is a for profit entity that specializes in outdoor products such as ice chests and related accessories. With retail stores throughout the US, it generates over $1 billion in annual sales. [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 ********* 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 ***