/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230522.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, May 22, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 102
Headlines
A-1 QUALITY: London Seeks Conditional Status of FLSA Collective
ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: December 15 Fact-Discovery Cut-Off Set
AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: June 21 Oral Argument on Consolidated Suit Set
ALBANY MED: Mizzero Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Court Stays Argueta Suit
ALVARIA INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Cronin Suit Alleges
ALVARIA INC: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Nulf Suit Claims
AMARIN CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit in New Jersey
AMAZON.COM INC: Davoren Sues Over Delivery Staff's Unpaid Wages
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Court Proposes June 29 & 30 Settlement Hearing
AMERICOR FUNDING: Bid Class Certification Withdrawn
AMERIPRIDE SERVICES: Bid to Stay Phase II Discovery Denied in Cake
ANI PHARMACEUTICALS:Continues to Defend Bystolic-Related Class Suit
ASLI INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Karakoca Suit Says
ATI PHYSICAL: Dismissal Bid on Burbige Class Suit Remains Pending
BAE SYSTEMS: Class Cert. Bid in Cabrales Must be Filed by June 26
BAUSCH + LOMB: Continues to Defend Gutierrez Class Suit in Cal.
BAY TOWEL: Fails to Pay OT & Regular Wages Under FLSA, Peters Says
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Faces James Class Suit
BLUE BALLOON: Tineo Suit Seeks Entertainers' Minimum & OT Wages
BROSNAN RISK: Fails to Pay Security Guards' OT Wages Under FLSA
BUDDHA COMPANY: Pinson Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Sales Associates
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Altman Sues Over Price Fixing Scheme
CARVIN WILSON: Perez Sues Over Third-Party Access of Patients' Info
CATHAY PACIFIC: Bid for Class Certification Due Jan. 11, 2024
CEDAR REALTY: New York Court Remands Krasner Suit to State Court
CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH: Doe Suit Removed to Los Angeles Superior Court
CHARLES SCHWAB: Crago Order Routing Class Suit Stayed
CHICAGOLAND SENIOR: Fails to Properly Pay Caregivers, Rogers Claims
CLEVELAND ATKINSON: Filing of Class Cert Bids Due Sept. 1
COMFORT SYSTEMS: Class Settlement in Maddison Gets Initial Approval
CONNECTICUT GENERAL: Court Junks Bid to Exclude Loomis Testimony
CRICKET WIRELESS: Wins Summary Judgment v. Postpichal
CVS PHARMACY: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by Nov. 1
DC SITE: Bid for Class Certification Must be Filed by Feb. 1, 2024
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Continues to Defend SAF Class Suit in SDNY
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Court OK's Final Settlement in Olivares Suit
DENTSPLY SIRONA: No Appeals Filed on Securities Suit Dismissal
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Ohio Securities Class Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
DISH NETWORK: Continues to Defend Cybersecurity Securities Suit
DJGN LLC: Court OKs Rule 23 Class Certification in Benjamin Suit
DRIVER PROVIDER: Renewed Class Cert Bid Must be Filed Under Seal
DTLR INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Beckley Suit Alleges
ELON MUSK: Twitter Investor Group Named as Lead in Pampena Suit
EMPIRE KOSHER: Fails to Pay Production Workers' OT Wages Under PMWA
EURO METALSMITHS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Garay Suit Alleges
EVERLY WELL: Faces Toth Suit Over Food Sensitivity Tests' False Ads
EXCEL RESIDENTIAL: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Juarez Claims
EXP REALTY: Faces Usanovic TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
FCA US: Court Allows Fisher to File 1st Amended Complaint by May 22
FLEXSTEEL INDUSTRIES: Settles ERISA Class Suit for $1.3MM
FLORIDA HEALTH: District Court Refuses to Dismiss Carlsen Suit
GARDEN GROVE: June 12 Extension for Class Cert Bid Filing Sought
GENENTECH INC: Plaintiffs Seek to Compel Class Cert Responses
GEORGE WASHINGTON: Class Certification Bid Must Be Filed Under Seal
GILEAD SCIENCES: Antitrust Class Suit Trial Set for May 2023
GILEAD SCIENCES: Continues to Defend Jacksonville Trust Class Suit
GREEN WALL TECH: Miramontes Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
HAIN CELESTIAL: Anderberg Must File Class Cert Bid by Jan. 12, 2024
HANESBRANDS INC: Continues to Defend Ransomware Class Suit in Cal.
HATCH BANK: Wilson Files Suit in S.D. California
HBT FINANCIAL: $13MM PLB Investment Suit Settlement for Court Nod
HC SALON: Faces Haque Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
HEARST TELEVISION: Saunders Balks at Disclosed Video Viewers' Info
ICONIC GROUP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Culley Suit Claims
INNOFOODS USA: Plaintiff Must File 2nd Amended Complaint by June 1
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY: Hankerson Sues Over Unsolicited Texts
INSTRUCTURE HOLDINGS: Time to Appeal OLERS Suit Dismissal Expired
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Continues to Defend Consumer Class Suit
IT'S JUST LUNCH: Seeks to File Docs Under Seal in Vrugtman Suit
JAMES RIVER: Continues to Defend Forth Worth Employees' Class Suit
JANUS HENDERSON: Continues to Defend Schissler Class Suit
JIM JUSTICE: Plaintiffs Must File New Bid for Class Certification
JOHN'S SHANGHAI: Filing for Class Cert Bid Continued Until June 2
JP MORGAN CHASE: Rehearing on Settlement Approval Sought
JPD INVESTMENTS: Maldonado et al. Sue Over Labor Law Violations
JPMORGAN CHASE: Fails to Refund Stolen Funds, Glavin Suit Says
KAISER FOUNDATION: Discloses Patients' Sensitive Info, Doe Claims
KATHLEEN HOCHUL: H.A. Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
KELLOGG COMPANY: Faces Lozano Suit Over Mislabeled Breakfast Bars
KINKISHARYO INT'L: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Set for May 22
KRAFT HEINZ: Prelim. Settlement Deal Reached in Securities Suit
LEAD ANALYTICS: Seeks Dismissal of Claims in Williams Suit
LINDT & SPRUNGLI: Dark Chocolate Has Heavy Metals, Tettenhorst Says
LLOYD AUSTIN: Crocker Class Action Dismissed
LOS ANGELES, CA: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 16
LUCID GROUP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in Cal.
MAXIMUS INC: Soape Sues Over Customer Service Reps' Unpaid Wages
MD 210 FOOD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Castro Suit Alleges
MDL 2700: Plaintiffs Seek to Compel Class Cert Responses
MDL 2843: Counsel to File Class Settlement Objections by July 30
MEDICREDIT INC: Bid to Dismiss Saggio Class Complaint Tossed
MEDSTAR HEALTH: Sued Over Unlawful Disclosure of Patients' Info
MICHAEL KORS: Binder Sues Over Deceptive Pricing Scheme
MONTANA UNIVERSITY: Court Junks Cole Class Suit
NATIONSBENEFITS LLC: Skuya Balks at Health Info Unauthorized Access
NEW YORK, NY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Caldwell Suit Alleges
NEW-INDY CATAWBA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Kennedy Due Nov. 7
NEW-INDY CATAWBA: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in White Due Nov. 7
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Alturi Says
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Miller Alleges Private Info Unauthorized Access
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Phillips Sues Over Compromised Patients' Info
NORTH CAROLINA: Court Dismisses Ellerbe's 2nd Amended Complaint
OHIO STEEL: Fails to Pay Techs' OT Wages Under FLSA, Smith Alleges
ONE BROOKLYN: Causes Unauthorized Health Info Access, Rogers Says
OXB STUDIO: Sends Unsolicited Texts to Consumers, Velez Alleges
PAYPAL INC: Rivera Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
PG&E CORP: N.D. Cal. Flips Grant of DRRT's Amended Bid for Relief
PHARMAGENICS LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bids in Ibarra Due Nov. 27
PKLL INC: Faces Tan Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Workers
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Dispositive Bid Deadlines in Berlanga Modified
PROGRESSIVE PREMIER: Class Cert Discovery Extended to June 2
QUALCOMM INC: Appeals District Court's Class Certification Order
QUALCOMM INC: Summary Judgment Hearing Set for July 20
RCM TECHNOLOGY: Settlement in Class Suit Loses Initial Nod
REDBOX AUTOMATED: Faces Gamez Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls
RELENTLESS RESTAURANTS: Gaunt Seeks Proper Wages for Job Trainings
RENT-A-CENTER EAST: Haque Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
RITE AID: Faces Poppiti Suit Over Oral Care Products' False Ads
ROOT INC: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Texas
ROOT INC: Continues to Defend Exchange Act Class Suit in Ohio
ROOT INC: Continues to Defend Insurance Contract Breach Class Suit
SAMS WEST: Sanchez Bid for Class Certification Tossed
SAN DIEGO, CA: Plaintiffs Must File Reply Brief by May 24
SATELLITE HEALTHCARE: Order Continuing Class Discovery Entered
SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Brant Conditional Certification Bid Tossed
SELECTQUOTE AUTO: Class Certification Bid Due March 1, 2024
SEPHORA USA: Martin Granted Leave to File First Amended Complaint
SHAMROCK CABINET: Settlement Deal in Millett Gets Initial Nod
SIMPSON IMPORTS: Bartolotti Sues Over Mislabeled Canned Tomatoes
SMARTMATCH INSURANCE: Filing for Class Cert Bids Due Jan. 31, 2024
SONY ELECTRONICS: Lewis Sues Over Camera's Shutter Failures
SPOKEO INC: Kellman, et al., Seek to Certify Classes
STANTEC CONSULTING: Plan Participants Get Class Status in Gotta
STARBUCKS CORP: Mallouk Sues Over Illegal Biometric Info Collection
STATE FARM: Filing of Class Status Bid in Boobuli's Due Nov. 15
STATE FARM: Seeks June 2 Extension to Oppose Class Certification
STONE TECH: Fails to Pay Overtime Premiums, Gonzalez Suit Says
STURM RUGER: Briefing Schedule Entered in Data Breach Class Suit
SUMTER ORIGINAL: Court Certifies Class of Tipped Employees in Stoke
SUTTER VALLEY: Tinnin Parties Must File Case Disposition by June 23
TACTILE SYSTEMS: Hearing on Final OK of Settlement Set for August
TESLA INC: Parties Seek Stay of Amans Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by Sept. 8
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Wollam Due July 20
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: July 20 Extension for Class Cert Filing Sought
TRAVEL INSURED: Edleson Has Until July 5 to File Reply Brief
TRUIST BANK: Filing for Class Certification Bids Due May 3, 2024
TS INNOVATION: Faces Subramanian Suit Over Stock Price Drop
UNITED STATES OIL: Continues to Defend Lucas Class Suit in N.Y.
UNITED STATES POLO: Binder Sues Over Mislabeled Apparel Items
UNIVERSAL CITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Clarke Suit Alleges
UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT: Sued Over Mismanagement of Retirement Fund
VALVE CORP: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to Jan. 26, 2024
VANGUARD CLINICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Esters Claims
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Court Narrows Claims in Rieger Suit
WALGREEN PHARMACY: Class Cert Bid Deadline Continued to March 2024
WALMART INC: Court Stays Guzman Suit Pending Mediation
WALMART INC: Faces Farmer Suit Over Defective Touchscreen Tablets
WALMART INC: Thompson Sues Over Enhancers' Misleading Peach Labels
WB WASTE: Lopez Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification of Collective
WC APA: Pennington Sues Over Fraudulent W-2 Filings to IRS
WILDFISH LLC: Fact Discovery Must be Completed by August 31
WINDSOR FASHION: Hankerson Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
Y-MABS THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
ZILLOW GROUP: Hearing on Final OK of Settlement Set for August 8
*********
A-1 QUALITY: London Seeks Conditional Status of FLSA Collective
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Corey London, Jr., Tevin
Patton, Demetrio Isaac, Robert Camel, and Celton Campbell,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons,
v. A-1 Quality Logistical Solutions, LLC; William Foster, III; East
Logistics, LLC; Eastern Labor, LLC; and Empire Labor Services, LLC,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00107-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order conditionally certifying the case as a Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action on behalf of all
similarly situated warehouse workers.
The Plaintiffs define the class as:
"All warehouse workers, including order selectors and lumpers,
that
A-1 classified as an independent contractor and worked within
the
three years preceding the filing of this Complaint."
The class of warehouse workers are similarly situated in that they
all (1) worked for A-1, (2) were misclassified as independent
contractors, (3) regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek,
(4) were paid based on production or an hourly rate, (5) suffered
business expense deductions, and (6) did not receive premium
compensation at the rate of time and one-half for all hours worked
over 40 in a workweek.
The Plaintiffs offer A-1's documents and records, including time
sheets and pay stubs, testimony from numerous warehouse workers,
the prior wage and hour litigation, job postings, LinkedIn
profiles, and the allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint.
A1 offers a unique variety of labor services and solutions which
include on-site workers and project teams at a fixed cost.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 5, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BqMBt8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matt Dunn, Esq.
Anamaria Segura, Esq.
GETMAN, SWEENEY& DUNN, PLLC
260 Fair Street
Kingston, NY 12401
Telephone: (845) 255-9370
Facsimile: (845) 255-8649
E-mail: mdunn@getmansweeney.com
- and -
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite 126
Columbus, OH 43220
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
Telephone: (888) 619-2729
Main Office: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: December 15 Fact-Discovery Cut-Off Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Acadia Pharmaceuticals 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 8, 2023, that the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California has set
deadline for fact-discovery on December 15, 2023.
On April 19, 2021, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative securities class action complaint (captioned Marechal v.
Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 21-cv-0762) in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California against the
Company and certain of the Company's current executive officers.
On September 29, 2021, the Court issued an order designating lead
plaintiff and lead counsel.
On December 10, 2021, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint generally alleges that defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
failing to disclose that the materials submitted in support of its
sNDA seeking approval of pimavanserin for the treatment of
hallucinations and delusions associated with dementia-related
psychosis contained statistical and design deficiencies and that
the FDA was unlikely to approve the sNDA in its current form. The
amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
on February 15, 2022.
On September 27, 2022, the Court issued an order denying
Defendants' motion to dismiss.
Defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint on October
19, 2022, and filed a motion for reconsideration on October 25,
2022.
On February 2, 2023, the Court issued an order denying the motion
for reconsideration.
On March 17, 2023, the Court issued a scheduling order, setting an
August 21, 2023, deadline for lead plaintiff to file a motion for
class certification, and setting a fact-discovery cutoff of
December 15, 2023.
The parties are currently engaged in discovery.
Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that
focuses on the development and commercialization of small molecule
drugs that address unmet medical needs in central nervous system
disorders. The Company is developing pimavanserin as a treatment
for dementia-related psychosis and as an adjunctive treatment for
schizophrenia, as well as an adjunctive treatment for major
depressive disorder. The Individual Defendants are officers of the
company.[BN]
AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: June 21 Oral Argument on Consolidated Suit Set
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Akebia Therapeutics 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 8, 2023, that the oral argument for
the consolidated securities class suit is scheduled on June 21,
2023.
On July 15, 2021, a purported former Keryx stockholder filed a
putative class action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York
against Akebia, a current officer of Akebia (John P. Butler), a
former officer of Akebia (Jason A. Amello), former directors of
Akebia (Muneer A. Satter, Scott A. Canute, Michael D. Clayman,
Maxine Gowen, Duane Nash, Ronald C. Renaud, Jr., and Michael S.
Wyzga), a current director of Akebia (Cynthia Smith), a former
director and officer of Keryx (Jodie P. Morrison), a former officer
of Keryx (Scott A. Holmes) and former directors of Keryx (Michael
Rogers, Kevin J. Cameron, Steven C. Gilman, Daniel P. Regan, Mark
J. Enyedy, and Michael T. Heffernan, some of whom are current
members of our Board of Directors).
The action is captioned Loper v. Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., et al.,
or the Loper Action. The complaint in the Loper Action alleges that
the registration statement filed in connection with the Merger
contained allegedly false and misleading statements or failed to
disclose certain allegedly material information in violation of
Section 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended. It alleges, among other things, that Akebia failed to
disclose heightened safety risks that allegedly threatened the
prospects of the Phase 3 PRO2TECT clinical trial and the commercial
viability of vadadustat.
The complaint in the Loper Action seeks damages including interest
thereon, an award of plaintiffs' and the class' costs and expenses,
including counsel fees and expert fees, and rescission,
disgorgement, or such other equitable or injunctive relief that the
Court deems appropriate.
On August 16, 2021, another purported former Keryx stockholder
filed a putative class action making substantially similar
allegations and asserting the same claims as the Loper Action, also
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against Akebia and
many of the same individual defendants named in the Loper Action.
The action is captioned Panicho v. Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., et
al., or the Panicho Action.
On September 13, 2021, the parties in the Loper Action and Panicho
Action entered into a joint stipulation and proposed order, which
provided for the consolidation of the two actions under the caption
In re Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation, or the
Consolidated State Action.
On October 27, 2021, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in
the Consolidated State Action.
On January 10, 2022, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint in its entirety.
Briefing on defendants' motion to dismiss was completed on April
22, 2022.
Oral argument was held on October 7, 2022, and the Court dismissed
the complaint without prejudice on October 17, 2022, giving
plaintiffs thirty days to amend their complaint.
On November 16, 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint, asserting the same claims and seeking the same relief as
the consolidated complaint.
On January 18, 2023, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint in its entirety.
Briefing on defendants' motion to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint was completed on April 5, 2023.
Oral argument is currently scheduled to be held on June 21, 2023.
Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
the development and commercialization of therapeutics for patients
with kidney diseases. The company was founded in 2007 and is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
ALBANY MED: Mizzero Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
TINAMARIE MIZZERO, individually and for others similarly situated
v. ALBANY MED HEALTH SYSTEM, Case No. 1:23-cv-00548-GTS-ML
(N.D.N.Y., May 5,2023) arises out of the Defendant's violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff Mizzero worked for Albany Med as a medical assistant at
the Albany Medical Center in Albany, New York from approximately
September 2019 until January 2023. Throughout her employment,
Albany Med classified Mizzero as non-exempt and paid her on an
hourly basis. But throughout her employment, Albany Med subjected
Mizzero to its common practice of automatically deducting 30
minutes a day from her recorded work time for so-called "meal
breaks." Accordingly, Albany Med's auto-deduction policy violated
the FLSA and the NYLL by depriving Mizzero of overtime pay for all
overtime hours worked, says the suit.
Albany Med is a New York non-profit corporation that maintains its
headquarters in Albany, NY. It is a healthcare services provider
that operates hospitals across New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David I. Iversen, Esq.
E. STEWART JONES HACKER MURPHY, LLP
28 Second Street
Troy, NY 12180
Telephone: (518) 274-5820
Facsimile: (518) 274-5875
E-mail: diversen@joneshacker.com
- and –
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Court Stays Argueta Suit
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANTOS GONZALEZ ARGUETA,
v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00642-CBM-PLA (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Consuelo B. Marshall entered an order that
the action is stayed pending the decision of the Motion for Class
Certification currently pending in the Western District of
Washington in Maria Silvia Guevara Enriquez, et al. v. United
States Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al., Case No.
2:23-cv-00097-TL.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HNswk1 at no extra charge.[CC]
ALVARIA INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Cronin Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS CRONIN; SIERRA ALLEN; and CHERE ADAMS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALVARIA,
INC.; and CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-11007-ADB (D. Mass., May 8, 2023) is class action against
the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard
the Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated CMS customers' ("Class
Members") personally identifiable information ("PII"), including
full names, telephone numbers, loan numbers and balances, mailing
addresses, and last four digits of Social Security numbers (the
"Private Information"), from unauthorized disclosure to
cybercriminals.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants failed
to safeguard and supervise the Class Members' Private Information
that the Defendants collected and maintained. The Defendants
allegedly failed to comply with industry standards to protect the
Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private Information and to provide
adequate notice to the Plaintiffs and Class Members that their PII
had been compromised following the March 9, 2023 attack on
Alvaria's customer environment (the "Data Breach").
The Plaintiffs and Class Members would not have provided their
Private Information to the Defendants if they had known that
Defendants would breach their privacy promises and agreements by
(a) failing to ensure that they had adequate data security measures
in place that would protect the Private Information from compromise
and exfiltration, and (b) knowingly providing the Plaintiffs' and
Class Members' PII to a vendor that utilized inadequate security
measures, says the suit.
ALVARIA, INC., formerly Aspect Software, Inc., is an American
multinational software company that sells call center and customer
experience software technology to large enterprises. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christina Xenides, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAND LLP
1005 Congress Avenue, Suite 925-C36
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 265-5622
Email: cxenides@sirillp.com
- and -
Mason A. Barney, Esq.
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Tel: (212) 532-1091
Email: mbarney@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.com
ALVARIA INC: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Nulf Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN NULF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALVARIA, INC. and CARRINGTON MORTGAGE
SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-10999 (D. Mass., May 5,
2023) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to
protect the personally identifying information of the Plaintiff and
similarly situated individuals following a data breach on their
network systems on or about March 9, 2023.
The unauthorized access occurred due to the Defendant's
unreasonable and deficient data security practices. After the data
breach, the Defendants failed to provide timely notice to the
affected individuals, thereby exacerbating their injuries. The
Plaintiff and Class members are now at a higher risk identity theft
and other crimes, says the suit.
Alvaria, Inc. is a software company headquartered in Westford,
Massachusetts.
Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC is a provider of mortgage lending
services headquartered in Anaheim, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Pastor, Esq.
PASTOR LAW OFFICE, LLP
63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 742-9700
Facsimile: (617) 742-9701
E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com
AMARIN CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Amarin Corp. PLC 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 antitrust class suit in the District
Court for the District of New Jersey.
Amarin is a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed by Uniformed
Fire Officers Association Family Protection Plan Local 854 and the
Uniformed Fire Officers Association for Retired Fire Officers
Family Protection Plan, on behalf of indirect purchasers, in the
District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civil Action No.
21-12061, alleging Amarin and its co-defendant suppliers violated
state and federal antitrust laws by monopolizing and engaging in a
conspiracy to restrain trade in the icosapent ethyl drug and API
markets.
Amarin is a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed by The
International Union of Operating Engineers Locals 137, 137A, 137B,
137C, 137R, on behalf of indirect purchasers, in the District Court
for the District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 21-12416, alleging
Amarin violated state and federal antitrust laws by monopolizing
and engaging in a conspiracy to restrain trade in the icosapent
ethyl drug and API markets.
Amarin is a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed by KPH
Healthcare Services, Inc., on behalf of direct purchasers, in the
District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civil Action No.
21-12747, alleging Amarin and its co-defendant suppliers violated
state and federal antitrust laws by monopolizing and engaging in a
conspiracy to restrain trade in the icosapent ethyl drug and API
markets.
Amarin is a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed by Local 464A
United Food and Commercial Workers Union Welfare Service Benefit
Fund, on behalf of direct purchasers, in the District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 21-13009.
Amarin is a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed by Teamsters
Health & Welfare Fund of Philadelphia and Vicinity, on behalf of
indirect purchasers, in the District Court for the District of New
Jersey, Civil Action No. 21-13406, alleging Amarin violated state
and federal antitrust laws by monopolizing and engaging in a
conspiracy to restrain trade in the icosapent ethyl drug and API
markets.
Such antitrust litigation, and antitrust investigations, can be
lengthy, costly and could materially affect and disrupt the
Company's business.
The Company cannot predict when these matters will be resolved,
their outcome or their potential impact on the Company's business.
Amarin Corporation plc, a pharmaceutical company, engages in the
development and commercialization of therapeutics for the
treatment
of cardiovascular diseases in the United States. The company was
formerly known as Ethical Holdings plc and changed its name to
Amarin Corporation plc in 1999. Amarin Corporation plc was
incorporated in 1989 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.
AMAZON.COM INC: Davoren Sues Over Delivery Staff's Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
JABEZ DAVOREN, AARON BATES, SHANA BROOKS, and MARCUS KURNS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-00577-XR (W.D. Tex., May 5, 2023)
arises out of the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
One of the Plaintiffs, Jabez Davoren, worked for Defendants as a
delivery associate in North Carolina from December 2018 to December
2019. The Plaintiffs regularly worked more than 40 hours a week.
The Plaintiffs observed that other delivery associates routinely
worked similar hours. Allegedly, the Defendants have failed to
make, keep and preserve records with respect to the Plaintiffs and
other delivery associates sufficient to determine their lawful
wages, actual hours worked, and other conditions of employment as
required by law. In addition, the Defendants failed to pay all the
overtime compensation owed to Plaintiffs and other delivery
associates, says the suit.
Amazon.com, Inc. is a company with principal offices in Seattle,
Washington, which operates throughout the U.S. It contracts with
delivery service providers, such as Inpax, to deliver goods that
consumers purchased on Amazon.com. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
Krysten Connon, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com
kconnon@llrlaw.om
- and -
Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq.
WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON
1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 656-3600
Facsimile: (215) 567-2310
E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com
- and -
Michaela Wallin, Esq.
Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4620
E-mail: mwallin@bm.net
apiazza@bm.net
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Court Proposes June 29 & 30 Settlement Hearing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2023,
that the Delaware Court of Chancery scheduled proposed settlement
hearing for the consolidated stockholder class suit on June 29 and
30, 2023.
On February 20, 2023, two putative stockholder class actions were
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against certain current and
former directors of AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company"), captioned Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System
v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2023-0215-MTZ
(Del. Ch.) (the "Allegheny Action"), and Munoz v. Adam M. Aron, et
al., C.A. No. 2023-0216-MTZ (Del. Ch.) (the "Munoz Action").
The Allegheny Action and Munoz Action were later consolidated and
captioned In re AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. Stockholder
Litigation, C.A. No. 2023-0215-MTZ (Del. Ch.) (the "Action").
On April 27, 2023, the parties to the Action entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement, and Release
(the "Stipulation") to resolve the Action.
On May 1, 2023, the Court scheduled a hearing for June 29 and 30,
2023 at 9:15 a.m. at the Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500
North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware, to, among other things,
consider whether to approve the proposed settlement.
Additional information concerning the terms of the settlement, the
June 29 and 30, 2023 hearing, and the requirements for making any
statements in support of or objecting to the settlement can be
found in the Stipulation, the Notice of Pendency of Stockholder
Class Action and Proposed Settlement, Settlement Hearing, and Right
to Appear, the letter that the Court published to Company
stockholders, and the form referenced in the Court's letter, which
are attached hereto as Exhibits 99.1, 99.2, 99.3, and 99.4 and are
also available on the Company's website, at
investor.amctheatres.com/newsroom/default.aspx.
AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company.
The
Company, through its subsidiaries, provides theatrical exhibition,
movie screening, food distribution, online ticket booking, and
other related services.
AMERICOR FUNDING: Bid Class Certification Withdrawn
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANUARI LINZY, v. AMERICOR
FUNDING LLC d/b/a AMERICOR FINANCIAL, Case No. 4:23-cv-00168-MW-MAF
(N.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Mark E. Walker entered an order
acknowledging the parties' joint stipulation to withdraw the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff may refile the motion at any time allowed by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This Court notes that because the
motion for class certification, contained within the state court
record filed as part of the Defendant's removal notice.
Americor is a debt relief company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42CC6yp at no extra charge.[CC]
AMERIPRIDE SERVICES: Bid to Stay Phase II Discovery Denied in Cake
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAKE LOVE CO., v.
AMERIPRIDE SERVICES, LLC, a Minnesota corporation, Case No.
0:22-cv-01301-PJS-ECW (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth Cowan
Wright entered an order denying the AmeriPride's motion to stay
Phase II discovery.
The Court acknowledges that discovery is a burden for all parties
in terms of cost. However, AmeriPride has already collected
documents (but not emails) with respect to Phase II discovery, and
there is nothing precluding AmeriPride from seeking (in good faith)
protection via motion practice from specific requests for documents
and other information that it asserts are not proportional to the
needs of the case or is otherwise unduly burdensome.
Moreover, the parties have brought several disputes regarding Phase
I discovery to the Court for resolution, and at this point, the
Court anticipates the same from the parties as to Phase II, which
may well delay resolution of this case. This potential delay, the
fact that Phase I discovery has not concluded, the anticipated
motion to amend the Amended Complaint by the Plaintiff, and the
fact that this case has already been proceeding for over one year
is contrary to the Court's and parties' interest in ensuring timely
adjudication of the parties' rights, including the putative class
members.
On May 13, 2022, the Plaintiff initiated this putative class
action, alleging that the AmeriPride breached its contract with the
Plaintiff and putative class members when it imposed price
increases in excess of the contractual threshold of 6% per year
without previously providing the contractually required notice.
On January 18, 2023, the Court entered a Pretrial Scheduling Order
setting a March 31, 2023, deadline for the completion of Phase I
discovery, where Phase I discovery related to the claims asserted
by Cake Love on its own behalf.
Ameripride Services offers linens and commercial cleaning products.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44Drn8C at no extra charge.[CC]
ANI PHARMACEUTICALS:Continues to Defend Bystolic-Related Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANI Pharmaceuticals 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 8, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Bystolic-related class suit in United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
On December 3, 2020, class action complaints were filed against the
Company on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect
purchasers of the drug Bystolic.
On December 23, 2020, six individual purchasers of Bystolic, CVS,
Rite Aid, Walgreen, Kroger, Albertsons, and H-E-B, filed complaints
against the Company.
On March 15, 2021, the plaintiffs in these actions filed amended
complaints.
All amended complaints were substantively identical.
The plaintiffs in these actions alleged that, beginning in 2012,
Forest Laboratories, the manufacturer of Bystolic, entered into
anticompetitive agreements when settling patent litigation related
to Bystolic with seven potential manufacturers of a generic version
of Bystolic: Hetero, Torrent, Alkem/Indchemie, Glenmark, Amerigen,
Watson, and various of their corporate parents, successors,
subsidiaries, and affiliates.
ANI itself was not a party to patent litigation with Forest
concerning Bystolic and did not settle patent litigation with
Forest.
The plaintiffs named the Company as a defendant based on the
Company’s January 8, 2020 Asset Purchase Agreement with Amerigen.
Under the terms of the 2020 Asset Purchase Agreement, Amerigen
agreed to indemnify ANI for certain liabilities relating to
Bystolic, including liabilities that arose prior to closing of the
asset purchase.
The complaints alleged that the 2013 patent litigation settlement
agreement between Forest and Amerigen violated federal and state
antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws by delaying the
market entry of generic versions of Bystolic. Plaintiffs alleged
they paid higher prices as a result of delayed generic competition.
Plaintiffs sought damages, trebled or otherwise multiplied under
applicable law, injunctive relief, litigation costs and attorneys'
fees.
The complaints did not specify the amount of damages sought from
the Company or other defendants and the Company. at this stage of
the litigation cannot reasonably estimate the potential damages
that the plaintiffs will seek.
The cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York as In re Bystolic Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 20-cv-005735 (LJL). On April 23, 2021, the
Company and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaints.
On January 24, 2022, the court dismissed all claims brought by the
plaintiffs without prejudice.
The court granted the plaintiffs until February 22, 2022 to file
amended complaints, which were filed in federal court in the
Southern District of New York, on that date.
The newly amended complaints contained substantially similar
claims.
On April 19, 2022, the Company and other defendants filed motions
to dismiss the newly amended complaints.
On May 23, 2022, the plaintiffs filed oppositions to the motions to
dismiss and, on June 24, 2022, the Company and other defendants
filed replies to those oppositions.
On February 21, 2023, the Company and the defendants' motions to
dismiss all actions were granted with prejudice.
Plaintiffs have filed notices of appeal in the Second Circuit and
the matter is pending.
ANI continues to dispute any liability in this matter.
ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries is a
diversified bio-pharmaceutical company based in MInnesota.
ASLI INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Karakoca Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------
KADIR KARAKOCA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HIDIR YILDIZ, MEHMETSAVASCIOGLU, and ASLI,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 709398/2023 (N.Y. Sup., May 4, 2023)
seeks to recover, inter alia, unpaid minimum and overtime wages,
and spread-of-hours premiums under New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a cashier at gas
station from July 1, 2017, until on or about January 31, 2018.
Allegedly, the Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with an
accurate statement and a written notice in English and in the
employee's primary language, of his rate of pay, regular payday,
and such other information as required by NYLL. In addition, the
Defendants made unlawful deductions from the wages of Plaintiff and
paid the Plaintiff less than the New York minimum wage as set forth
in Labor Law Section 652 and supporting regulations of the New York
State Department of Labor, the Plaintiff says.
ASLI is a New York corporation that owns and operates Ultra, a gas
station with a convenience store in Lynbrook, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Scott Yoh, Esq.
3000 Marcus Avenue, Suite 3w8
Lake Success, NY 11042
Telephone: (917) 719-5388
Facsimile: (917) 341-1121
E-mail: yohlaw@gmail.com
ATI PHYSICAL: Dismissal Bid on Burbige Class Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ATI Physical Therapy 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 8, 2023, that the dismissal motion
filed by defendants on Burbige class suit remains pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
On August 16, 2021, two purported ATI stockholders, Kevin Burbige
and Ziyang Nie, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against ATI,
Labeed Diab, Joe Jordan, and Drew McKnight (collectively, the "ATI
Individual Defendants"), and Joshua Pack, Marc Furstein, Leslee
Cowen, Aaron Hood, Carmen Policy, Rakefet Russak-Aminoach, and
Sunil Gulati (collectively, the "FVAC Defendants").
On October 7, 2021, another purported ATI stockholder, City of
Melbourne Firefighters' Retirement System ("City of Melbourne"),
filed a nearly identical putative class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against
ATI, the ATI Individual Defendants, and the FVAC Defendants.
On November 18, 2021, the court consolidated the cases and
appointed The Phoenix Insurance Company Ltd. and The Phoenix
Pension & Provident Funds as lead plaintiffs (together, "Lead
Plaintiffs").
On February 8, 2022, Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint against ATI, the ATI Individual Defendants, and the FVAC
Defendants, which asserts claims against (i) ATI and the ATI
Individual Defendants under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act; (ii)
the ATI Individual Defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act (in connection with the Section 10(b) claim); (iii) all
defendants under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act; and (iv) the
ATI Individual Defendants and the FVAC Defendants under Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act (in connection with the Section 14(a)
claim). Lead Plaintiffs purport to assert these claims on behalf of
those ATI stockholders who purchased or otherwise acquired their
ATI shares between February 22, 2021 and October 19, 2021,
inclusive, and/or held FVAC Class A common shares as of May 24,
2021 and were eligible to vote at FVAC’s June 15, 2021 special
meeting.
The consolidated amended complaint generally alleges that the proxy
materials for the FVAC/ATI merger, as well as other ATI disclosures
(including the press release announcing ATI's financial results for
the first quarter of 2021), were false and misleading (and, thus,
in violation of Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act)
because they failed to disclose that: (i) ATI was experiencing
attrition among its physical therapists; (ii) ATI faced increasing
competition for clinicians in the labor market; (iii) as a result,
ATI faced difficulty retaining therapists and incurred increased
labor costs; (iv) also as a result, ATI would open fewer new
clinics; and (v) also as a result, the defendants' positive
statements about ATI's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Lead Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the putative class,
seek money damages in an unspecified amount and costs and expenses,
including attorneys' and experts' fees.
On April 11, 2022, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, which were fully briefed as of July
25, 2022 and remain pending.
The Company has determined that potential liabilities related to
the consolidated amended complaint are not considered probable or
reasonably estimable at this time.
On February 7, 2023, another purported ATI stockholder, Wendell
Robinson, filed a putative class action complaint in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against Fortress Acquisition
Sponsor II, LLC, Andrew A. McKnight, Joshua A. Pack, Marc Furstein,
Leslee Cowen, Aaron F. Hood, Carmen A. Policy, Rakefet
Russak-Aminoach, Sunil Gulati, Daniel N. Bass, Micah B. Kaplan and
Labeed Diab.
The complaint asserts claims against: (i) Fortress Acquisition
Sponsor II, LLC, Andrew A. McKnight, Joshua A. Pack, Marc Furstein,
Leslee Cowen, Aaron F. Hood, Carmen A. Policy, Rafeket
Russak-Aminoach, Sunil Gulati, Daniel N. Bass and Micah B. Kaplan
for breach of fiduciary duty; and (ii) Labeed Diab for aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty.
Plaintiff's allegations generally mirror those asserted in the
federal stockholder class action described above, and Plaintiff
further alleges that the alleged misrepresentations and omissions
in the proxy materials for the FVAC/ATI merger prevented
stockholders from making a fully informed decision on whether to
approve the merger or have their shares redeemed.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss on April 28, 2023, which remain
pending.
ATI Physical Therapy is an American provider of physical therapy
services based in Bolingbrook, Illinois. Founded by exercise
physiologist Greg Steil in 1996 as one clinic in Willowbrook,
Illinois, ATI has more than 860 locations in the United States.
BAE SYSTEMS: Class Cert. Bid in Cabrales Must be Filed by June 26
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cabrales v. Bae Systems
San Diego Ship Repair, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-02122 (S.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia entered an order
continuing the deadline to file motion to certify class.
-- The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed
by
not later than June 26, 2023.
The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment.[CC]
BAUSCH + LOMB: Continues to Defend Gutierrez Class Suit in Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch + Lomb Corp. 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 Gutierrez class suit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.
On June 19, 2019, plaintiffs filed a proposed class action in
California state court against Bausch Health US and Johnson &
Johnson (Gutierrez, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No.
37-2019-00025810-CU-NP-CTL), asserting claims for purported
violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False
Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law in connection with their
sale of talcum powder products that the plaintiffs allege violated
Proposition 65 and/or the California Safe Cosmetics Act.
This lawsuit was served on Bausch Health US in June 2019 and was
subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, where it is currently pending.
Plaintiffs seek damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive
relief, and reimbursement/restitution.
BHC filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims, which was granted
in April 2020 without prejudice.
In May 2020, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and in June
2020, filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint further,
which was granted.
In August 2020, Plaintiffs filed the Fifth Amended Complaint.
On January 22, 2021, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with
prejudice.
On February 19, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On July 1, 2021, Appellants (Plaintiffs) filed their opening brief;
Appellees’ response briefs were filed October 8, 2021.
This matter was stayed by the Ninth Circuit on December 7, 2021,
due to the preliminary injunction entered by the Bankruptcy Court
in the LTL bankruptcy proceeding.
This stay included Appellants' reply brief deadline, which was
previously due to be filed on or before December 2, 2021.
On March 9, 2022, the Ninth Circuit issued an order extending the
stay through July 29, 2022.
On July 29, 2022, Johnson & Johnson filed a status report in the
Gutierrez appeal, outlining the developments since the last status
report and the imposition of the stay.
Johnson & Johnson noted that following a July 26, 2022, hearing,
the Bankruptcy Court left the preliminary injunction in place, and
asked the Ninth Circuit to continue to stay this action while the
bankruptcy preliminary injunction remained in place.
On January 20, 2023, the Ninth Circuit extended the stay until
February 17, 2023.
On February 17, 2023, Johnson & Johnson requested that the court
afford it 60 days – until April 18, 2023, or seven (7) days
following any lifting of the LTL Bankruptcy Court's preliminary
injunction, whichever comes earliest – to provide an additional
status report about the bankruptcy proceeding and the Third Circuit
dismissal for which the LTL has requested a rehearing.
On April 7, 2023, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. filed a status
report regarding the bankruptcy proceeding advising the Court of
the dismissal of the prior bankruptcy proceeding and the filing of
the second bankruptcy proceeding, as well as the preliminary
injunction and stay order, and requesting the stay of the appeal
remain in place until May 10, 2023. The Ninth Circuit has not yet
acted on that request.
Bausch Health US disputes the claims in this lawsuit and will
defend it vigorously.
Bausch+Lomb Corporation is a subsidiary of Bausch Health Companies
Inc. and is a global eye health company based in Canada.
BAY TOWEL: Fails to Pay OT & Regular Wages Under FLSA, Peters Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS PETERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BAY TOWEL, INC, Case No. 23-cv-588 (E.D. Wis., May 10,
2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid
straight time (regular) and/or agreed upon wages, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and
Collection Laws.
The Defendant allegedly operated an unlawful compensation system
that deprived and failed to compensate the Plaintiff and all other
current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours
worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime
rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek, by:
(1) shaving time (via electronic timeclock rounding) from the
Plaintiff's and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt
employees' weekly timesheets for pre-shift and post-shift
hours worked and/or work performed; and
(2) failing to include all forms of non-discretionary
compensation, such as monetary bonuses, incentives, awards,
and/or other rewards and payments, in said employees'
regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other
similarly-situated employees pursuant to the WWPCL. The similarly
situated employees include:
-- WWPCL Class (Timeshaving): All hourly-paid employees
employed by Defendant in the State of Wisconsin within the
two (2) years immediately preceding the filing of the
Complaint through the date of judgment who used
Defendant's electronic timekeeping system to record hours
worked and/or work performed each workday.
-- WWPCL Class (Non-Discretionary Compensation): All hourly-paid
employees employed by Defendant in the State of Wisconsin
within the two (2) years immediately preceding the filing of
the Complaint, (ECF No. 1), and through the date of final
judgment who received a form of compensation, such as a
monetary bonus, incentive, award, and/or other reward and/or
payment, during a workweek when said employees worked more
than 40 hours during the representative time period
that the form of compensation covered.
In approximately September 2019, the Defendant hired the Plaintiff
as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in the position of Operator
working at Defendant's Green Bay, Wisconsin location. Shortly after
Plaintiff's hire, the Defendant promoted the Plaintiff into the
position of Team Lead. In approximately May 2023, the Plaintiff's
employment with the Defendant ended, says the suit.
Bay Towel is a commercial launderer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Faces James Class Suit
-------------------------------------------
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2023, that the jury
trial for James putative class suit started in Multnomah County
Circuit Court on April 24, 2023.
On September 30, 2020, a putative class action complaint against
PacifiCorp was filed, captioned Jeanyne James et al. v. PacifiCorp
et al., Case No. 20CV33885, Circuit Court, Multnomah County,
Oregon.
The complaint was filed by Oregon residents and businesses who seek
to represent a class of all Oregon citizens and entities whose real
or personal property was harmed beginning on September 7, 2020, by
wildfires in Oregon allegedly caused by PacifiCorp.
On November 3, 2021, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to
limit the class to include Oregon citizens allegedly impacted by
the Echo Mountain Complex, South Obenchain, Two Four Two and
Santiam Canyon fires, as well as to add claims for noneconomic
damages.
The amended complaint alleges that PacifiCorp's assets contributed
to the Oregon wildfires occurring on or after September 7, 2020 and
that PacifiCorp acted with gross negligence, among other things.
The amended complaint seeks the following damages for the
plaintiffs and the putative class: (i) noneconomic damages,
including mental suffering, emotional distress, inconvenience and
interference with normal and usual activities, in excess of $1
billion; (ii) damages for real and personal property and other
economic losses of not less than $600 million; (iii) double the
amount of property and economic damages; (iv) treble damages for
specific costs associated with loss of timber, trees and shrubbery;
(v) double the damages for the costs of litigation and
reforestation; (vi) prejudgment interest; and (vii) reasonable
attorney fees, investigation costs and expert witness fees.
The plaintiffs demand a trial by jury and have reserved their right
to further amend the complaint to allege claims for punitive
damages.
In May 2022, the Multnomah Circuit Court granted issue class
certification and consolidated this case with others as described
below. PacifiCorp requested an immediate appeal of the issue class
certification before the Oregon Court of Appeals.
In January 2023, the Oregon Court of Appeals denied PacifiCorp's
request for appeal.
In February 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the
complaint to add punitive damages in an unspecified amount.
On March 23, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
seeking punitive damages with permission of the Circuit Court.
Plaintiffs seek punitive damages at a five times multiplier to the
amount of compensatory damages awarded.
On April 24, 2023, the jury trial began in Multnomah County Circuit
Court.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy company is a holding company based in
Iowa.
BLUE BALLOON: Tineo Suit Seeks Entertainers' Minimum & OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
VERA TINEO and AMELIA LABRIOLA, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. BLUE BALLOON, INC. d/b/a Blue Balloon
Parties, and SALLY RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 1:23-cv-03517 (E.D.N.Y., May
10, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as unpaid spread
of hours premium, statutory penalties pursuant to the New York
Labor Law and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act.
According to the complaint, shortly after the Plaintiff was hired,
the Defendants required her to attend twenty hours of unpaid
training. Other than for training, the Plaintiff was compensated at
the rate of $25.00 per hour. But only for the time she spent
entertaining. Because of the Defendant's policy of not paying their
children's party entertainers for all time they worked, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs did not receive compensation for all of their
hours worked because they were only paid for time spent conducting
the parties.
During her employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff would be
asked to work from 10:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. or later, as needed.
This would happen approximately once a week. On these occasions,
she was never paid spread of hours premium. Similarly, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs were frequently required to work shifts
exceeding 10 hours in duration, but were never paid spread of hours
premium, the Plaintiff alleges.
The Plaintiffs bring claims for relief as a collective action on
behalf of all children's party entertainers employed by the
Defendants on or after the date that is six years before the filing
of the Complaint in this action.
Plaintiff Vera Tineo worked for the Defendants as a children's
party entertainer from February 9, 2022, until February 12, 2023,
when her employment was terminated by the Defendants.
Defendants owned, operated or controlled a children's entertainment
and party equipment rental company conducting business under the
trade name Blue Balloon Parties.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Arthur H. Forman, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ARTHUR H FORMAN
98-20 Metropolitan Avenue
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Telephone: (718) 268-2616
Facsimile: (718) 575-1600
BROSNAN RISK: Fails to Pay Security Guards' OT Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
YVETTE WALKER, ALFONSO RUBIO, and ORLANDO COTTMAN, on behalf of
themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class v. BROSNAN
RISK CONSULTANTS, LTD., Case No. 1:23-cv-03938 (S.D.N.Y., May 10,
2023) seeks to recover unpaid wages, including overtime, due to
time-shaving, unpaid overtime wages due to straight time pay
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff further alleges that she and others similarly
situated are entitled to recover unpaid wages, including unpaid
overtime, due to time-shaving; spread of hours premiums; and
compensation for late payment of wages, pursuant to the New York
Labor Law (NYLL), the California Labor Code, and the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act.
Accordingly, the Defendant:
(i) improperly paid non-exempt employees only for their
scheduled hours and/or rounded employees' hours down to
deprive employees of their earned compensation,
(ii) failed to compensate employees for lunch breaks despite
mandating employees to continue working through lunch,
(iii) failed to compensate breaks lasting 20 minutes or less,
and
(iv) would fail to include the hours for 'pick-up-shifts' with
an employees' compensation for the week such shift was
worked, but instead compensate those hours at a later
date at a straight time rate.
The Plaintiffs bring claims for relief as a collective action
pursuant to FLSA Section 16(b), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), on behalf
of all current and former non-exempt employees employed by the
Defendant, (including security guards, patrol officers, fire safety
officers, fire guards, security concierges, vehicle patrol
officers) employed by the Defendant in any state where they do
business on or after the date that is three (3) years before the
filing of the Complaint.
In November 2017, Ms. Walker was hired by the Defendant to work as
a security guard and was assigned to perform duties at six
different locations operated by Defendant's clients.
In early 2021, Mr. Rubio was hired by the Defendant to work as a
Security Guard and was assigned to perform duties at a Citibank in
Downtown, San Diego, California.
In June 2016, Mr. Cottman was hired by the Defendant to work as a
Security Guard and was assigned to perform duties at a Walmart
located at 1675 S Christopher Columbus Blvd, Philadelphia.
The Defendant operates a security and company under the name
"Brosnan Risk Consultants," which provides services to both
commercial and residential sites.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1180
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
BUDDHA COMPANY: Pinson Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Sales Associates
------------------------------------------------------------------
MONICIA PINSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BUDDHA COMPANY, INC.; BRANDON FRIEDMAN;
PARAMJIT GILL; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 23STCV10260 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 8, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to timely pay wages during employment,
failure to timely pay wages upon separation, failure to provide
meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide
accurate wage statements, failure to indemnify for business
expenses, unfair competition, retaliation, and wrongful
termination.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a sales associate
beginning in February 2022.
Buddha Company, Inc. is an operator of a Cannabis store, with its
principal place of business in Los Angeles County, California.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aidin D. Ghavimi, Esq.
Ilana N. Fine, Esq.
STARPOINT, LC
15233 Ventura Boulevard, Suite PH16
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (310) 424-9971
Facsimile: (424) 255-4035
E-mail: service@starpointlaw.com
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Altman Sues Over Price Fixing Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER ALTMAN; and ELIZA WIATROSKI, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT,
INC.; BOARDWALK REGENCY LLC d/b/a CAESARS ATLANTIC CITY HOTEL &
CASINO; HARRAH'S ATLANTIC CITY OPERATING COMPANY, LLC d/b/a
HARRAH'S RESORT ATLANTIC CITY HOTEL & CASINO; TROPICANA ATLANTIC
CITY CORPORATION d/b/a TROPICANA CASINO AND RESORT ATLANTIC CITY;
MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL; MARINA DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC
d/b/a BORGATA HOTEL CASINO & SPA; HARD ROCK INTERNATIONAL INC.;
SEMINOLE HARD ROCK SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC; BOARDWALK 1000, LLC d/b/a
HARD ROCK HOTEL & CASINO ATLANTIC CITY; and CENDYN GROUP, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02536 (D.N.J., May 9, 2023) alleges
violation of the Sherman Act.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants are
engaging in an ongoing conspiracy to fix, raise, and stabilize the
prices of casino-hotel guest rooms in Atlantic City, New Jersey.
Casino-Hotel Defendants' knowing use of a shared pricing algorithm
platform that the Defendant Cendyn Group ("Cendyn") sells and
promotes has enabled and facilitated an anticompetitive scheme that
has caused the Plaintiffs and class members to pay
supra-competitive prices for guest rooms they have rented directly
from Casino-Hotel Defendants or their co-conspirators from no later
than June 28, 2018 to the present ("class period"), the suit
asserts.
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC. owns and operates as a chain of
resorts. The Company offers casino, poker, roulette, and other
gaming facilities, as well as provides food and beverages services.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mindee J. Reuben, Esq.
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG
& AFANADOR, LLC
1515 Market Street, Suite 1200
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 854-4060
Email: mreuben@litedepalma.com
CARVIN WILSON: Perez Sues Over Third-Party Access of Patients' Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CARVIN WILSON SOFTWARE, LLC, d/b/a CARVIN
SOFTWARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00792-SMM (D. Ariz., May
8, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence,
unjust enrichment, and breach of third-party beneficiary contract.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to protect the
personally identifying information (PII) of the Plaintiff and
similarly situated patients following a data breach on its network
systems between February 22, 2023 and March 9, 2023. The
unauthorized access occurred due to the Defendant's inadequate
security and maintenance of its network. Furthermore, after the
data breach, the Defendant failed to provide timely notice to the
affected patients, thereby exacerbating their injuries. The
Plaintiff and Class members are now at a higher risk identity theft
and other crimes, says the suit.
Carvin Wilson Software, LLC, doing business as Carvin Software,
LLC, is a software company with its principal place of business in
Gilbert, Arizona. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas H. Sanders, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
1311 Ponce de Leon Avenue
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (516) 203-7616
Facsimile: (516) 282-7888
E-mail: dsanders@milberg.com
CATHAY PACIFIC: Bid for Class Certification Due Jan. 11, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAN GOLDTHORPE, JAMES
DONOVAN, CHRIS BENNETT, JAMES ISHERWOOD, AND DAVID VINCENT, on
behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals, v.
CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD and USA BASING LTD, Case No.
3:17-cv-03233-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered
a scheduling order as follows:
Non-Expert Discovery Cutoff: November 30, 2023
Initial Expert Disclosures: March 14, 2024
Rebuttal Expert Disclosures: April 11, 2024
Expert Discovery Cutoff: May 9, 2024
Last Day for the Plaintiffs to File Aug. 24, 2023
Motion to Set Aside Settlement
Agreements:
Last Day for the Defendants to File Sept. 14, 2023
Opposition to Motion re Settlement
Agreements:
Last Day for the Plaintiffs to Jan. 11, 2024
File Motion on Class Certification:
Last Day for the Defendants to File Feb. 1, 2024
Opposition to Class Certification:
Cathay Pacific is an international airline company. It provides
scheduled air passenger and cargo services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pbJP80 at no extra charge.[CC]
CEDAR REALTY: New York Court Remands Krasner Suit to State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JONATHAN KRASNER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CEDAR REALTY TRUST,
INC., WHEELER REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC., BRUCE J.
SCHANZER, GREGG A. GONSALVES, ABE EISENSTAT, STEVEN G. ROGERS,
SABRINA KANNER, DARCY D. MORRIS, RICHARD H. ROSS, and SHARON STERN,
Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-06945(DLI)(JMW) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Dora
L. Irizarry of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York grants the Plaintiff's motion for remand and remands the
case to state court for further proceedings.
On Oct. 14, 2022, Plaintiff Jonathan Krasner, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated as preferred stockholders of Cedar
Realty Trust, Inc., filed a complaint in New York State Supreme
Court, Nassau County ("state court"), alleging Maryland state law
claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious
interference, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty in
connection with Cedar selling property, merging with Wheeler Real
Estate Investment Trust, Inc., and interfering with preferred
stockholders' rights.
The Plaintiff brings this action against Cedar, Wheeler, and
Cedar's former directors, Bruce J. Schanzer, Gregg A. Gonsalves,
Abe Eisenstat, Steven G. Rogers, Sabrina Kanner, Darcy D. Morris,
Richard H. Ross, and Sharon Stern.
On Nov. 14, 2022, the Defendants removed the state court action to
this Court invoking its diversity jurisdiction pursuant to the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), which amended the
diversity jurisdiction of federal courts for class action under 28
U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2).
On Dec. 14, 2022, the Plaintiff moved to remand this case back to
state court alleging that this action falls within CAFA's
exceptions. On Dec. 28, 2022, the Defendants opposed the
Plaintiff's motion to remand alleging that CAFA's exceptions do
apply.
The Plaintiff does not challenge whether the Defendants have
satisfied CAFA's jurisdictional prerequisites. Instead, the parties
dispute whether CAFA's exceptions warrant remand. While the parties
effectively agree that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction,
the Court finds it does not because the Defendants fail to
establish by a reasonable probability that there are 100 or more
putative class members.
As an initial matter, the Defendants contend that there are at
least 100 putative class members because there are approximately
6.45 million shares of Cedar's Preferred Stock outstanding, which
the Plaintiff alleges in his amended complaint are held by hundreds
or thousands of individuals and entities dispersed across the
country.
However, Judge Irizarry holds, nowhere in the Complaint does the
Plaintiff allege that preferred stocks are held by hundreds or
thousands of individuals and entities.
Accordingly, the Court is left to speculate about how many
individuals and entities are preferred stockholders, which the
Court may not do.
The Complaint also alleges that the putative class is "so numerous
that joinder of all members is impracticable." However, the
Plaintiff filed this action in state court where the jurisdictional
threshold needed to satisfy the numerosity requirement is less than
in federal court. This allegation also is insufficient to
demonstrate numerosity because the Court is left to speculate
whether there are 100 or more putative class members as required by
CAFA, Judge Irizarry holds.
Notably, the Defendants were under no obligation to remove the
state court action to this Court within 30 days of service pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b) since the Complaint does allege an
amount of putative class members. Thus, instead of prematurely
removing this case to federal court, Judge Irizarry says the
Defendants could and should have waited until they received a copy
of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it
may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has
become removable.
Accordingly, Judge Irizarry holds, as the Defendants fail to
satisfy the jurisdictional numerosity prerequisite of 100 or more
putative class members, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
and remand to state court is proper.
For the reasons set forth, Judge Irizarry grants the Plaintiff's
motion to remand this case to state court. The matter is remanded
to New York State Supreme Court, Nassau County, under Index No.
613985/2022, for further proceedings.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated April
24, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/26fx6yt2 from
Leagle.com.
CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH: Doe Suit Removed to Los Angeles Superior Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dale S. Fischer of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California grants the Plaintiff's motion to remand the
lawsuit titled JOHN DOE, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH SYSTEM, et
al., Defendants, Case No. CV 23-870 DSF (JPRx) (C.D. Cal.), to the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles.
On Dec. 30, 2022, Plaintiff John Doe filed a class action lawsuit
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleging
that Defendants Cedars-Sinai Health System and Cedars-Sinai Medical
Center (collectively Cedars-Sinai) disclosed their private
information, without their knowledge or consent, to Meta, Google,
Microsoft Bing, and other marketing and social medial platforms or
businesses.
Mr. Doe alleges that Cedars-Sinai transmitted portions of patients'
private communications with it through tracking code embedded in
its website and mobile application, to third parties for the sole
purpose of sharing such information with marketing entities.
Cedars-Sinai installed the tracking code to obtain insight about
how patients and potential patients use its website. Moreover, by
installing the tracking code, Cedars-Sinai enabled the marketing
entities to use patients' Private Information to target them with
advertising by yet other, unrelated businesses.
Mr. Doe asserts the following causes of action: (1) violations of
California's Invasion of Privacy Act; (2) invasion of privacy in
violation of the California Constitution, Article 1, Section 1 and
California common law; (3) breach of implied contract; (4) breach
of contract; (5) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing; (6) negligence; (7) violation of California's
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act; and (8) violation of
the California's Unfair Competition Law.
On Feb. 3, 2023, Cedars-Sinai removed the case pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1), the federal officer removal statute.
Mr. Doe argues that the case should be remanded to state court
because Cedars-Sinai has not met its burden of establishing that
its actions were taken pursuant to a federal officer's directions.
He argues, among other things, that Cedars-Sinai is not acting on
behalf of a federal officer in a manner akin to an agency
relationship because merely performing some functions that a
government agency controls is not enough to transform a private
entity into a federal officer.
The Court agrees with Doe. Judge Fischer explains that the Supreme
Court has "interpreted the term 'person acting under that officer'
as extending to a 'private person' who has certain types of close
relationships with the federal government," citing Cnty. of San
Mateo, 32 F.4th at 756 (9th Cir. 2022).
The directions Cedars-Sinai points to are general regulations and
public directives regarding the development of health information
technology and an electronic health records infrastructure, Judge
Fischer opines. Therefore, removal is not justified by federal
officer jurisdiction.
Accordingly, Judge Fischer grants the motion to remand. The case is
remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 24, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3mbm8rwc from Leagle.com.
CHARLES SCHWAB: Crago Order Routing Class Suit Stayed
------------------------------------------------------
The Charles Schwab Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2023, that the Crago Order
Routing class suit was stayed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on February 2, 2023.
On July 13, 2016, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of a putative class of customers executing equity orders
through CS&Co.
The lawsuit names CS&Co and CSC as defendants and alleges that an
agreement under which CS&Co routed orders to UBS Securities LLC
between July 13, 2011 and December 31, 2014 violated CS&Co's duty
to seek best execution.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, interest, injunctive and
equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Defendants consider the allegations to be entirely without merit
and have been vigorously contesting the lawsuit.
After a first amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend,
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on August 14, 2017.
Defendants again moved to dismiss, and in a decision issued
December 5, 2017, the court denied the motion. Plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification on April 30, 2021, and in a decision
on October 27, 2021, the court denied the motion and held that
certification of a class action is inappropriate.
Plaintiffs sought review of the order denying class certification
by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, which was denied.
On September 23, 2022, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class
certification and defendants moved to compel plaintiffs' case to
arbitration.
On February 2, 2023, the court granted defendants' motion, stayed
the case pending the outcome of arbitration, and denied plaintiffs'
renewed motion for class certification as moot.
The Charles Schwab Corporation is an American multinational
financial services company.[BN]
CHICAGOLAND SENIOR: Fails to Properly Pay Caregivers, Rogers Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LYDIA ROGERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHICAGOLAND SENIOR CARE, INC. d/b/a
ASSISTING HANDS HOME CARE, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-02874 (N.D.
Ill., May 8, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for its
failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated
caregivers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.
Ms. Rogers worked for the Defendant as a caregiver in Illinois from
approximately September 2021 until March 2023.
Chicagoland Senior Care, Inc., doing business as Assisting Hands
Home Care, is a senior healthcare provider headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
WERMAN S ALAS P.C.
77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
msalas@flsalaw.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
CLEVELAND ATKINSON: Filing of Class Cert Bids Due Sept. 1
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOEROAM MYRICK, as an
Individual and as Representative on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. CLEVELAND ATKINSON, Jr., AS SHERIFF OF EDGECOMBE
COUNTY; COUNTY OF EDGECOMBE; and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive, Case
No. 4:20-cv-00139-FL (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Louise W. Flanagan
entered an order granting the parties' consent motion to partially
modify Case Management Order to extend the time to file motion for
Class/Collective Action Certification.
1. Any Motion for Certification of Class Sept. 1, 2023
or Collective Action shall be filed by:
2. All other provisions of the November 17, 2022 Amended Case
Management Order shall be unaffected and remain as ordered by
the Court.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3B4Oyej at no extra charge.[CC]
COMFORT SYSTEMS: Class Settlement in Maddison Gets Initial Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN T. MADDISON and
DAVID WALTON, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. COMFORT SYSTEMS USA (SYRACUSE), INC. d/b/a ABJ FIRE
PROTECTION CO., INC., Case No. 5:17-cv-00359-LEK-ATB (N.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Lawrence E. Kahn entered an order granting
preliminary approval of the class action settlement.
The Court further ordered that a fairness hearing for final
approval of the class settlement will be held on November 2, 2023,
to consider whether the settlement should be fully, finally, and
unconditionally approved, including the fairness, the
reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed settlement; the
dismissal with prejudice of this class action with respect to the
Defendant; the enjoining of all class members from prosecuting
against the Defendant and any released party any released claims;
and the entry of final judgment in this class action consistent
with the terms of the Parties' Settlement
Agreement.
The Plaintiffs Kevin Maddison and David Walton brought a putative
class action against Comfort Systems to recover unpaid overtime
payments and prevailing wages the Defendant allegedly withheld from
them.
After five years of litigating this action, the parties have
reached a settlement in the amount of $60,000.
The Court detailed the Plaintiffs' factual allegations in a
previous Memorandum-Decision and Order, familiarity with which is
assumed.
The class the 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."
Comfort Systems is a building and service provider for mechanical,
electrical and plumbing building systems.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42pcSU2 at no extra charge.[CC]
CONNECTICUT GENERAL: Court Junks Bid to Exclude Loomis Testimony
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Issokson v. Connecticut
General Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-30070 (D. Mass.), the
Hon. Judge Mark G. Mastroianni entered an order denying motion to
Exclude Roger Loomis' Testimony.
The Defendants seek to exclude, under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert
v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), the
testimony of Roger Loomis (the Plaintiff's expert) for purposes of
class certification.
The district court's gatekeeping function under Daubert ensures
that expert evidence submitted to the jury is sufficiently relevant
and reliable, but there is less need for the gatekeeper to keep the
gate when the gatekeeper is keeping the gate only for himself.
Moreover, as the Plaintiff points out, Mr. Loomis' declaration goes
well beyond the simple assertion that damages are the difference
between what was paid and what should have been paid using compound
interest, as the Defendants assert. Rather, Mr. Loomis, who has
over 16 years of experience in pricing and valuation of long-term
care insurance, provides general background on long-term care
insurance, including compound vs. simple interest, as well as
charts, insight into the claims process, and an explanation as to
the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers ("CPI-U") using a
compound interest rate.
The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.[CC]
Connecticut General provides insurance services.
CRICKET WIRELESS: Wins Summary Judgment v. Postpichal
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMIE POSTPICHAL and
URSULA FREITAS, v. CRICKET WIRELESS, LLC, Case No.
3:19-cv-07270-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered
an order granting the defendant's motions to exclude Plaintiffs'
experts Mallinson and Browne and for summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs are correct in asserting that under Rule 702, the
district court "is not tasked with deciding whether the expert is
right or wrong, just whether his testimony has substance such that
it would be helpful to a jury." The Plaintiffs' damages model as
proffered via Expert Mallinson did not and does not have the
substance necessary to be helpful to a jury.
Expert Mallinson's report does not present any "specialized
knowledge" that might help isolate the price premium Cricket was
able to extract by misrepresenting its 4G capability.
The analyses of plaintiffs' expert Mallinson are therefore
unreliable and inadmissible under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence.
In this RICO action with a tortured history, defendant moves for
summary judgment. The Plaintiffs Jamie Postpichal and Ursula
Freitas claim that from 2012 to 2014, defendant Cricket Wireless,
LLC, advertised 4G wireless service and sold 4G-capable phones in
markets where defendant did not actually provide 4G coverage. The
claim is packaged as a RICO violation, based on the theory that
Cricket and its retailers formed an enterprise which perpetuated
this fraudulent scheme.
Cricket Wireless is an American prepaid wireless service provider,
owned by AT&T.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pjMgFF at no extra charge.[CC]
CVS PHARMACY: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by Nov. 1
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE ONE, RICHARD ROE,
in his capacity as executor for JOHN DOE TWO, JOHN DOE FOUR, in his
personal capacity and as the authorized representative of JOHN DOE
THREE, and JOHN DOE FIVE, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated and for the benefit of the general public, v.
CVS PHARMACY, INC.; CAREMARK, L.L.C.; CAREMARK CALIFORNIA SPECIALTY
PHARMACY, L.L.C.; GARFIELD BEACH CVS, L.L.C.; CAREMARKPCS HEALTH,
L.L.C.; and DOES 1–10, inclusive, Case No. 3:18-cv-01031-EMC
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward M. Chen entered an order
regarding scheduling of class certification briefing.
-- the Plaintiffs shall file a Joint May 10, 2023
Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss
and Reply in Support of the Motion
for Leave on:
-- The Defendants shall file their May 26, 2023
Reply in Support of Motion to
Dismiss on:
-- The Plaintiffs shall file their Motion Nov. 1, 2023
for Class Certification no later than:
-- The Defendants shall file their Dec. 18, 2023
Opposition to the Motion for Class
Certification no later than:
-- The Plaintiffs shall file their reply Jan. 18, 2024
in support of the Motion for Class
Certification no later than:
-- The hearing date on the Motion for Feb. 1, 2024
Class Certification shall remain set
for:
CVS Pharmacy is an American retail corporation.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42yKcIk at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
Henry C. Quillen, Esq.
Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
152 West 57th Street, 41st Floor
New York, NY 10019
Tel: (212) 447-7060
Fax: (800) 922-4851
E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
ekallas@whatleykallas.com
hquillen@whatleykallas.com
amansfield@whatleykallas.com
- and -
Jerry Flanagan, Esq.
Benjamin Powell, Esq.
Daniel L. Sternberg, Esq.
CONSUMER WATCHDOG
6330 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 250
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Telephone: (310) 392-0522
Facsimile: (310) 392-8874
E-mail: jerry@consumerwatchdog.org
ben@consumerwatchdog.org
danny@consumerwatchdog.org
The Defendants are represented by:
Enu Mainigi, Esq.
Craig D. Singer, Esq.
Grant A. Geyerman, Esq.
Sarah L. O’Connor, Esq.
Benjamin W. Graham, Esq.
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP
725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 434-5000
Facsimile: (202) 434-5029
E-mail: emainigi@wc.com
csinger@wc.com
ggeyerman@wc.com
soconnor@wc.com
bgraham@wc.com
- and -
John J. Atallah, Esq.
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
555 South Flower Street, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 972-4500
Facsimile: (213) 486-0065
E-mail: jatallah@foley.com
DC SITE: Bid for Class Certification Must be Filed by Feb. 1, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PEARL JOHNSON, v. DC SITE
SERVICES LLC, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-03368-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge Kimberly A. Jolson entered an order vacating the
Preliminary Pretrial Conference set for May 9, 2023, and adopting
the following schedule:
-- Any motion to amend the pleadings or to August 15,
2023
join additional parties shall be filed
by:
-- The motion for class certification shall February 1,
2024
be filed by:
The Plaintiff claims improper calculation of his overtime rate as
well as uncompensated wages and overtime under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and Ohio law.
He desires to bring these claims on behalf of himself and a
proposed collective class. The Plaintiff also brings a claim for
FLSA retaliation on his behalf only. the Plaintiff and the
Defendants have made a jury demand.
All discovery shall be completed within 12 months of the Court's
ruling on the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification or
the Parties’ Stipulation to Conditional Certification.
Any dispositive motions shall be filed by 45 days after the
discovery cutoff.
Primary expert reports must be produced 30 days after a ruling on
dispositive motions. Rebuttal expert reports must be produced 45
days after primary experts. If the expert is specifically retained,
the reports must conform to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B), unless
otherwise agreed to by the parties. If the expert is not
specifically retained, the reports must conform to Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(2)(C), unless otherwise agreed to by the parties.
The Plaintiff will make a settlement demand by July 15, 2023. the
Defendant will respond by July 30, 2023. The parties agree to make
a good faith effort to settle this case. The parties understand
that this case will be referred to an attorney mediator for a
settlement conference in August 2023.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/419iu3z at no extra charge.[CC]
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Continues to Defend SAF Class Suit in SDNY
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona 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 3, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend the San Antonio Fire securities class suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
On July 28, 2022, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York captioned San Antonio Fire and Police
Pension Fund v. Dentsply Sirona Inc. et al., No. 1:22-cv-06339 (the
"Securities Litigation").
The complaint in the Securities Litigation are substantially
similar and both allege that, during the period from June 9, 2021
through May 9, 2022, the Company, Mr. Donald M. Casey Jr., the
Company's former Chief Executive Officer, and Mr. Jorge Gomez, the
Company's former Chief Financial Officer, violated U.S. securities
laws by, among other things, making materially false and misleading
statements or omissions, including regarding the manner in which
the Company recognizes revenue tied to distributor rebate and
incentive programs.
Dentsply Sirona Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
various dental and oral health products, and other consumable
healthcare products primarily for the professional dental market
worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Technologies &
Equipment; and Consumables. The company was formerly known as
DENTSPLY International Inc. and changed its name to DENTSPLY
SIRONA
Inc. in February 2016. DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. was founded in 1899
and
is headquartered in York, Pennsylvania.
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Court OK's Final Settlement in Olivares Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona 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 3, 2023, that the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles approved the
final settlement in the Olivares purported class suit.
On January 25, 2018, Futuredontics, Inc., a former wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company, received service of a purported class
action lawsuit brought by Henry Olivares and other similarly
situated individuals in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles.
In January 2019, an amended complaint was filed adding another
named plaintiff, Rachael Clarke, and various claims. The plaintiff
class alleges several violations of the California wage and hours
laws, including, but not limited to, failure to provide rest and
meal breaks and the failure to pay overtime.
The parties have engaged in written and other discovery.
On February 5, 2019, Plaintiff Calethia Holt (represented by the
same counsel as Mr. Olivares and Ms. Clarke) filed a separate
representative action in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging a
single violation of the Private Attorneys’ General Act that is
based on the same underlying claims as the Olivares/Clarke lawsuit.
On April 5, 2019, Plaintiff Kendra Cato filed a similar action in
Los Angeles Superior Court alleging a single violation of the
Private Attorneys’ General Act that is based on the same
underlying claims as the Olivares/Clarke lawsuit.
The Company has agreed to resolve all three actions (Olivares,
Holt, and Cato).
The court in Cato approved the settlement in that case, the
settlement payment has been made, and the court dismissed the
lawsuit.
The parties have also reached a settlement in the Olivares and Holt
class action, which is immaterial to the financial statements of
the Company.
The final settlement amount has been approved by the Court and was
paid by the Company in the first quarter of 2023.
Dentsply Sirona Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
various dental and oral health products, and other consumable
healthcare products primarily for the professional dental market
worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Technologies &
Equipment; and Consumables. The company was formerly known as
DENTSPLY International Inc. and changed its name to DENTSPLY
SIRONA
Inc. in February 2016. DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. was founded in 1899
and
is headquartered in York, Pennsylvania.
DENTSPLY SIRONA: No Appeals Filed on Securities Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona 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 3, 2023, that the plaintiffs did not
appeal the State Court Action dismissal with prejudice on
limitations grounds statute.
On June 7, 2018, and August 9, 2018, two putative class action
suits were filed, and later consolidated, in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of New York claiming that the Company
and certain individual defendants, violated U.S. securities laws
(the "State Court Action") by making material misrepresentations
and omitting required information in the December 4, 2015
registration statement filed with the SEC in connection with the
2016 merger of Sirona Dental Systems Inc. ("Sirona") with DENTSPLY
International Inc. (the "Merger").
The amended complaint alleges that the defendants failed to
disclose, among other things, that a distributor had purchased
excessive inventory of legacy Sirona products and that three
distributors of the Company's products had been engaging in
anticompetitive conduct.
The plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of a class of
former Sirona shareholders who exchanged their shares for shares of
the Company's stock in the Merger.
On September 26, 2019, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss all claims and a judgment dismissing the case was
subsequently entered.
On February 4, 2020, the Court denied plaintiffs' post-judgment
motion to vacate or modify the judgment and to grant them leave to
amend their complaint.
The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal and the denial of the
post-judgment motion to the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
Appellate Division, First Department, and the Company
cross-appealed select rulings in the Court's decision dismissing
the action.
The plaintiffs' appeals and the Company's cross-appeal were
consolidated and argued on January 12, 2021.
On February 2, 2021, the Appellate Division issued its decision
upholding the dismissal of the State Court Action with prejudice on
statute of limitations grounds.
The Plaintiffs did not appeal the Appellate Division decision.
Dentsply Sirona Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
various dental and oral health products, and other consumable
healthcare products primarily for the professional dental market
worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Technologies &
Equipment; and Consumables. The company was formerly known as
DENTSPLY International Inc. and changed its name to DENTSPLY
SIRONA
Inc. in February 2016. DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. was founded in 1899
and
is headquartered in York, Pennsylvania.
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Ohio Securities Class Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona 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 3, 2023, that the securities
putative class suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio was transferred to the Southern District
of New York.
On June 2, 2022, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio captioned City of Miami General Employees' &
Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust v. Casey, Jr. et al., No.
2:22-cv-02371 (S.D. Ohio. The complaint alleges that, during the
period from June 9, 2021 through May 9, 2022, the Company, Mr.
Donald M. Casey Jr., the Company's former Chief Executive Officer,
and Mr. Jorge Gomez, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer,
violated U.S. securities laws by, among other things, making
materially false and misleading statements or omissions, including
regarding the manner in which the Company recognizes revenue tied
to distributor rebate and incentive programs.
On March 27, 2023, the Court in the Southern District of Ohio
ordered the transfer of the putative class action to the Southern
District of New York.
Dentsply Sirona Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
various dental and oral health products, and other consumable
healthcare products primarily for the professional dental market
worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Technologies &
Equipment; and Consumables. The company was formerly known as
DENTSPLY International Inc. and changed its name to DENTSPLY
SIRONA
Inc. in February 2016. DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. was founded in 1899
and
is headquartered in York, Pennsylvania.
DISH NETWORK: Continues to Defend Cybersecurity Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dish Network Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the cybersecurity securities class suit in
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
On March 23, 2023, a securities fraud class action complaint was
filed against the Company and Messrs. Ergen, Carlson and Orban in
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
The complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of its securities during the February 22, 2021 to
February 27, 2023 class period.
In general, the complaint alleges that DISH Network’s public
statements during that period were false and misleading and
contained material omissions, because they did not disclose that
the Company allegedly maintained a deficient cyber-security and
information technology infrastructure, were unable to properly
secure customer data and its operations were susceptible to
widespread service outages.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this case.
Dish Network Corp. is a television service providers, with more
than 13 million subscribers. It operates an aggressive contact
schedule which bombards unsuspecting consumers, with whom it has no
relationship with prerecorded messages.
DJGN LLC: Court OKs Rule 23 Class Certification in Benjamin Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARETH BENJAMIN, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. DJGN
LLC, et al., d/b/a TONY’S STEAKS & SEAFOOD, Case No.
1:22-cv-00166-TSB (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Timothy S. Black
entered an order:
1. Granting Rule 23 Class Certification for settlement purposes;
2. Preliminarily approving Rule 23 class action settlement; and
3. Approving settlement of FLSA claims.
Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 23(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Court preliminarily certifies for settlement
purposes only, the following proposed Rule 23 Classes:
-- the Rule 23 Ohio Class:
"All current and former Servers of the Defendant DJGN LLC at
its
Cincinnati, Ohio restaurant who worked as a Server at any time
from March 30, 2019 through July 1, 2022;"
-- the Rule 23 Kentucky Class:
"All current and former Servers of the Defendant DJGN
Lexington,
LLC at its Lexington, Kentucky restaurant who worked as a
Server
at any time from March 3, 2017, to July 1, 2022;" and
-- the Rule 23 Indiana Class:
"All current and former Servers of the Defendant DJGN Indy,
LLC
at its Indianapolis, Indiana restaurant who worked as a Server
at
any time from April 4, 2020, to July 1, 2022."
A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3B219in at no extra charge.[CC]
DRIVER PROVIDER: Renewed Class Cert Bid Must be Filed Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kelli Salazar, et al., v.
Driver Provider Phoenix LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-05760-SMB (D.
Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Susan M. Brnovich entered an order that the
Plaintiffs' motion is granted and Exhibits 2-4 and 9-12 to the May
2, 2023 Declaration of Michael Licata in Support of the Plaintiffs'
Reply to Renewed Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification of Claims
Under the Arizona Wage Act may be filed under seal.
Driver Provider offers chauffeured transportation and tours in
sedans, SUVs, limousines, sprinters and coaches.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/429zDvo at no extra charge.[CC]
DTLR INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Beckley Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
GEOFFERY BECKLEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DTLR, INC., Defendant, Case
2:23-cv-00587-NJ (E.D. Wis., May 10, 2023) seeks to recover from
the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Beckley was employed by the Defendant as a staff.
DTLR, INC. manufactures apparel. The Company offers footwear,
apparel, and accessories. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
ELON MUSK: Twitter Investor Group Named as Lead in Pampena Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants the Twitter Investor Group's motion
for appointment as lead plaintiff and appoints Bottini & Bottini,
Inc., and Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, as lead counsel in the
lawsuit styled GIUSEPPE PAMPENA, Plaintiff v. ELON MUSK, Defendant,
Case No. 22-cv-05937-CRB (N.D. Cal.).
Before the Court are dueling motions to appoint lead plaintiff and
lead counsel in this action under the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"). Mohammed Samara moves for appointment
as lead plaintiff and seeks appointment of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann
& Bernstein, LLP, as lead counsel. Brian Belgrave, Steve Garrett,
John Garrett, and Nancy Price (together, the "Twitter Investor
Group" or "Group") also move for appointment as lead plaintiff and
seek appointment of Bottini & Bottini, Inc., and Cotchett, Pitre &
McCarthy, LLP, as lead counsel.
Defendant Elon Musk--CEO of Tesla, Inc., and founder of SpaceX--is
a "prolific user of Twitter" with over 90 million followers.
In the class action complaint, Plaintiff Giuseppe Pampena alleges
that after agreeing to purchase Twitter, Inc., Musk made "false
statements," engaged in "market manipulation" to lower the
company's valuation, and failed to file a timely Form 13G after his
ownership of Twitter shares exceeded 5%. Moreover, Musk's eventual
Form 13G was "materially misleading" because it failed to disclose
his intent to join the Twitter Board and his potential purchase of
the company.
After Tesla shares--which Musk used to finance his purchase of
Twitter--"cratered by almost 30%," Musk made allegedly misleading
statements to manipulate the market, including tweeting about the
presence of fake accounts on Twitter. The Plaintiff alleges that
Musk's conduct "substantially harmed Twitter's shareholders by
causing many Twitter stockholders to sell at depressed prices."
When Musk later announced that he would buy Twitter at the original
price, the company's stock price increased substantially. The
Plaintiff brings this action under Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act on behalf of a class "consisting of all those who sold the
publicly traded securities of Twitter during the Class Period,"
which is between May 13, 2022, and Oct. 4, 2022.
On Dec. 12, 2022, Samara and the Twitter Investor Group filed
competing motions to appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel.
Because the PSLRA does not specify how to calculate the "largest
financial interest," courts determine which movant has the most to
gain from the lawsuit through "accounting methods that are both
rational and consistently applied."
The applicants propose competing methods. Samara advocates for the
"recoverable loss" method, where financial interest is calculated
by "multiplying the number of sold shares by the difference between
(a) the Class Period purchase price and the sales price, or (b) if
purchased before the Class Period, $54.20 (the Twitter Buyout
price) and the sales price." Using this method, Samara argues that
he suffered the largest loss at $146,956.90.
Meanwhile, the Twitter Investor Group advocates for the "shares
sold" method, where the financial interest is simply the total
number of shares sold by the lead plaintiff applicants; the movant
which sold the most shares has the largest financial interest. The
Group argues that under the shares sold method, it suffered the
largest loss because its members sold 28,389 shares during the
class period, whereas Samara sold 7,035 shares.
In the end, Judge Breyer says, the Court need not decide which
method is more appropriate here, because under either method, the
Group has the largest financial interest.
First, using the shares-sold method advocated by the Group, the
Twitter Investor Group has the largest financial interest because
it sold 28,3893 shares. Second, under the recoverable loss method
advocated by Samara, the Twitter Investor Group still has the
largest financial interest. Even if the Court accepts Samara's
calculations and arguments at face value, the recoverable losses
for Belgrave and Steve Garrett alone are $232,232--more than
Samara's recoverable loss of $146,956.90. Accordingly, the Twitter
Investor Group has the largest financial interest even under
Samara's proposed recoverable loss method.
Because under either proposed calculation the Twitter Investor
Group has the largest financial interest, the Group is presumed to
be the "most adequate" plaintiff, Judge Breyer holds. The Court
also finds that the Twitter Investor Group has met the Rule 23(a)
requirements for appointment as lead plaintiff.
The Group seeks appointment of Bottini & Bottini and Cotchett
Pitre, which are firms experienced in class action securities
litigation.
Mr. Samara argues that these firms are inadequate because they are
co-counsel representing a different putative class of Twitter
investors in a parallel class action in this District against
Defendant Musk, Twitter, and related entities, based on the same
alleged misconduct in this case (Heresniak v. Musk, No.
22-cv-03074-CRB (N.D. Cal.)). The Group points out, Samara's
argument is "without proof" that the parallel actions here would
similarly conflict, or that Musk has insufficient assets to satisfy
liability to the classes in both cases.
Accordingly, Judge Breyer holds that there is no evidence that
Bottini & Bottini and Cotchett Pitre have a conflict of interest
that would support a finding of inadequacy.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Twitter Investor Group's
motion, denies Samara's motion, and appoints Bottini & Bottini,
Inc., and Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, as lead counsel in this
action.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 24, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/nhf6b8sy from Leagle.com.
EMPIRE KOSHER: Fails to Pay Production Workers' OT Wages Under PMWA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MELVIN VAZQUEZ NAZARIO, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. EMPIRE KOSHER POULTRY, INC., Case No. 230501142 (Pa.
Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., May 10, 2023) seeks to recover
overtime wages for time associated with various required activities
arising before employees begin to be paid at the beginning of their
shifts and after employees stop being paid at the end of the
shifts, in violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.
In or around April 2020, following the outbreak of COVID-19, Empire
implemented a COVID screening process. As part of the COVID
Screening Process, employees needed to wait in line, undergo their
temperature and symptom screening, and walk to the time clock. All
such time was uncompensated. Accordingly, the COVID Screening
Process was not implemented for the convenience of the Production
Workers, the Plaintiff claims.
Empire allegedly failed to pay the Plaintiff and other Production
Workers for the pre- and post-shift time. The Plaintiff contends
that all such time qualifies as compensable "Hours Worked" as
defined in the PMWA regulations and the associated decisional law.
The Plaintiff worked for Empire as a Production Worker in Empire's
Mifflintown poultry processing and packaging plant from 2003
through May 2022.
Empire processes and packages poultry products at its poultry
processing plant located in Mifflintown, Pennsylvania and sells its
poultry products across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
Krysten Connon, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (267) 256-9973
E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com
kconnon@llrlaw.com
- and -
Marielle Macher, Esq.
DeJonna Bates, Esq.
COMMUNITY JUSTICE PROJECT
118 Locust Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Telephone: (717) 236-9486, ext. 214
E-mail: mmacher@cjplaw.org
dbates@cjplaw.org
- and -
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
Deirdre Aaron, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Telephone: (215) 884-2491
E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
daaron@winebrakelaw.com
EURO METALSMITHS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Garay Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR EDUARDO CALDERON GARAY, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EURO METALSMITHS,
INC.; and VINCENT D'ANGELO, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-03451
(E.D.N.Y. May 8, 2023) is an action against the Defendants' failure
to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Plaintiff Garay was employed by the Defendants as a staff.
EURO METALSMITHS, INC. specializes in designing and building custom
railings, gates, spiral staircases, and other metal products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
Email: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com
EVERLY WELL: Faces Toth Suit Over Food Sensitivity Tests' False Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Toth, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated consumers v. Everly Well, Inc. and Everly Health, Inc.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-11043 (D. Mass., May 10, 2023) alleges that the
Defendants manufacture and sell what they falsely and misleadingly
label and market as a medically beneficial "Food Sensitivity"
test.
The Plaintiff contends that consumers across the country pay a
hefty price for this Test in two ways: (1) paying over a hundred
dollars per Test and (2) providing valuable personal information,
including medical information from blood samples.
The Defendants advertise to consumers that they can use their
"physician-approved," "Clinical Laboratory Improvement
Amendments-certified" Tests to determine their Immunoglobulin G
(IgG) Antibody Reactivity to different foods. These claims are
designed to mislead consumers into purchasing a Test Kit and
provide Private Consumer Data under the mistaken belief that the
Test can provide helpful information when in fact the Test is not
medically approved, cannot identify adverse food sensitivities, has
no health benefit or diagnostic value, and can even be detrimental
to consumers’ health. The Test Kits thus do not provide anything
of value to a reasonable consumer and are
Worthless, the Plaintiff alleges.
The Defendants also use the Tests to covertly collect and use
consumers' personal information, including Private Consumer Data,
without paying consumers for this privilege. The Defendants do not
adequately disclose to consumers that the Defendants will require
them to agree to additional terms and conditions after the point of
sale via a registration process in order to receive the actual
advertised benefit, i.e., the test results.
Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this consumer class action
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
consumers to redress the false and misleading, as well as deceptive
and unfair trade practices, acts, and omissions employed by the
Defendants in the marketing and sale of their Everlywell Food
Sensitivity Test Kits, the suit contends.
In July 2022, the Plaintiff purchased the 96-food version of the
Everlywell Food Sensitivity Test Kit from Target's website for
$119.99, based on Defendants' representations and omissions about
the Test Kit, including that it was able to do the very thing for
which it was named, i.e., identify food sensitivities, via a
medically-accepted method.
Everly develops, markets, distributes, and sells products that
purport to be for the purpose of providing health diagnostics to
consumers, typically under the "Everlywell" brand name.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gemma Seidita, Esq.
Anna C. Haac, Esq.
Kristen G. Simplicio, Esq.
Leora N. Friedman, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: gseidita@tzlegal.com
ahaac@tzlegal.com
ksimplicio@tzlegal.com
lfriedman@tzlegal.com
- and -
Alan M. Feldman, Esq.
Edward S. Goldis, Esq.
Zachary Arbitman, Esq.
FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER
TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP
1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 567-8300
Facsimile: (215) 567-8333
E-mail: afeldman@feldmanshepherd.com
egoldis@feldmanshepherd.com
zarbitman@feldmanshepherd.com
EXCEL RESIDENTIAL: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Juarez Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ROCIO JUAREZ, on behalf of the state of California, and others
similarly situated and aggrieved, Plaintiff v. EXCEL RESIDENTIAL
SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV10049 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., May 4, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations
of the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee
with a job title of janitor or a similar title through in or around
April 2022. He worked for Defendants out of a couple of Defendants'
locations/properties including but not limited to two of
Defendants’ apartment buildings in Los Angeles, CA. He regularly
worked at least eight hours per day, at least five days per week.
However, the Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and
aggrieved employees for all hours worked, resulting in the
underpayment of minimum and overtime wages. The Defendants failed
to compensate Plaintiff and aggrieved employees for all hours
worked by virtue of, Defendants' automatic deduction and time
rounding policies, and failure to relieve employees of all
duties/employer control during unpaid meal periods or otherwise
unlawful practices for missed or improper meal periods, says the
suit.
Excel Residential Services, Inc., is a California Corporation which
owns, operates, or otherwise manages a property management company
with over 112 properties, including but not limited to multi-family
real estate properties in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
Jamie Serb, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, PC
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (866) 276-7637
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
E-mail: zach@crosnerlegal.com
jamie@crosnerlegal.com
EXP REALTY: Faces Usanovic TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
KELLY USANOVIC, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EXP REALTY, LLC, a Washington limited liability
company, Case No. 2:23-cv-00687-JCC (W.D. Wash., May 10, 2023)
contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise,
in part, by making unsolicited calls to wireless phone users, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
On February 14, 2023 at 8:00 AM, Plaintiff Usanovic received an
unsolicited call from an EXP agent, from the phone number
725-712-0471. This call was not answered, and no voicemail was
left. The Plaintiff received 5 more back-to-back calls from
725-712-0471 at 8:01 AM on February 14, 2023. None of these calls
were answered. The caller ID displayed the name "Igor Li," who is
an EXP real estate agent working in Nevada, as per EXP's website.
A few minutes later on February 14, 2023 at 8:11 AM, Plaintiff
Usanovic received another unsolicited call from an EXP agent, this
time from phone number 702-680-8376. The Plaintiff Usanovic
answered this call and immediately hung up.
On February 14, 2023 at 8:18 AM, Plaintiff Usanovic received
another unsolicited call from an EXP agent displaying the name "Ali
Shahrokhi," this time from phone number 702-714-1974.
Despite two clear stop requests, Plaintiff Usanovic received two
additional unsolicited calls to her cell phone from an EXP agent on
February 17, 2023, from the phone number 702-460-9741 at 10:25 AM
and then again at 11:00 AM from the same phone number.
Plaintiff Usanovic brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated and seek
certification of the following Class:
-- Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in the United States
who from four years prior to the filing of this action
through class certification (1) one or more eXp real estate
agents called more than one time in the aggregate, (2) within
any 12-month period, (3) where the person’s residential
telephone number had been listed on the National Do Not Call
Registry for at least thirty days, (4) for substantially the
same reason eXp's real estate agents called Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff is the subscriber of a cell phone number ending in
6113. The Plaintiff's cell phone number was registered on the DNC
on June 25, 2005. Plaintiff Usanovic had a property listed for sale
on the MLS using a real estate agent that is not affiliated with
EXP. The Plaintiff has been working with this same real estate
agent since 2014 and has had no desire to work with any other
realtor.
EXP is a real estate brokerage.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric R. Draluck, Esq.
DRALUCK LAW
271 Winslow Way E., Suite 11647
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Telephone: (206) 605-1424
E-mail: eric@dralucklaw.com
- and -
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
- and -
Stefan Coleman, Esq.
COLEMAN PLLC
66 West Flagler Street, Suite 900
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (877) 333-9427
Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com
FCA US: Court Allows Fisher to File 1st Amended Complaint by May 22
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as BRIAN FISHER, et al., Plaintiffs v. FCA
US LLC, Defendant, Case No. 23-cv-10426 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Matthew
F. Leitman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, issued an order granting the
Plaintiffs leave to file a first amended complaint by May 22,
2023.
On Feb 17, 2023, Plaintiffs Brian Fisher, Eric Lee, Jerry
Vanderberg, and Rachel Walkowicz filed this putative class action
against FCA US LLC. The Plaintiffs' claims arise from an alleged
defect in vehicles manufactured by FCA and purchased or leased by
the Plaintiffs. On April 21, 2023, FCA filed a motion to dismiss
this action, arguing that the Plaintiffs' Complaint should be
dismissed for lack of standing and for failure to state a plausible
claim for relief.
Without expressing any view regarding the merits of the motion to
dismiss, the Court grants the Plaintiffs the opportunity to file a
First Amended Complaint in order to remedy the alleged deficiencies
in its allegations identified in FCA's motion to dismiss. The Court
does not anticipate allowing the Plaintiffs another opportunity to
amend to add factual allegations that it could now include in its
First Amended Complaint. Simply put, this is the Plaintiffs'
opportunity to amend its allegations to cure the alleged
deficiencies in its claims.
Judge Leitman orders that the Plaintiffs' deadline to file a notice
on the docket in this action notifying the Court and FCA whether
they will amend the Complaint was May 8, 2023. If the Plaintiffs
provide notice that they will be filing a First Amended Complaint,
they will file that amended pleading by no later than May 22, 2023.
If the Plaintiffs provide notice that they will not be filing a
First Amended Complaint, they will respond to the motion to dismiss
by no later than May 22, 2023.
Finally, if the Plaintiffs provide notice that they will be filing
a First Amended Complaint, the Court will terminate without
prejudice FCA's currently-pending motion to dismiss as moot. FCA
may re-file a motion to dismiss directed at the First Amended
Complaint if it believes that such a motion is appropriate after
reviewing that pleading.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 24, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p846e7x from Leagle.com.
FLEXSTEEL INDUSTRIES: Settles ERISA Class Suit for $1.3MM
---------------------------------------------------------
Flaxsteel Industries 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 3, 2023, that the Company paid $1.3
million in ERISA class suit for the nine months ending March 31,
2023.
On March 22, 2021, the Company received notice of a class action
lawsuit filed against Flexsteel Industries, Inc., and J.K. Dittmer
and D.P. Schmidt as individuals, by a number of employees who had
worked at the Dubuque Operations and Starkville plants prior to the
closure of the locations due to the impact of COVID-19 on the
business at that period of time.
The allegations with the claim include failure to pay employee
benefits as required by an ERISA-governed severance plan, failure
of J.K. Dittmer and D.P. Schmidt to act with respect to the
ERISA-governed severance plan, and failure to provide 60-days'
notice or the equivalent amount of pay to the employees required by
the WARN Act when the Company closed the Dubuque and Starkville
locations.
The parties participated in a lengthy mediation and on December 3,
2021, agreed to resolve the matter for $1.3 million.
The matter was dismissed with prejudice on September 1, 2022. The
Company paid $1.3 million during the nine months ended March 31,
2023.
Flexsteel Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries is a manufacturer,
importer, and marketer of furniture products based in Iowa.
FLORIDA HEALTH: District Court Refuses to Dismiss Carlsen Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William F. Jung of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Tampa Division, denies the Plaintiff's motion
for voluntary dismissal and declines to dismiss, without prejudice,
the lawsuit captioned COLIN CARLSEN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLORIDA HEALTH SCIENCES
CENTER INC., d/b/a Tampa General Hospital, Defendant, Case No.
8:23-cv-559-WFJ-JSS (M.D. Fla.).
Before the Court is Plaintiff Colin Carlsen's Motion for Voluntary
Dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).
Defendant Florida Health Sciences Center Inc., d/b/a Tampa General
Hospital ("TGH"), has responded in opposition. Mr. Carlsen has not
replied.
The instant putative class action arises from TGH's alleged
disclosure of patient health information to Meta Platforms, Inc.
Mr. Carlsen claims that TGH conspired with Meta to intercept data
communications containing personally identifiable information,
protected health information, and related confidential information
without consent or authorization. He brings this action
individually and on behalf of all natural persons in the State of
Florida whose personal information was collected through a data
gathering process.
Social media platforms earn a significant source of revenue from
targeted advertising. Facebook, a social media platform owned by
Meta, is no exception. Less clear, however, is how social media
platforms like Facebook enable advertisers to effectively target
their intended audiences.
Mr. Carlsen claims that Facebook does so by surveilling "user
activity both on and off its site" to gather personal data. While
on-site surveillance presumably involves Facebook gathering data
from its own platform(s), off-site surveillance allegedly involves
advertisers gathering data from their platforms and sharing it with
Facebook by: (a) manually uploading contact information for
customers, or (b) utilizing Facebook's "Business Tools." The
Complaint focuses on TGH's alleged use of the latter data sharing
method.
The Plaintiff asserts that whenever patients searched their
treatment or condition on TGH's website, www.tgh.org, or whenever
patients scheduled an appointment on the Website, TGH procured
Facebook to intercept communications that contain protected health
information. And, each time TGH sent this content, it also
disclosed a patient's personally identifiable information. Mr.
Carlsen claims that he, and all similarly situated potential class
members, never consented, agreed, or otherwise permitted TGH to
disclose such information.
On Jan. 27, 2023, Mr. Carlsen brought a putative class action
complaint against TGH in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida. His
complaint alleges one count -- violation of the Florida Security of
Communications Act ("FSCA"). He seeks to represent "all natural
persons in the State of Florida whose personal information was
collected through the Facebook Tracking Pixel."
On March 13, 2023, TGH removed Mr. Carlsen's case to this Court
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C
Section 1332(d)(2). TGH moved to dismiss Mr. Carlsen's Complaint
one week later. On March 27, 2023, however, only one week after
filing its Motion to Dismiss, TGH answered Mr. Carlsen's Complaint
and brought forth 15 affirmative defenses.
Judge Jung notes that the purpose of TGH's maneuvering became
apparent in the following days when Mr. Carlsen filed the instant
Motion for Voluntary Dismissal seeking a dismissal without
prejudice. TGH filed its response in opposition on April 7, 2023.
TGH avers that voluntary dismissal would allow Mr. Carlsen to
deprive TGH of its substantial CAFA-based right of removal and
defeat federal jurisdiction under CAFA by utilizing an otherwise
impermissible means of post-removal complaint amendment. TGH also
maintains that, if Mr. Carlsen were to succeed, it would fly in the
face of Congress's express intent under CAFA to prevent plaintiffs
from pleading their way out of federal court.
The instant dispute turns on whether CAFA indirectly requires the
denial of Mr. Carlsen's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal where TGH
removed Mr. Carlsen's action from state court under CAFA
subject-matter jurisdiction. For the reasons explained here, the
Court finds that it does.
The removability of Mr. Carlsen's action is based on whether his
substantive allegations give rise to federal jurisdiction under
CAFA, Judge Jung says. It follows that, if jurisdiction exists,
TGH's right to removal may be substantial.
As the record stands, Judge Jung finds that jurisdiction exists. He
explains that TGH has met its threshold burden of satisfying the
requirements under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2)(A)-(C), (d)(5)(B).
The possible applicability of a CAFA jurisdictional exception does
not change the Court's analysis at this stage. While the Court
"shall decline" to exercise CAFA jurisdiction over a minimal
diversity class action, Judge Jung opines that the record is wholly
undeveloped on this point. Accordingly, the Court cannot negate
TGH's removal rights at this point.
Noncontrolling caselaw also supports the notion that TGH currently
possesses a substantial right to removal, Judge Jung says. Thus,
given that jurisdiction currently exists here, the Court can only
determine that TGH currently has a substantial right of removal
under CAFA.
The Court now turns to whether TGH would lose this substantial
right in the event that Mr. Carlsen were granted voluntary
dismissal without prejudice. There is little doubt that TGH would,
Judge Jung says.
Mr. Carlsen essentially admits that he seeks voluntary dismissal in
order to replead his Complaint so as to defeat federal
jurisdiction, Judge Jung notes. The Court finds that granting
voluntary dismissal would result in TGH irrevocably losing a
substantial right. If Mr. Carlsen wishes to ensure exclusive state
court jurisdiction, Judge Jung points out that he must file a
motion to remand and carry his burden of demonstrating a CAFA
exception.
After weighing the relevant equities, the Court finds that
voluntary dismissal without prejudice is inappropriate. Mr. Carlsen
may file for remand.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 24, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5n6vcb6f from Leagle.com.
GARDEN GROVE: June 12 Extension for Class Cert Bid Filing Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VINCE BURKLUND, as an
individual on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. GARDEN GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a
California public school district; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case
No. 8:22-cv-01132-DOC-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Parties request that the
Court continue the proposed class certification schedule:
Current Proposed
Date Date
-- Deadline to file Motion for May 12, 2023 June 12,
2023
Class Certification:
-- Deadline to file Opposition May 29, 2023 June 28,
2023
to Motion for Class
Certification:
-- Deadline to file Reply to June 6, 2023 July 6,
2023
Opposition to Motion for
Class Certification:
-- Hearing for Motion for June 12, 2023 July 17,
2023
Class Certification:
-- The Parties have agreed to a Belaire West notice mailing in
order
for the Plaintiff to acquire the class contact information. As
of
the date of this ex-parte application, the Parties are still
meeting and conferring over the notice content and obtaining
bids
from multiple third-party administrators. Without this
mailing,
the Plaintiff cannot acquire the class contact information to
interview class members and obtain their declarations in
support
if his motion for class certification.
-- The Plaintiff noticed the deposition of the Defendant's Rule
30(b)(6) witness(es) for May 4, 2023. the Defendant was
unavailable to attend the deposition on this date and the
Parties
are continuing to meet and confer over available dates for
this
deposition. the Plaintiff requires this testimony to support
his
motion for class certification.
-- The Parties scheduled mediation for April 19, 2023 with Judge
Buckley, but the Defendant was unable to attend mediation at
that
time and the mediation was cancelled.
On January 31, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Ex Parte
Application for an Order Continuing the Existing Class
Certification Schedule.
On February 1, 2023, the Court entered the Order Granting the
Plaintiff's Notice of Ex Parte Application Continuing the Existing
Class Certification Schedule, with the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification to be filed no later than May 12, 2023.
On February 8, 2023, the Parties met and conferred via phone call
wherein the Plaintiff's counsel proposed entering into a protective
order to acquire the class contact information.
Garden Grove is a public school district in Orange County,
California.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HQaSw5 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sepideh Ardestani, Esq.
Jamie Serb, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, PC
9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 496-5818
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
E-mail: jamie@crosnerlegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Hailey Oberst, Esq.
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA,
RUUD & ROMO
12800 Center Court Drive, Suite 300
Cerritos, CA 90703-9364
Telephone: (562) 653-3200
Facsimile: (562) 653-3333
GENENTECH INC: Plaintiffs Seek to Compel Class Cert Responses
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tulsa Cancer Institute,
PLLC et al., v. Genentech, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00157-TCK-JFJ
(N.D. Okla.), the Plaintiffs seek to compel the Defendant's
responses to plaintiffs' first set of discovery requests regarding
class certification.
Genentech is obligated to respond to the Plaintiffs'
class-certification discovery. Genentech's reliance on its
preemption document production will not excuse its obligation to
respond to class
discovery. Its Phase I discovery responses do not answer the
Plaintiffs' Phase II discovery requests.
Genentech's refusal to produce centralized communications prevents
the Plaintiffs from identifying the sales representatives, account
managers, and others who used centralized messaging to communicate
with class members.
The Plaintiffs served their class-certification discovery requests
on September 21, 2022. Genentech responded on October 31, 2022.
Through its responses, Genentech refused to produce additional
documents during Phase II.
The parties participated in meet-and-confer calls on January 6 and
February 13, 2023. After those conversations, Genentech produced 10
spreadsheets and agreed to produce marketing materials that it
provided to the FDA.
The Plaintiffs ask this Court to enter an order compelling
production of responsive Genentech documents or responsive answers
from Genentech, as the current state of its responses are
deficient.
Genentech manufactures, markets and/or distributes more than 48
drugs in the United States.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 4, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HPu4Kq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John D. Russell, Esq.
Steven J. Adams, Esq.
Amelia A. Fogleman, Esq.
Adam C. Doverspike, Esq.
Barrett L. Powers, Esq.
Amy M. Stipe, Esq.
GABLEGOTWALS
110 N. Elgin Avenue, Suite 200
Tulsa, OK 74120
Telephone: (918) 595-4800
Facsimile: (918) 595-4990
E-mail: jrussell@gablelaw.com
sadams@gablelaw.com
afogleman@gablelaw.com
adoverspike@gablelaw.com
bpowers@gablelaw.com
astipe@gablelaw.com
GEORGE WASHINGTON: Class Certification Bid Must Be Filed Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAFFER v. GEORGE
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01145 (D.D.C., Filed May 1,
2020), the Hon. Judge Richard J. Leon entered an order sealed
motion for leave to file document under seal.
-- The unredacted Motion for Class Certification and Appointment
Class Counsel with Statement of Points and Authorities, and
Exhibits 1, 7, 13, and 15 in support of the same, shall be
filed
under seal.
The nature of suit states diversity-contract dispute.
George Washington University is a private institution that was
founded in 1821.[CC]
GILEAD SCIENCES: Antitrust Class Suit Trial Set for May 2023
------------------------------------------------------------
Gilead Sciences 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 3, 2023, that the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California scheduled trial for
antitrust class suit in May 2023.
The Company, along with Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (“BMS”)
and Johnson & Johnson, Inc., have been named as defendants in class
action lawsuits filed in 2019 and 2020 related to various drugs
used to treat HIV, including drugs used in combination
antiretroviral therapy.
Plaintiffs allege that the Company (and the other defendants)
engaged in various conduct to restrain competition in violation of
federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection
laws.
The lawsuits, which have been consolidated, are pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.
The lawsuits seek to bring claims on behalf of direct purchasers
consisting largely of wholesalers and indirect or end-payor
purchasers, including health insurers and individual patients.
Plaintiffs seek damages, permanent injunctive relief and other
relief.
In the second half of 2021 and first half of 2022, several
plaintiffs filed separate lawsuits effectively opting out of the
class action cases, asserting claims that are substantively the
same as the putative classes.
These cases have been coordinated with the class actions.
Trial has been set for May 2023.
Gilead Sciences is an American biopharmaceutical company
headquartered in Foster City, California, that focuses on
researching and developing antiviral drugs used in the treatment
of
HIV/AIDS, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, influenza, and COVID-19,
including ledipasvir/sofosbuvir and sofosbuvir.
GILEAD SCIENCES: Continues to Defend Jacksonville Trust Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gilead Sciences 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 3, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Jacksonville Trust class suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.
In September 2020, the Company, along with generic manufacturers
Cipla and Cipla USA Inc. (together, "Cipla Defendants"), were named
as defendants in a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California by Jacksonville
Police Officers and Fire Fighters Health Insurance Trust
("Jacksonville Trust") on behalf of end-payor purchasers.
Jacksonville Trust claims that the 2014 settlement agreement
between the Company and the Cipla Defendants, which settled a
patent dispute relating to patents covering our Emtriva, Truvada
and Atripla products and permitted generic entry prior to patent
expiry, violates certain federal and state antitrust and consumer
protection laws.
The Plaintiff seeks damages, permanent injunctive relief and other
relief.
The Company believes the case is without merit and it cannot
predict the ultimate outcome.
Gilead Sciences is an American biopharmaceutical company
headquartered in Foster City, California, that focuses on
researching and developing antiviral drugs used in the treatment
of
HIV/AIDS, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, influenza, and COVID-19,
including ledipasvir/sofosbuvir and sofosbuvir.
GREEN WALL TECH: Miramontes Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS MIRAMONTES, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GREEN WALL TECH, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
23CV032508 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 4, 2023) arises out of the
Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code and the
California Business and Professions Code.
Plaintiff Carlos Miramontes was employed by Defendants as a
non-exempt hourly employee at Defendants' facilities and offices in
California. Allegedly, the Defendants required Plaintiff to perform
work while remaining under Defendants' control before and after
being on the clock for their daily work shift. The Defendants thus
failed to pay Plaintiff for all hours worked, and provided them
with inaccurate wage statements that prevented Plaintiff from
learning of these unlawful pay practices. The Defendants also
failed to provide Plaintiff with lawful meal and rest periods, says
the suit.
Greenwall Tech, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal
executive office in Fremont, California. It maintains and operates
company offices and facilities in Alameda County. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Yeremian, Esq.
Roman Shkodnik, Esq.
YEREMIAN LAW
2540 Foothill Blvd., Suite 201
La Crescenta, CA 91214
Telephone: (818) 230-8380
Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com
roman@yeremianlaw.com
HAIN CELESTIAL: Anderberg Must File Class Cert Bid by Jan. 12, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HEIDI ANDERBERG,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. THE
HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, Case No. 3:21-cv-01794-RBM-NLS (S.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Nita L. Stormes entered a scheduling order
regulating discovery and
class certification motion filing deadline as follows:
1. Any motion to join other parties, to July 24, 2023
amend the pleadings, or to file
additional pleadings must be filed by:
2. Fact and class discovery are not Nov. 3, 2023
bifurcated but class discovery must be
completed by all parties by:
3. The Plaintiff must file a motion for Jan. 12, 2024
class certification by:
Hain Celestial is an American food company whose main focus is
natural foods and botanically-based personal care products.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nLOBIZ at no extra charge.[CC]
HANESBRANDS INC: Continues to Defend Ransomware Class Suit in Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hanesbrands 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 3, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from ransomware-related class suit in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
The Company is named in two pending lawsuits in connection with its
previously disclosed ransomware incident.
On October 7, 2022, a putative class action, entitled Roman v.
Hanes Brands [sic], Inc., was filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.
The lawsuit alleges, among other things, negligence, negligence per
se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unfair business
practices under the California Business and Professions Code, and
violations of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information
Act in connection with the ransomware incident.
On October 13, 2022, another putative class action, entitled
Toussaint v. HanesBrands,[sic] Inc., was filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
The lawsuit alleges, among other things, negligence, negligence per
se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, and unjust
enrichment in connection with the ransomware incident.
The pending lawsuits seek, among other things, monetary and
injunctive relief.
The lawsuits have been consolidated in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, and Plaintiffs
have been granted leave to file a consolidated complaint.
Plaintiff Roman also filed a second putative class action with
regard to the ransomware incident in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on January 16,
2023, entitled Roman v. Hanesbrands,[sic] Inc., which was
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on January 20, 2023.
The Company is vigorously defending the remaining pending matters
and believes the cases are without merit
HANESBRANDS, INC. manufactures apparels and clothing products. The
Company produces underwear, t-shirts, sport shirts, socks, bras,
thermals, sweatshirts, sleepwear, and shoes for men, women, and
children. [BN]
HATCH BANK: Wilson Files Suit in S.D. California
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hatch Bank. The case
is styled as Amber Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Hatch Bank, Case No. 3:23-cv-00813-BEN-DDL
(S.D. Cal., May 4, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Property Damage.
Hatch -- https://hatchbank.com/ -- is a digital-first bank
improving how people save, spend, borrow, and send money by
creating strategic relationships with fintech businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kyle Douglas McLean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 376-3739
Email: kmclean@sirillp.com
HBT FINANCIAL: $13MM PLB Investment Suit Settlement for Court Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HBT Financial 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 3, 2023, that the $13 million
settlement in PLB Investments class suit is subject to the approval
of the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.
PLB Investments LLC, John Kuehner, and A.S. Palmer Investments LLC
v. Heartland Bank and Trust Company and PNC Bank N.A., In the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Case No. 1:20-cv-1023 ("Class Action"); Melanie E. Damian, As
Receiver of Today's Growth Consultant, Inc. (dba The Income Store)
v. Heartland Bank and Trust Company and PNC Bank N.A., In the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Case No. 1:20-cv-7819 ("Receiver's Action")
The Bank was a defendant in the purported Class Action lawsuit that
was filed on February 12, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs in the Class Action
alleged that the Bank negligently enabled and facilitated a
fraudulent, Ponzi-like scheme perpetrated by Today's Growth
Consultant, Inc. (dba The Income Store) ("TGC").
Additionally, the Receiver for TGC filed the Receiver's Action on
December 30, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, with similar allegations.
On February 20, 2023, the Bank reached an agreement in principle to
settle both the Class Action and Receiver's Action in which the
Bank would make one-time cash payments totaling $13.0 million,
without admitting fault, to release the Bank from further liability
and claims in both the Class Action and Receiver's Action.
Pursuant to the agreement in principle, the parties would settle
and dismiss the Class Action and Receiver's Action and seek the
entry of bar orders from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (the "Court") prohibiting any continued or
future claims against the Bank and its related parties relating to
the Class Action and the Receiver's Action, whether asserted to
date or not. If definitive settlement agreements, including the bar
orders described in the preceding sentence, are approved by the
Court and are not subject to appeal, the Bank will make one-time
cash payments totaling $13.0 million.
The agreement in principle is subject to the execution and delivery
of definitive settlement agreements reflecting the terms of the
agreement in principle, notice to TGC's investor claimants and
final, non-appealable approvals by the Court.
Heartland Bank and Trust Company is a community bank and
subsidiary
of financial holding company Heartland Financial Inc., whose
principal office is located in Bloomington, Illinois.
HC SALON: Faces Haque Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------
AISHA HAQUE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HC Salon VA, LLC D/B/A HAIR CUTTERY,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-013293 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial,
Broward Cty., May 4, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's violation
of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
Allegedly, the Defendant utilized computer software system that
automatically selected and/or dialed Plaintiff's and the class
members' telephone numbers. In addition, the Plaintiff never signed
any type of authorization permitting or allowing the placement of a
telephonic sales call by text message using an automated system for
the selection and dialing of telephone numbers. Since July 1, 2021,
Defendant sent at least 50 text message solicitations to as many
consumers in Florida, says the suit.
HC Salon VA, LLC maintains its primary place of business and
headquarters in Mc Lean, VA. The company owns and operates a salon
chain in the US. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy S. Dover, Esq.
DEMESMIN & DOVER PLLC
1650 17th Street, Suite 100
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (866) 954-6673
Facsimile: (954) 916-8499
E-mail: SPAM-Pleadings@attorneysoftheinjured.com
Jdover@attorneysoftheinjured.com
HEARST TELEVISION: Saunders Balks at Disclosed Video Viewers' Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELE SAUNDERS and RICHARD HAYDEN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HEARST TELEVISION,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-10998 (D. Mass., May 5, 2023) is
a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Video
Privacy Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has secretly reported to
third parties, Braze and Google, all key data regarding the video
viewing habits of the visitors of its mobile applications for the
purpose of marketing, advertising, and analytics. When a visitor
watches a video on its mobile applications, the Defendant transmits
the visitor's personally identifiable information (PII) and video
viewing habits to third parties without consent. The Plaintiffs
seek damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from
the Defendant's violations of the VPPA, says the suit.
Hearst Television, Inc. is a broadcasting company headquartered in
New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq.
REARDON SCANLON LLP
45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 955-9455
Facsimile: (860) 920-5242
E-mail: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com
- and -
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
- and -
Christopher R. Reilly, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 679-9006
E-mail: creilly@bursor.com
ICONIC GROUP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Culley Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
JASMINE CULLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ICONIC GROUP, INC. d/b/a GRADIMAGES,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-013372 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., May 8,
2023) seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited
calls.
ICONIC GROUP, INC. d/b/a GRADIMAGES is a provider of professional
event photography services. [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-Pleasing@attorneysoftheinjured.com
Jdover@attorneysoftheinjured.com
INNOFOODS USA: Plaintiff Must File 2nd Amended Complaint by June 1
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROL WALCOFF, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. INNOFOODS USA,
INC., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-01485-MMA-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Anello entered an order granting defendants' motion to
dismiss.
The Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint on or before June
1, 2023. Any second amended complaint will be the operative
pleading, and therefore the Defendants must respond within the time
prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
Any claim not re-alleged in the second amended complaint will be
considered waived.
In addition, the Plaintiff is cautioned that any future filings not
compliant with Civil Local Rules 5.1 and 7.1(h) will be stricken.
The Court finds that the Plaintiff has not pleaded any plausible
claims based on misrepresentations under the applicable consumer
protection laws cited above. Because the Plaintiff has failed to
overcome this preliminary hurdle, the Court declines to address any
of the Plaintiff's remaining arguments.
In this putative class action, the Plaintiff Walcoff alleges that
Costco misleadingly label and market certain snack products as
"keto" and "keto-friendly," when, in fact, they are high in
carbohydrates and added sugars—ingredients which could easily
thwart someone adhering to a ketogenic diet.
On December 12, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' FAC in its entirety pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Plaintiff filed an opposition,
Doc. No. 12, to which the Defendants replied.
The Plaintiff began purchasing the Defendant Inno Foods in August
2018 from the Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation at several of
its locations, including in Carlsbad, California.
The Plaintiff initiated this action on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated for: Violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law; Violation of California's False Advertising
Law (FAL); Violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act;
Unjust Enrichment; Breach of Express Warranty; Violations of the
Consumer Fraud Laws of various other states; and Negligent
Misrepresentation.
InnoFoods is a manufacturing company that produces and distributes
confectionery snacks and organic dark chocolate.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41fyWPV at no extra charge.[CC]
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY: Hankerson Sues Over Unsolicited Texts
------------------------------------------------------------
EBONY HANKERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Innovative Technology Electronics LLC D/B/A
Victrola, Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-013294 (Fla. Cir., 17th
Judicial, Broward Cty., May 4, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's
violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
Beginning on or about February 2023, the Defendant began spamming
Plaintiff with unsolicited texts to Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number. In addition, the Defendant made/allowed the telephonic
sales texts to Plaintiff to be made utilizing an automated system
for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers. Prior to
initiating its telemarketing calls and/or texts, the Defendant, was
required to, however, never obtained prior express written
consent/invitation from Plaintiff and the Class members, says the
suit.
Innovative Technology Electronics LLC maintains its primary place
of business and headquarters in Wilmington, Delaware. The company
directs, markets, and provides business activities throughout the
State of Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy Dover, Esq.
DEMESMIN & PLLC
1650 SE 17th Street, Suite 100
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (866) 954-6673
Facsimile: (954) 916-8499
E-mail: SPAM-Pleadings@attomeysoftheinjured.com
Jdover@attorneysoftheinjured.com
INSTRUCTURE HOLDINGS: Time to Appeal OLERS Suit Dismissal Expired
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Instructure Holdings 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 3, 2023, that the time for
plaintiff's to appeal the OLERS class suit dismissal order of the
Delaware Court of Chancery has expired.
On January 26, 2023, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint
in full and the time to appeal has expired.
In February 2021, Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System and Q.
Wade Billings filed a class action lawsuit in the Delaware Court of
Chancery against Instructure Holdings, LLC, certain Thoma Bravo
entities and certain directors and officers of Instructure
Holdings, LLC relating to the Take Private Transaction.
The complaint alleged that such directors and officers breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the Take Private
Transaction, and that Instructure Holdings, LLC and Thoma Bravo
aided and abetted such breaches.
Plaintiffs sought damages of an unidentified amount, interest, and
attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses.
On January 26, 2023, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint
in full and the time to appeal has expired.
Instructure Holdings Inc. (NYSE: INST) provides cloud-based
learning, assessment, development, and engagement systems
worldwide. It offers Canvas Learning Management System that
includes assessments, analytics, and learning content for K-12 and
higher education institutions. The company also provides Bridge
product, which comprises a learning management system and
performance platform that helps employees and managers transform
their organization through connection, alignment, and growth.
Instructure Holdings, Inc. is headquartered in Salt Lake City,
Utah.
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Continues to Defend Consumer Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Interactive Brokers Group 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 8, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the consumer class suit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut.
On December 18, 2015, a former individual customer filed a
purported class action complaint against IB LLC, IBG, Inc., and
Thomas Frank, Ph.D., the Company's Executive Vice President and
Chief Information Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut. The complaint alleges that a purported
class of IB LLC's customers were harmed by alleged "flaws" in the
computerized system used to close out (i.e., liquidate) positions
in customer brokerage accounts that have margin deficiencies.
The complaint seeks, among other things, undefined compensatory
damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.
On September 28, 2016, the District Court issued an order granting
the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, and
without providing plaintiff leave to amend.
On September 28, 2017, the plaintiff appealed to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
On September 26, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal
of plaintiff’s claims of breach of contract and commercially
unreasonable liquidation but vacated and remanded back to the
District Court plaintiff’s claims for negligence.
On November 30, 2018, the plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the new complaint on January
11, 2019, which was denied on September 30, 2019.
On December 9, 2019, the Company filed a motion requesting that the
District Court certify to the Connecticut Supreme Court two
questions of Connecticut law directly relevant to the motion to
dismiss.
The Court denied the Company's motion to certify on May 15, 2020.
The plaintiff served a motion for class certification on March 18,
2022.
The motion is now fully briefed.
The Court has not yet set a date for oral argument.
On March 25, 2022, the plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to
amend his complaint, which was granted on July 5, 2022.
The plaintiff filed his third amended complaint on July 14, 2022.
The Company's answer was filed on July 26, 2022.
The Company does not believe that a purported class action is
appropriate given the great differences in portfolios, markets and
many other circumstances surrounding the liquidation of any
particular customer's margin-deficient account. IB LLC and the
related defendants intend to continue to defend themselves
vigorously against the case and, consistent with past practice in
connection with this type of unwarranted action, any potential
claims for counsel fees and expenses incurred in defending the case
may be fully pursued against the plaintiff.
Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. operates as an automated
electronic broker worldwide. It specializes in executing and
clearing trades in securities, futures, foreign exchange
instruments, bonds, and mutual funds. Interactive Brokers Group,
Inc. was founded in 1977 and is headquartered in Greenwich,
Connecticut.
IT'S JUST LUNCH: Seeks to File Docs Under Seal in Vrugtman Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSANNE VRUGTMAN, TAMMY
GILLINGWATER, and NICOLE KRUZICK, individually, and for all others
similarly situated, v. IT’S JUST LUNCH INTERNATIONAL LLC, IJL US
LLC, IJL CANADA INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-02352-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.),
the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order allowing them to
file under seal the following documents, which contain sensitive
private personal information of consumers that was conveyed in
confidence to the Defendants as part of the Defendants' dating
service:
1. Unredacted Exhibit J, to Declaration of Matthew K. Wegner in
support of the Defendants' Opposition to the Plaintiffs'
Motion
for Class Certification.
2. Unredacted Exhibit K, to Wegner Decl., and
3. Unredacted Exhibit L, to Wegner Decl.
It's Just Lunch provides online dating services.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 4, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3M7bmAA at no extra
charge.[CC]
JAMES RIVER: Continues to Defend Forth Worth Employees' Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
James River Group Holdings Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Fort Worth Employees'
Retirement Fund class suit in the U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of Virginia.
On July 9, 2021 a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (the "Court") by
Employees' Retirement Fund of the City of Fort Worth against James
River Group Holdings, Ltd. and certain of its present and former
officers (together, "Defendants").
On September 22, 2021, the Court entered an order appointing
Employees' Retirement Fund of the City of Fort Worth and the City
of Miami General Employees' and Sanitation Employees' Retirement
Trust as co-lead plaintiffs (together, "Plaintiffs").
Plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint was filed on November
19, 2021 (the "First Amended Complaint"). The Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on January 18, 2022,
Plaintiffs' opposition thereto was filed on March 4, 2022, and the
Defendants' reply to the Plaintiffs' opposition was filed on April
4, 2022.
On August 25, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
second amended class action complaint (the "Second Amended
Complaint").
On September 8, 2022, the Defendants consented to the Plaintiffs'
motion to file the Second Amended Complaint, and filed a motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on October 24, 2022 (the
"Second MTD").
The Plaintiffs' opposition to the Second MTD was filed on November
7, 2022, and the Defendant's reply to the Plaintiffs' opposition
was filed on November 14, 2022.
The First Amended Complaint and Second Amended Complaint assert
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities
that purchased the Company's stock between February 22, 2019 and
October 25, 2021, and allege that Defendants failed to make
appropriate disclosures concerning the adequacy of reserves for
policies that covered Rasier LLC, a subsidiary of Uber
Technologies, Inc., and seek unspecified damages, costs,
attorneys’ fees and such other relief as the court may deem
proper.
The Company believes that the Plaintiffs' claims are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit.
James River Group Holdings, Ltd. is a Bermuda-based holding
company. The company owns and operates a group of specialty
insurance and reinsurance companies with the objective of
generating compelling returns on tangible equity while limiting
underwriting and investment volatility.
JANUS HENDERSON: Continues to Defend Schissler Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Janus Henderson Group PLC 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 Schissler class suit in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado.
On September 9, 2022, a class action complaint, captioned Schissler
v. Janus Henderson US (Holdings) Inc., et al., was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Named as
defendants are Janus Henderson US (Holdings) Inc. ("Janus US
Holdings") and the Advisory Committee to the Janus 401(k) and
Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("Plan").
The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of participants and beneficiaries of the Plan that
invested in Janus Henderson funds on or after September 9, 2016.
On January 10, 2023, in response to defendants' motion to dismiss
filed on November 23, 2022, an amended complaint was filed against
the same defendants.
The amended complaint names two additional plaintiffs, Karly Sissel
and Derrick Hittson.
As amended, the complaint alleges that for the period September 9,
2016, through September 9, 2022, among other things, defendants
breached fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence by (i) selecting
higher-cost Janus Henderson funds over less expensive investment
options; (ii) retaining Janus Henderson funds despite their alleged
underperformance; and (iii) failing to consider actively managed
funds outside of Janus Henderson to add as investment options.
The amended complaint also alleges that Janus US Holdings failed to
monitor the Advisory Committee with respect to the foregoing.
The amended complaint seeks various declaratory, equitable and
monetary relief in unspecified amounts.
On February 9, 2023, defendants filed an amended motion to dismiss
the amended complaint.
On March 13, 2023, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the amended
motion to dismiss.
Defendants filed their reply to plaintiffs' opposition on March 28,
2023.
A ruling on the amended motion to dismiss is pending.
Janus US Holdings believes the claims asserted in the amended
complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
against these claims.
Janus Henderson Group PLC is an independent global asset manager,
specializing in active investment across all major asset classes
based in London, United Kingdom.
JIM JUSTICE: Plaintiffs Must File New Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN R., et al., v.
JIM JUSTICE, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00710 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon.
Judge Joseph Goodwin entered an order directing the Plaintiffs to
file a new motion for class certification, if they still desire to
move for certification, within 14 days from the entry of this
Order.
-- The motion must be accompanied by a supporting memorandum that
complies with the page limitation articulated in the local
rules
of procedure. Additionally, the Plaintiffs' motion, if they
choose
to file one, should consider the current status of the case
when
defining proposed classes. Response and reply memoranda shall
be
filed in accordance with the time limitations set forth in the
local rules.
-- The court directs the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to
counsel of record and any unrepresented party.
On January 13, 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part
the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' Complaint. The
Order dismissed all of the substantive due process claims asserted
by the proposed ADA and Aging Out Subclasses and nearly all of the
claims made by the proposed Kinship Subclass.
The court also dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims under the First,
Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
and their claims under the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare
Act. Most of the substantive due process claims asserted by the
General Class and one claim made by the Kinship Subclass remain
pending, as do the ADA Subclass’s claims under the Americans with
Disabilities and Rehabilitation Acts.
The court did not address class certification in its Order, and the
Plaintiffs' certification motion is now nearly three years old.
On September 2, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class
Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel.
Prior to ruling on the class certification motion, the court
granted the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the Plaintiffs'
Complaint based on mootness and the Younger abstention doctrine and
directed the Clerk to remove this matter from the docket, thereby
closing the case.
The Plaintiffs appealed the court's judgment to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. On July 20, 2022, the
Fourth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the
case, instructing this court to "consider West Virginia's
substantive arguments for dismissal and, if appropriate, the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification."
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3B1HMpO at no extra charge.[CC]
JOHN'S SHANGHAI: Filing for Class Cert Bid Continued Until June 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JIAN ZHONG XUE and RAYMOND
CHOW, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. JOHN'S SHANGHAI, LLC, d/b/a JOHN'S SHANGHAI and YUN
XUE, a/k/a DANNY XUE, a/k/a DAVID XUE, Case No. 4:21-cv-01203-MWB
(M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Matthew W. Brann entered an order that
the deadlines for filing any dispositive motions and any motions
for class certification are continued until June 2, 2023.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44AszcX at no extra charge.[CC]
JP MORGAN CHASE: Rehearing on Settlement Approval Sought
--------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 two merchants in the
interchange fees class suit filed rehearing of Appellate Court's
approval of the settlement in interchange fees class suit.
Groups of merchants and retail associations filed a series of class
action complaints alleging that Visa and Mastercard, as well as
certain banks, conspired to set the price of credit and debit card
interchange fees and enacted related rules in violation of
antitrust laws.
In 2012, the parties initially settled the cases for a cash
payment, but that settlement was reversed on appeal and remanded to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.
The original class action was divided into two separate actions,
one seeking primarily monetary relief and the other seeking
primarily injunctive relief.
In September 2018, the parties to the monetary class action
finalized an agreement which amends and supersedes the prior
settlement agreement.
Pursuant to this settlement, the defendants collectively
contributed an additional $900 million to the approximately $5.3
billion previously held in escrow from the original settlement.
In December 2019, the amended settlement agreement was approved by
the District Court.
In March 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed the District Court's approval of the settlement,
and two merchants have filed petitions for rehearing of the
Appellate Court's approval.
JPMorgan & Chase is a financial services company in the United
States.[BN]
JPD INVESTMENTS: Maldonado et al. Sue Over Labor Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
ZOILA DELEON MALDONADO, JUAN JOSE PEREZ, and HENRY PEREZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. JPD INVESTMENTS, LLC, BAYBROOK VENTURES, LLC, LOUETTA
PINES LETTUCE, LLC, LEAGUE CITY HOLDINGS, LLC, KINGWOOD LETTUCE,
LLC, PASADENA VENTURES, LLC, and JOHN PAUL DAVID, Defendants, Case
No. 4:23-cv-01672 (S.D. Tex., May 4, 2023) arises out of the
Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs have each worked for Defendants and engaged in
various tasks intended to serve customers, including, but not
limited to, working at the counter taking orders, preparing orders,
providing customers information, operating the cash register,
preparing food, organizing food and materials, making deliveries to
customers, and supporting other work performed to assist in
customer service. They received tips from customers as a gratuity
in recognition of their service. However, the Defendants allegedly
did not properly keep the tips from Plaintiffs. Instead, the
Defendants used the tips to pay for business expenses and operating
expenses. In addition, the Defendants improperly divided Plaintiffs
compensable hours between different locations to minimize overtime
compensation, says the suit.
JPD Investments, LLC is a domestic corporation incorporated in
Texas, maintaining its principal place of business in Texas, and
doing business within this judicial district. JPD Investments, LLC
operates as a "Salata" restaurant located in Houston, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mauro Ramirez, Esq.
RAMIREZ LAW, PLLC
1980 Post Oak Blvd. Suite 100
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 955-3480
Facsimile: (281) 768-3610
E-mail: mauro@ramirezpllc.com
JPMORGAN CHASE: Fails to Refund Stolen Funds, Glavin Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
MELINDA GLAVIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. D/B/A CHASE BANK,
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., AND EARLY WARNING SERVICES, LLC D/B/A
ZELLEPAY.COM, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01708 (E.D. Pa., May 4,
2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations of the Electronic
Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E in connection of an unauthorized
and fraudulent fund transfer, negligence, breach of warranty as
well as violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law.
Plaintiff Glavin is a victim of fraudulent activity targeting
customers of Chase in connection with the Zelle mobile application,
resulting in $6,500 being debited from her checking account without
her authorization. Ms. Glavin's Chase account was debited $6,500 in
June 2022 through her Zelle application, which was linked to her
Chase checking account. Chase initially provisionally refunded the
stolen amount from Ms. Glavin's account, but after a brief
investigation, Chase reversed its initial decision and refused to
refund any of the $6,500 in stolen funds because it claimed that
the fraudulent payments "came from her phone." Moeover, Ms. Glavin
asserts that the Defendants violated the EFTA and Regulation E for
failing to refund Ms. Galvin's unauthorized fraudulent
transactions.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., d/b/a Chase Bank, constitutes the
consumer and commercial banking subsidiary of the US multinational
banking and financial services holding company, JP Morgan Chase &
Co.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James C. Shah, Esq.
Alec J. Berin, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (866) 540-5505
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: jcshah@millershah.com
ajberin@millershah.com
- and -
Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
Amber L. Schubert, Esq.
Lila M. Garlinghouse, Esq.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
2001 Union Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94123
Telephone: (415) 788-4220
Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
E-mail: rschubert@sjk.law
aschubert@sjk.law
lgarlinghouse@sjk.law
KAISER FOUNDATION: Discloses Patients' Sensitive Info, Doe Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., KAISER
FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, and THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-02207 (N.D. Cal., May 5, 2023) arises
out of the Defendants' violations of the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, and the California Invasion of Privacy
Act.
According to the complaint, Kaiser Permanente has installed code
from multiple third parties throughout the Kaiser Permanente
website that allows third-party companies such as Quantum Metric,
Twitter, Adobe, Bing, and Google to intercept the content of
Plaintiff and Class Members' patient status, identifying
information, medical topics researched, choices made, information
shared and communications with their medical providers, including
personally identifiable medical information and other confidential
information and communications, when that information is in
transit.
Kaiser Permanente's disclosures to Bing, Google, and Twitter occur
because Kaiser Permanente intentionally deploys Bing, Google, and
Twitter code on its website, and that code commandeers Kaiser Plan
Members' web-browsers and causes personally identifiable patient
data, as well as the contents of communications exchanged between
Kaiser Permanente and its patients, to be redirected and sent to
Bing, Google, and Twitter, says the suit.
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. is a health care provider
headquartered in Oakland, CA. It has an integrated care model,
offering both hospital and physician care through a network of
hospitals and physician practices operating under the Kaiser
Permanente name. [BN]
The Plaintiff represented by:
Jennifer L. Joost, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 400-3000
Facsimile: (415) 400-3001
E-mail: jjoost@ktmc.com
- and –
Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
Melissa L. Yeates, Esq.
Tyler S. Graden, Esq.
Jordan E. Jacobson, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
myeates@ktmc.com
tgraden@ktmc.com
jjacobson@ktmc.com
KATHLEEN HOCHUL: H.A. Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as H.A., by her guardians
L.A. and S.A., and L.A. and S.A., individually, et al., on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. KATHLEEN C.
HOCHUL, in her official capacity as Governor of the State of New
York, and KERRI E. NEIFELD, as Acting Commissioner, New York State
Office of People with Developmental Disabilities, Case No.
1:16-cv-00735-LJV-JJM (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting certification of case as class action.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 3, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44GuOeW at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bruce A. Goldstein, Esq.
Alexander J. Douglas, Esq.
KENNEY SHELTON LIPTAK NOWAK LLP
The Calumet Building
233 Franklin Street
Buffalo, NY 14202
Telephone: (716) 853-3801
KELLOGG COMPANY: Faces Lozano Suit Over Mislabeled Breakfast Bars
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEANA LOZANO, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KELLOGG COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-03481-FMO-AGR (C.D. Cal., May 8, 2023) alleges that the
Defendant formulates, manufactures, and sells a mislabeled
breakfast bars in multiple flavors under the brand name
"NutriGrain."
According to the complaint, the front label, or "principal display
panel", of the Products, both the box and the individually wrapped
items contained therein, prominently state they are "Naturally
Flavored with Other Natural Flavors". These natural flavoring
claims are false. The Products are flavored using an artificial
flavoring, DL malic acid, that is derived from petrochemicals. The
Defendant uses the petrochemical-derived DL malic acid in its
Products to create a sweet and tart flavor but pretends otherwise,
conflating natural and artificial flavorings, misbranding the
Products and deceiving consumers, says the suit.
Due of its alleged deceptive and false labelling statements, the
Defendant was enabled to charge a premium for the Products relative
to key competitors' products, or relative to the average price
charged in the marketplace.
KELLOGG COMPANY manufactures and markets ready-to-eat cereal and
other convenience foods. The Company's products include cereals,
cookies, crackers, toaster pastries, cereal bars, fruit snacks,
frozen waffles, and veggie foods. Kellogg markets its products in
the United States, Canada, and other countries throughout the
world. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles C. Weller, Esq.
CHARLES C. WELLER, APC
11412 Corley Court
San Diego, CA 92126
Telephone: (858) 414-7465
Facsimile: (858) 300-5137
KINKISHARYO INT'L: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Set for May 22
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOE ARMENDARIZ,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
KINKISHARYO INTERNATIONAL, LLC a limited liability company; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-08757-JAK-KS (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an order regarding
continuation of class
certification deadlines as follows:
Event Current Date Amended
Date
Deadline to file Opposition to April 20, 2023 May 15,
2023
Motion for Class Certification
Deadline to file Reply in Support May 11, 2023 May 22,
2023
of Motion for Class Certification
Hearing on Motion for Class May 11, 2023 May 22,
2023
Certification
Deadline to Participate in Closed Oct. 24,
2023
Mediation
Kinkisharyo delivers a full range of customized and
customer-focused products and services including overhaul,
maintenance, and repair work.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NJUy3V at no extra charge.[CC]
KRAFT HEINZ: Prelim. Settlement Deal Reached in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
James River Group Holdings Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the fiscal period ending April 1, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2023, that the parties
involved in the consolidated securities class suit reached
preliminary settlement agreement in February 2023.
The Kraft Heinz Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors are currently defendants in a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Union Asset
Management Holding AG, et al. v. The Kraft Heinz Company, et al.
The consolidated amended class action complaint, which was filed on
August 14, 2020 and also names 3G Capital, Inc. and several of its
subsidiaries and affiliates (the "3G Entities") as defendants,
asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on allegedly materially false
or misleading statements and omissions in public statements, press
releases, investor presentations, earnings calls, Company
documents, and SEC filings regarding the Company's business,
financial results, and internal controls, and further alleges the
3G Entities engaged in insider trading and misappropriated the
Company's material, non-public information.
In February 2023, the parties to the litigation reached a
preliminary settlement agreement.
The Kraft Heinz Company is into canned, frozen and & preserved
fruit, vegetables & food specialties based in Pennsylvania.
LEAD ANALYTICS: Seeks Dismissal of Claims in Williams Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Lead Analytics 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 3, 2023, that the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the claims of plaintiff Loretta Williams on April
13, 2023.
On June 27, 2022, Plaintiff Loretta Williams brought a putative
class action against Lead Intelligence, Inc. d/b/a Jornaya in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, titled Williams v. DDR Media, LLC and Lead
Intelligence, Inc. d/b/a Jornaya, Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-03789.
The Complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the California
Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code 631 ("CIPA") and invaded
Plaintiff's and class members' privacy rights when Defendants
purportedly recorded visitors' visits to the scrappyrent2 own.com
website without prior express consent.
It is further alleged that this conduct constitutes a violation of
the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. Prof. Code Section
17200 et seq. and the California Constitution.
The Complaint seeks class certification, injunctive relief,
statutory damages in the amount of $5,000 for each violation,
attorneys fees and other litigation costs. The Company’s motion
to compel arbitration was fully briefed as of January 27, 2023.
It was denied on February 28, 2023.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims on April
13, 2023.
At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the
liability related to this matter, as the case is still in its early
stages.
Lead Analytics wiretapping and recording software into
third-party websites and, unbeknownst to the consumers, who visit
these websites, uses the software it has installed to
surreptitiously record the confidential communications of the
websites' visitors, including California residents, who visit
these
websites from within California.[BN]
LINDT & SPRUNGLI: Dark Chocolate Has Heavy Metals, Tettenhorst Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
James Tettenhorst, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Lindt & Sprungli (USA), Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-03552-NGG-MMH (D.N.H., May 17, 2023) alleges that the
Defendant fails to disclose on the Products' packaging and labeling
the material fact that the Defendant's Lindt dark chocolate
products contain lead and cadmium.
The Defendant's products include Lindt Excellence Dark Chocolate
70% Cocoa and Lindt Excellence Dark Chocolate 85% Cocoa.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's advertising and
marketing campaign for the Products, including the packaging and
labeling of the Products, is false, deceptive, and misleading
because it does not disclose the high levels of lead and cadmium in
the Products. The presence of high levels of lead and cadmium in
food products is obviously material to reasonable consumers because
these chemicals, even in small dosages, pose serious health risks.
Additionally, the lead and cadmium levels in the Products could not
be known by consumers before purchasing them and may not be
determined without extensive and expensive scientific testing.
Furthermore, the Defendant claims that its "premium chocolate
products are safe, as well as delightful." Lindt specifically
claims regarding its "commitment to food safety," says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class Members overpaid for the Products based on
Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions. The Defendant's
conduct violated and continues to violate, inter alia, Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 Illinois
Compiled Statutes (ILCS), and Nevada Trade Regulation and Practices
Act, Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). The Defendant also breached and
continues to breach its implied warranty of merchantability
regarding the Products, the lawsuit alleges.
The Plaintiff purchased and consumed the Products multiple times
during the Class Period in Illinois and in Nevada. The Plaintiff
also fed the Products to his two daughters. Prior to purchasing the
Products, the Plaintiff read the Products' packaging and labeling.
Lindt & Sprungli sells chocolate products, which are available at
retail stores and online throughout Illinois, Nevada, and the rest
of the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roger Phillips, Esq.
PHILLIPS LAW OFFICE
104 Pleasant Street
Concord NH 03301
Telephone: (603) 225-2767
Facsimile: (603) 226-3581
E-mail: roger@phillipslawoffice.com
- and -
Edward F. Haber, Esq.
Michelle H. Blauner, Esq.
Ian J. McLoughlin, Esq.
Patrick J. Vallely, Esq.
Nicole E. Dill, Esq.
SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
One Boston Place, Suite 2600
Boston, MA 02108
Telephone: (617) 439-3939
Facsimile: (617) 439-0134
E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com
mblauner@shulaw.com
imcloughlin@shulaw.com
pvallely@shulaw.com
ndill@shulaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey Gavenman, Esq.
Jeremy Schulman, Esq.
SCHULMAN BHATTACHARYA, LLC
6116 Executive Boulevard, Suite 425
North Bethesda, MD 20852
Telephone: (240) 356-8550
E-mail: jgavenman@schulmanbh.com
jschulman@schulmanbh.com
LLOYD AUSTIN: Crocker Class Action Dismissed
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FAITH N. CROCKER, ET AL.,
v. LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, ET AL., Case No. 5:22-cv-00757-SMH-MLH
(W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge S. Maurice Hicks, Jr. entered an order
granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss.
-- All claims filed by Starks are dismissed without prejudice.
The Court said, "It is clear that Starks did not exhaust all
available remedies. The Defendants point to both the AFDRB and
AFBCMR procedures, which would allow Starks to seek review of his
discharge yet were not pursued by Starks at all. Starks does not
contest that he failed to seek review of his discharge; rather, he
argues that this remedy is futile because of "the slow-moving,
bureaucratic boards" within the Air Force."
Starks alleges that the Defendants have made clear their total
rejection of vaccine refusers, and therefore, Starks does not need
to exhaust his administrative remedies.
However, the Court agrees with the Defendants that this is not a
case where "no genuine opportunity for adequate relief exists." In
fact, several avenues for relief exist, as highlighted by the
Defendants. Starks must pursue the various remedies within the Air
Force before bringing his claims to federal court; until then, this
Court agrees with the Defendants that Starks's claims are not
justiciable.
This case arises out of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate issued by the
United States Air Force in late 2021. The Plaintiffs are seven
members of the Air Force who sought religious accommodations
exempting them from the vaccine mandate.
The Plaintiffs allege that none of their accommodations have been
granted.
The Defendants first argue that Starks lacks standing to challenge
the Air Force's COVID-19 vaccination mandate because Starks is no
longer an active service member.
The Defendants explain that "Starks was discharged for erroneous
enlistment on June 23, 2022, because the Air Force discovered that
Starks had a disqualifying medical condition. " Rather than being
discharged for failure to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, the
Defendants argue that Starks was released from the Air Force under
the "erroneous enlistment" guidelines.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42ghjRr at no extra charge.[CC]
LOS ANGELES, CA: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 16
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMMY NEWMAN and ANTONIO
RINCON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-03467-CAS-PD (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Christina A. Snyder entered an order
regarding joint stipulation to amend scheduling order to continue
class certification briefing deadlines as follows:
Event Deadline
Last Day to file Motion for Class Oct. 16, 2023
Certification
Deadline to file Oppositions to Motion Nov. 13, 2023
for Class Certification
Deadline to file Reply papers in support Nov. 27, 2023
of Motion for Class Certification
Class Certification Hearing Dec. 11, 2023,
A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/429zfgq at no extra charge.[CC]
LUCID GROUP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucid Group 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 8, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the consolidated class suit in the Northern
District of California.
Beginning on April 18, 2021, two individual actions and two
putative class actions were filed in federal courts in Alabama,
California, New Jersey and Indiana, asserting claims under the
federal securities laws against the Company (f/k/a Churchill
Capital Corp IV), its wholly owned subsidiary, Atieva, Inc. ("Lucid
Motors"), and certain current and former officers and directors of
the Company, generally relating to the Merger.
On September 16, 2021, the plaintiff in the New Jersey action
voluntarily dismissed that lawsuit. The remaining actions were
ultimately transferred to the Northern District of California and
consolidated under the caption, In re CCIV / Lucid Motors
Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:21-cv-09323-YGR (the
"Consolidated Class Action"). On December 30, 2021, lead plaintiffs
in the Consolidated Class Action filed a revised amended
consolidated complaint (the "Complaint"), which asserts claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 on behalf of a putative class of shareholders who purchased
stock in CCIV between February 5, 2021 and February 22, 2021.
The Complaint names as defendants Lucid Motors and the Company's
chief executive officer, and generally alleges that, prior to the
public announcement of the Merger, defendants purportedly made
false or misleading statements regarding the expected start of
production for the Lucid Air and related matters. The Complaint
seeks certification of the action as a class action as well as
compensatory damages, interest thereon, and attorneys' fees and
expenses.
The Company moved to dismiss the Complaint on February 14, 2022 and
that motion was granted on January 11, 2023, with Plaintiffs being
provided the ability to seek leave to amend.
On January 30, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to Amend
which is currently pending before the court. The Company believes
that the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit and intends to
defend itself vigorously, but the Company cannot ensure that
defendants’ efforts to dismiss the Complaint will be successful
or that it will avoid liability in these matters.
Lucid Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: LCID) is an American electric vehicle
manufacturer headquartered in Newark, California. The company was
founded in 2007. Deliveries of the Dream Edition launch versions
were made available to the first group of 20 reservation holders
on
October 30, 2021.
MAXIMUS INC: Soape Sues Over Customer Service Reps' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH SOAPE, Individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. MAXIMUS, INC., Case No. 6:23-cv-00247-JCB (E.D. Tex.,
May 10, 2023) is a class action suit on Plaintiff's own behalf and
on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former
employees in the position of call center customer service
representative or any similarly situated position for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing and refusing to pay the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees' wages for all
hours worked including overtime wages.
According to the complaint, the uncompensated work time in question
constituted principal activities integral and indispensable to the
performance of Plaintiff's jobs as required by Maximus and
performed by the Plaintiff prior to, during and after the scheduled
shifts. The unpaid work time includes time spent booting-up
computers, initializing several software programs, performing
customer call backs, waiting for IT assistance, any human resource
requests, questions, request for time off/overtime, any job
promotional videos, supervisor chats, and reading or corresponding
with mandatory emails from Maximus as required by Maximus, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff and all those similarly situated were subject to
disciplinary action for not booting-up computers, initializing
several software programs, performing customer call backs, and
reading mandatory emails from Maximus prior to the beginning of the
shift, the suit claims.
The Plaintiff regularly and consistently worked more than 40 hours
per week with Maximus' knowledge and for which Maximus does not pay
the Plaintiff for such time, the lawsuit alleges. Ms. Soape was a
call center customer service representative employed by the
Defendant at its Athens, Texas call center.
Maximus Inc. is a Virginia corporation with its headquarters in
Reston, Virginia, which has and continues to operate call centers
in Athens, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq.
HOMMEL LAW FIRM PC
5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115
Tyler, Texas 75703
Telephone: (903) 596-7100
Facsimile: (903) 596-7100
MD 210 FOOD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Castro Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
SANTO CASTRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MD 210 FOOD CORP. d/b/a BRAVO SUPERMARKET;
and ANIBAL DIAZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-03865 (S.D.N.Y., May
9, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay
minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals, and provide
accurate wage statements.
Plaintiff Castro was employed by the Defendants as a stocker.
MD 210 FOOD CORP. owns and operates a supermarket known as Bravo
Supermarket, located at Bronx, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Louis Pechman, Esq.
Galen C. Baynes, Esq.
PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 583-9500
Email: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
baynes@pechmanlaw.com
MDL 2700: Plaintiffs Seek to Compel Class Cert Responses
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re: MDL 2700 Genentech Herceptin
(Trastuzumab) Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation
Case No. 4:16-md-02700-TCK-JFJ (N.D. Okla.), the Plaintiffs seek to
compel the Defendant's responses to plaintiffs' first set of
discovery requests regarding class certification.
Genentech is obligated to respond to the Plaintiffs'
class-certification discovery. Genentech's reliance on its
preemption document production will not excuse its obligation to
respond to class discovery. Its Phase I discovery responses do not
answer the Plaintiffs' Phase II discovery requests.
Genentech's refusal to produce centralized communications prevents
the Plaintiffs from identifying the sales representatives, account
managers, and others who used centralized messaging to communicate
with class members.
The Plaintiffs served their class-certification discovery requests
on September 21, 2022. Genentech responded on October 31, 2022.
Through its responses, Genentech refused to produce additional
documents during Phase II.
The parties participated in meet-and-confer calls on January 6 and
February 13, 2023. After those conversations, Genentech produced 10
spreadsheets and agreed to produce marketing materials that it
provided to the FDA.
The Plaintiffs ask this Court to enter an order compelling
production of responsive Genentech documents or responsive answers
from Genentech, as the current state of its responses are
deficient.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 4, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3B6OwCM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John D. Russell, Esq.
Steven J. Adams, Esq.
Amelia A. Fogleman, Esq.
Adam C. Doverspike, Esq.
Barrett L. Powers, Esq.
Amy M. Stipe, Esq.
GABLEGOTWALS
110 N. Elgin Avenue, Suite 200
Tulsa, OK 74120
Telephone: (918) 595-4800
Facsimile: (918) 595-4990
E-mail: jrussell@gablelaw.com
sadams@gablelaw.com
afogleman@gablelaw.com
adoverspike@gablelaw.com
bpowers@gablelaw.com
astipe@gablelaw.com
MDL 2843: Counsel to File Class Settlement Objections by July 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the multidistrict litigation styled IN RE: FACEBOOK, INC.
CONSUMER PRIVACY USER PROFILE LITIGATION, This document relates to:
ALL ACTIONS, Case No. 18-md-02843-VC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Vince
Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California orders the Lead Plaintiffs' counsel to file on the
docket a PDF that contains all the objections to class action
settlement by July 30, 2023.
The Court will transmit all objections to the parties' counsel.
Lead plaintiffs' counsel are ordered to redact any sensitive
information from the objections, such as addresses, phone numbers,
or private information about a Facebook user's account, and then
file a PDF that contains all the objections on the docket by July
30, 2023.
The names of objectors should not be redacted absent extraordinary
circumstances. The Court will confirm that all the objections are
filed on the docket.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 24, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/rhceka92 from Leagle.com.
MEDICREDIT INC: Bid to Dismiss Saggio Class Complaint Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON SAGGIO, v.
MEDICREDIT, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-01005-JAR (E.D. Mo.), the Hon.
Judge John Ross entered an order that denying the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the complaint or strike the Plaintiffs class
allegations.
While the Plaintiffs injury may be de minimus in extent, the nature
of the injury is the salient inquiry here, 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 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.
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)(l), Fed. R. Civ. P., arguing
that the Plaintiff suffered no injury in fact and therefore lacks
standing to sue.
MediCredit is a debt collection agency.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nBZ9ub at no extra charge.[CC]
MEDSTAR HEALTH: Sued Over Unlawful Disclosure of Patients' Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE I and JANE DOE I, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MEDSTAR HEALTH, INC. and CERNER
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01198-JMC (D. Md., May 5,
2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, the Maryland Wiretapping and Electronic
Surveillance Act, and the Maryland Confidentiality of Medical
Records Act, invasion of privacy, breach of contract, and trespass
to chattels.
The Defendants allegedly divulged patients' protected health
information to Google via Google's marketing systems known as
Google Analytics, Google Ads, and Google Display Ads when patients
exchange communications with MedStar on its online patient portal.
MedStar Health, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which owns and
operates numerous hospitals and health care providers in Maryland.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen G. Grygiel, Esq.
GRYGIEL LAW, LLC
127 Coventry Place
Clinton, NY 13323
E-mail: stephengrygiel22@gmail.com
- and -
Jason "Jay" Barnes, Esq.
Eric S. Johnson, Esq.
Jennifer Paulson, Esq.
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY
112 Madison Ave. 7th Floor
New York, NY 10016-7416
E-mail: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com
ejohnson@simmonsfirm.com
jpaulson@simmonsfirm.com
- and -
Amy C. Gunn, Esq.
Elizabeth S. Lenivy, Esq.
THE SIMON FIRM
800 Market St. Suite 1700
St. Louis, MO 63101
E-mail: agunn@simonlawpc.com
elenivy@simonlawpc.com
MICHAEL KORS: Binder Sues Over Deceptive Pricing Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------
DEMETRA BINDER; ANGELA WALDNER; and JENNIFER MCCALL, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
MICHAEL KORS (USA), INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-03941 (S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2023) is a class action
seeking monetary damages, restitution, and declaratory and
injunctive relief from the Defendant arising from its deceptive
business practice of advertising fictitious "original" prices and
corresponding phantom discounts on women's and men's apparel,
accessories, shoes, fragrance, and other items sold in its Michael
Kors outlet stores.
According to the complaint, aware of the intertwined connection
between consumers' buying decision processes and price, retailers
like the Defendant lure consumers with advertised discounts that
promise huge savings and high value. But the promised savings are
false and the product's value reflected in its price is incorrect
when the retailer inflates its prices due to advertised discounts
off of some higher, made-up "original" price that no one ever pays.
The Defendant has continually advertised false price discounts for
merchandise sold throughout its Michael Kors outlet stores, says
the suit.
MICHAEL KORS (USA), INC. designs and sells apparel, accessories,
and footwear. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Email: gary@lcllp.com
- and -
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
Scott G. Braden, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1350 Columbia Street, Ste. 603
San Diego, California 92101
Telephone: (619) 762-1910
Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
Email: todd@lcllp.com
scott@lcllp.com
MONTANA UNIVERSITY: Court Junks Cole Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHERINE COLE, BARBARA
KOOSTRA, MARY-ANN SONTAG BOWMAN, and RHONDIE VOORHEES, v. MONTANA
UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA–MISSOULA, and JOHN DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-50, Case No. 9:21-cv-00088-BMM (D. Mont.), the Hon.
Judge Brian Morris entered an order that:
1. The Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.
2. The Plaintiffs' motion to amend is granted as to Valerie
Theriot
and Kathleen Reeves. The motion is otherwise denied.
The Court's decision to allow the Plaintiffs to join Theriot does
not mean that the Plaintiffs may change or add legal claims.
Theriot has alleged facts that likely plead a theory of Title IX
discrimination that the Plaintiffs already have established.
The addition of Theriot's claims likewise does not translate into
permission to change or add novel legal claims or to seek further
amendment.
The proximity of Theriots allegations to the amendment deadline
represents the most significant determinant in the Court's exercise
of its discretion. The Court will view any future amendments with
significant caution.
The Court also cannot determine that the Plaintiffs' amendments as
to Theriot would prove futile at this stage. The parties
acknowledge that they have not yet completed discovery. the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend comes in advance of any renewed motion
for class certification.
The Court will not deem the amendment futile while the factual
record remains this undeveloped. The Court concludes that justice
requires allowing the Plaintiffs to amend their Complaint as to
Theriot.
The Plaintiffs Catherine Cole, Barbara Koostra, Mary-Ann Sontag
Bowman, Rhondie Voorhees, Courtney Babcock, Laura Berkhouse, Ruth
Ann Burgad, Jennifer Cooper, Cindy Ferguson, Frieda Houser, Sherrie
Lindbo, Jennifer McNulty, Kathleen Reeves, Vida Wilkinson, and two
Jane Does filed this action alleging breach of contract claims and
claims under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, against
the Montana University System (MUS) and the University of Montana
(UM).
The Court granted the Defendants' motion to deny class
certification and denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification on October 3, 2022.
The Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint on January 6, 2023,
in which they seek to add Jackie Hedtke and Laura John as
plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs are women suing the Defendants for violation of
Title IX and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing
relating to their employment contracts. The Plaintiffs allege
generally that the Defendants discriminated against them on the
basis of sex in violation of Title IX.
The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants breached the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing contained within each the
Plaintiff's employment contract with the Defendants.
Montana University is comprised of sixteen public universities and
colleges, enrolling more than 40,000 students each semester.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44IeREI at no extra charge.[CC]
NATIONSBENEFITS LLC: Skuya Balks at Health Info Unauthorized Access
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY SKUYA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONSBENEFITS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
0:23-cv-60846 (S.D. Fla., May 5, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment,
and breach of implied contract.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to protect the
personally identifying information and personal health information
of the patients and employees of its clients following a data
breach on its network systems between January 28, 2023 and January
30, 2023. The unauthorized access occurred due to the Defendant's
inadequate security and maintenance of its network. Furthermore,
after the data breach, the Defendant failed to provide timely
notice to the affected patients and employees, thereby exacerbating
their injuries. The Plaintiff and Class members are now at a higher
risk identity theft and other crimes, says the suit.
NationsBenefits, LLC is a supplemental benefits company, with its
principal place of business in Plantation, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Marcio W. Valladares, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
E-mail: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com
MValladares@forthepeople.com
NEW YORK, NY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Caldwell Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
KYLE M. CALDWELL; DONALD C. FINLEY; RAMZAN J. ALLI; RAYMOND BAYRON;
JAMES W. BOOKMAN; GIB J. BROWN; CHRISTOPHER CARPENTER; ROBERT L.
CARSON; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED; GREGORY D. DAVIS; JASHMAL N. GERRALD;
SAMUEL JOHNSON; NICOLE LAWTONE-BOWLES; MONIQUE LIVERMAN; DWIGHT O.
MCDONALD; ANTHONY W. OBRIEN; GARRATTE A. PENISTON; KASHMIR T.
PETERSON; JOSEPH E. RAY; JOHN ROSEBORO; TERRY J. ROWE; MARVIN
SMITH; MICHAEL A. TAYLOR; RICHARD R. VARGAS; EYON A. WILLIAMS;
RICHARD B. WILLIAMS; CARL E. YOUNG; and TAHIR H. YOUNG,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-03899
(S.D.N.Y., May 9, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid
wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants in the position as
Motor Vehicle Operator or Laborer for the Department of Homeless
Services.
NEW YORK CITY comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean. At its core is Manhattan, a densely
populated borough that's among the world's major commercial,
financial and cultural centers. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
Sarah M. Block, Esq.
McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
1101 Vermont Ave., N.W. Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 833-8855
Email: gkm@mselaborlaw.com
smb@mselaborlaw.com
- and -
Hope Pordy, Esq.
SPIVAK LIPTON LLP
1040 Avenue of the Americas 20th Floor
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 765-2100
Email: hpordy@spivaklipton.com
NEW-INDY CATAWBA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Kennedy Due Nov. 7
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kennedy v. New-Indy
Catawba LLC et al., Case No. 0:21-cv-01704 (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge
Sherri A. Lydon entered a joint amended scheduling order:
-- All discovery to conclude by: Nov. 1, 2023
-- Motions for class certification due: Nov. 7, 2023
-- Opposition to class certification Nov. 28, 2023
motion due:
-- Replies in support of class Dec. 8, 2023
certification motion due:
-- Dispositive motions due: Nov. 28, 2023
-- Mediation to be conducted no Nov. 28, 2023
later than:
-- Trial to occur on or after: June 7, 2024
The nature of suit states Real Property -- Torts to Land.[CC]
NEW-INDY CATAWBA: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in White Due Nov. 7
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as White v. New-Indy Catawba
LLC, Case No. 0:21-cv-01480 (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Sherri A.
Lydon entered a joint amended scheduling order:
-- All discovery to conclude by: Nov. 1, 2023
-- Motions for class certification due: Nov. 7, 2023
-- Opposition to class certification Nov. 28, 2023
motion due:
-- Replies in support of class Dec. 8, 2023
certification motion due:
-- Dispositive motions due: Nov. 28, 2023
-- Mediation to be conducted no Nov. 28, 2023
later than:
-- Trial to occur on or after: June 7, 2024
The nature of suit states Real Property -- Torts to Land.[CC]
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Alturi Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
SRIKANTH ALTURI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-02093-TWT (N.D. Ga., May 11, 2023) is a class action
arising out of the targeted cyberattack and data breach where
unauthorized third-party criminals accessed and exfiltrated
personal data NextGen's network that resulted in unauthorized
access to the highly sensitive consumer data of the Plaintiff and
at least 1,049,375 Class Members ("Data Breach").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant
maintained the private information in a negligent and reckless
manner. In particular, the private information was maintained on
Defendant's computer system and network in a condition vulnerable
to cyberattacks. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and
Class Members face a substantial risk of imminent and certainly
impending harm. Plaintiff and Class Members have and will continue
to suffer injuries associated with this risk, including but not
limited to as a loss of time, mitigation expenses, and anxiety over
the misuse of their private information, says the Plaintiff.
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE, INC. develops and markets healthcare
information systems. The Company's systems automate medical group
practices, physical hospitals, management service organizations,
community health centers, and dental schools. NextGen Healthcare
offers its services throughout the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq.
THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
3535 Piedmont Road
Building 14, Suite 230
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (404) 320-9979
Email: mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com
njackson@thefinleyfirm.com
- and -
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD,
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: (916) 239-4778
Email: aberry@justice4you.com
gharoutunian@justice4you.com
- and -
Rachele R. Byrd, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
750 B Street, Suite 1820
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 239-4599
Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
Email: byrd@whafh.com
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Miller Alleges Private Info Unauthorized Access
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DAMON X MILLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-02043-TWT (N.D. Ga., May 5, 2023) asserts claims for
negligence, negligence per se, invasion of privacy and declaratory
judgment in connection with a data breach between March 19, 2023
and April 14, 2023.
Plaintiff Damon Miller received a letter dated April 28, 2023, from
Defendant NextGen Healthcare, Inc. notifying Plaintiff that
Defendant's network had been accessed and Plaintiff's private
information may have been involved in the data breach. Mr. Miller
asserts that NextGen's failure to employ reasonable and appropriate
measures to protect against unauthorized access to his private
information constitutes an unfair act or practice prohibited by
Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
NextGen Healthcare, Inc. is a for profit corporation organized
under the laws of Delaware and headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.
The company provides electronic health records and practice
management solutions to doctors and medical professionals. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq.
THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
3535 Piedmont Road
Building 14, Suite 230
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (404) 320-9979
Facsimile: (404) 320-9978
E-mail: mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com
njackson@thefinleyfirm.com
- and -
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
THE LYON FIRM
2754 Erie Ave
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Telephone: (513) 381-2333
Facsimile: (513) 766-9011
E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Phillips Sues Over Compromised Patients' Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT PHILLIPS, on behalf of his minor son; and BELLVINIA BRICKLE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-02067-TWT (N.D. Ga., May 8, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendant for negligence, unjust enrichment, invasion of
privacy, and breach of contract.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to protect the
personally identifying information of patients, including the
Plaintiffs, following a data breach on its network systems between
at least March 29, 2023, and April 14, 2023. The unauthorized
access occurred due to the Defendant's inadequate security and
maintenance of its network. Furthermore, after the data breach, the
Defendant failed to provide timely notice to the affected patients,
thereby exacerbating their injuries. The Plaintiffs and Class
members are now at a higher risk identity theft and other crimes,
says the suit.
NextGen Healthcare Inc. is a healthcare technology company based in
Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roy E. Barnes, Esq.
J. Cameron Tribble, Esq.
BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC
31 Atlanta Street
Marietta, GA 30060
Telephone: (770) 227-6375
Facsimile: (770) 227-6373
E-mail: roy@barneslawgroup.com
ctribble@barneslawgroup.com
- and -
Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
Barrett J. Vahle, Esq.
J. Austin Moore, Esq.
Tanner J. Edwards, Esq.
Brandi S. Spates, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
vahle@stuevesiegel.com
moore@stuevesiegel.com
tanner@stuevesiegel.com
spates@stuevesiegel.com
NORTH CAROLINA: Court Dismisses Ellerbe's 2nd Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled CHRISTOPHER D. ELLERBE, Plaintiff v. TODD E.
ISHEE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-00075-MR (W.D.N.C.),
Chief District Judge Martin Reidinger of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, Statesville Division:
1. dismisses with prejudice the Second Amended Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii);
2. denies the Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel;
and
3. denies as moot the Plaintiff's Motion for Court's Order
Response to Complaint.
The matter is before the Court on initial review of the pro se
Second Amended Complaint. Also pending are the Plaintiff's Motion
for Appointment of Counsel and "Motion for Court's Order Response
to Complaint." The Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis.
The pro se Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 regarding the conditions of his confinement at the
Alexander Correctional Institution. He is presently incarcerated at
the Warren Correctional Institution.
Before the Complaint was reviewed for frivolity, the Plaintiff
moved to amend. The Court denied the Motion as moot and granted the
Plaintiff the opportunity to file a superseding amended complaint.
The Plaintiff filed a piecemeal Amended Complaint, which the Court
dismissed, and he was given yet another opportunity to amend. The
Second Amended Complaint is now before the Court for initial
review.
The Plaintiff names as Defendants: Todd E. Ishee, the former North
Carolina commissioner of prisons; the North Carolina Department of
Adult Corrections (NCDAC), formerly the North Carolina Department
of Public Safety (NCDPS); Larry Williamson, the NCDAC regional
director; Lane Honeycutt, the Alexander CI administrator; Jeffrey
Duncan and Eric Dye, Alexander CI associate wardens; and Stephen W.
Coates, a prison psychologist. Defendants Ishee, Williamson,
Honeycutt, Duncan, and Dye are referred to as the "Administrative
Defendants."
The Plaintiff claims that he experienced conditions at Alexander CI
that violate the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. For
injury, he claims: "mentally suffering, emotional distress, muscles
atrophy, muscles aching, stiffness, stomach cramps, constipation,
neck pain, lethargy, depression and anxiety -- due to being denied
recreational yard exercise, (22) and a half hours everyday locked
in cell -- and denial of religious services." He seeks a
declaratory judgment, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief,
compensatory and punitive damages, a jury trial, an award of costs,
and any additional relief the Court deems just, proper, and
equitable.
The Plaintiff seeks the appointment of counsel and review of his
Complaint.
Because the Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court
must review the Second Amended Complaint to determine whether it is
subject to dismissal on the grounds that it is (i) frivolous or
malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief" (28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)).
Judge Reidinger says it appears that the Plaintiff may be
attempting to assert claims on behalf of himself, as well as other
inmates. As a pro se prisoner, Judge Reidinger points out that he
is not qualified to do so. Accordingly, the claims that the
Plaintiff attempts to assert on behalf of others are dismissed.
The body of the Complaint also appears to contain allegations
against individuals, who are not named as defendants in the caption
as required by Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Judge Reidinger notes. The allegations directed at individuals not
named as Defendants are, therefore, dismissed.
The Plaintiff purports to sue defendants, who are state officials,
in their individual and official capacities. However, Judge
Reidinger opines, "a suit against a state official in his or her
official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is
a suit against the official's office," citing Will v. Dep't of
State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Because a state is not a
"person" under Section 1983, state officials acting in their
official capacities cannot be sued for damages thereunder.
Furthermore, the Eleventh Amendment bars suits for monetary damages
against the State of North Carolina and its various agencies. As
such, the Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants in their
official capacities are dismissed.
The Plaintiff claims that the Administrative Defendants imposed
conditions that violate the Eighth Amendment in that there has been
no outside recreation at Alexander CI since October 2021; that
inmates are locked in their cells at all times, save for 1.5 hours
each day when they are released to shower; that the cells are too
small for exercise; and that exercise is not permitted in the
dayroom. He claims that these conditions are being imposed without
any penological justification, that they amount to punishment, and
that Defendants Ishee, Williamson, Duncan, and Dye are using the
"excuse" that they are short-staffed. The Plaintiff claims that
these conditions are causing him constant mental suffering,
emotional distress, muscles atrophy, muscles aching, stiffness,
stomach cramps, constipation, neck pain, lethargy, depression and
anxiety.
Assuming arguendo that these conditions are adequately severe,
Judge Reidinger finds that the Plaintiff has failed to allege that
the administrative Defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive
risk to his health or safety. Further, the Plaintiff has not
adequately alleged that he suffered a serious or significant mental
or emotional injury as a result of the conditions at issue. The
Plaintiff's claims that the Administrative Defendants violated his
Eighth Amendment rights in this regard are, therefore, dismissed.
Judge Reidinger also notes that the Plaintiff appears to claim that
the Administrative Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his
serious physical and psychological needs by imposing the conditions
discussed supra. Judge Reidinger rules that the claims against the
Administrative Defendants are dismissed because the Plaintiff does
not allege that the Defendants, who are all non-medical personnel,
had subjective knowledge of the substantial risk of harm to the
Plaintiff from these conditions. The subjective element of a
deliberate indifference claim, therefore, is lacking.
The Plaintiff's claims of deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need are also dismissed.
The Plaintiff claims that he is a practicing Messianic Jew; that
Alexander CI has not offered religious services since October 2021;
and that the Plaintiff is forbidden to meet with a rabbi or to
"practice the freedom and fellowship" with other inmates.
These allegations suggest that the religious restrictions
inconvenienced the Plaintiff. However, Judge Reidinger finds, the
Plaintiff fails to plausibly allege that the Defendants
substantially burdened his sincere religious beliefs. Further, he
has failed to support his conclusory contention that such was not
reasonably related to legitimate penological interests with any
factual allegations. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has failed to state
a First Amendment claim.
The Court will also dismiss the Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment
claim on initial review because he has failed to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.
In his Motion for Appointment of Counsel, the Plaintiff asserts
that he is unable to afford counsel; that he lacks access to a law
library and has limited knowledge of the law; that the issues in
the case are complex and will require significant research and
investigation; that a trial will likely involve conflicting
testimony; and that counsel would be better able to present
evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
Judge Reidinger holds that there is no absolute right to the
appointment of counsel in civil actions such as this one.
Therefore, a plaintiff must present "exceptional circumstances" in
order to require the Court to seek the assistance of a private
attorney for a plaintiff who is unable to afford counsel.
Judge Reidinger finds that the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate
the existence of exceptional circumstances that would warrant the
appointment of counsel and, therefore, this Motion will be denied.
In his "Motion for Court's Order Response to Complaint," the
Plaintiff asks the Court to "respond" to his Complaint. The Court
construes the Plaintiff's motion as a request for an initial review
of his Complaint. As an initial review has now been conducted, the
Motion is denied as moot.
For the reasons stated, Judge Reidinger holds that the Plaintiff's
Second Amended Complaint is dismissed. The Court will dismiss this
action with prejudice because the Plaintiff has already been
allowed to amend his complaint and he has failed to state a claim
for relief.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 24, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5f4mmhmc from Leagle.com.
OHIO STEEL: Fails to Pay Techs' OT Wages Under FLSA, Smith Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON SMITH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. OHIO STEEL PROCESSING, LLC, D/B/A OHIO PICKLING &
PROCESSING, Case No. 3:23-cv-00953 (N.D. Ohio, May 10, 2023) seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the
Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
Throughout his employment, the Defendant subjected Mr. Smith to its
common practice of automatically deducting 30 minutes a day from
his recorded work time for so-called "meal breaks." However, Mr.
Smith did not receive bona fide meal breaks, the lawsuit contends.
The Defendant allegedly failed to include additional remuneration
in calculating Mr. Smith's regular rate of pay for overtime
purposes. The Defendant further required Mr. Smith and the Putative
Class Members to clock in/out each day using the same company-wide
timekeeping system. Despite recording the exact time that Mr. Smith
and the Putative Class Members clocked in/out each day, the
Defendant rounds its employees' time in quarter-hour increments,
the suit claims.
Mr. Smith worked for the Defendant as a maintenance technician at
the Defendant's primary metal processing facility located at 1149
Campbell St., Toledo, Ohio 43607 from December 2021 until March 22,
2023.
Ohio Steel primarily offers services related to metal processing,
including pickling, slitting, leveling, transportation, inspection
and testing, among other processing services depending on customer
needs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
Matthew B. Bryant, Esq.
Esther E. Bryant, Esq.
BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
Columbus, Ohio 43220
Telephone: (614) 704-0546
Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com
Mbryant@bryantlegalllc.com
Ebryant@bryantlegalllc.com
ONE BROOKLYN: Causes Unauthorized Health Info Access, Rogers Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JASMINE ROGERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ONE BROOKLYN HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 513635/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., May 8, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per
se, breach of implied contract, and violation of the New York
General Business Law.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to protect the
personally identifying information and personal health information
of the Plaintiff and similarly situated patients following a data
breach on its network systems between July 9, 2022 and November 19,
2022. The unauthorized access occurred due to the Defendant's
inadequate security and maintenance of its network. Furthermore,
after the data breach, the Defendant failed to provide timely
notice to the affected patients, thereby exacerbating their
injuries. The Plaintiff and Class members are now at a higher risk
identity theft and other crimes, says the suit.
One Brooklyn Health System, Inc. is a healthcare provider in
Brooklyn, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christian Levis, Esq.
Scott V. Papp, Esq.
Amanda G. Fiorilla, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
E-mail: clevis@lowey.com
spapp@lowey.com
afiorilla@lowey.com
- and -
Anthony M. Christina, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
One Tower Bridge
100 Front Street, Suite 520
West Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (215) 399-4770
E-mail: achristina@lowey.com
- and -
Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
Kevin Fay, Esq.
GOLOMB SPIRT GRUNFELD P.C.
1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 346-7338
E-mail: KGrunfeld@GolombLegal.com
Kfay@GolombLegal.com
OXB STUDIO: Sends Unsolicited Texts to Consumers, Velez Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN VELEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OXB STUDIO, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-23-013360 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty., May 5,
2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in the
practice of sending unsolicited text messages to the cellular
telephone numbers of consumers in an attempt to promote its
products and services without obtaining prior express written
consent. As a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff and
Class members were harmed.
OXB Studio is a company doing business in Florida. [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
E-mail: Jdover@attorneysoftheinjured.com
PAYPAL INC: Rivera Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PAYPAL INC., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-23-013419 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty., May 8,
2023) is a class action against the Defendant for sending debt
collection communication to the Plaintiff between 9:00 PM and 8:00
AM without prior consent in violation of the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act.
PayPal Inc. is a financial technology company headquartered in San
Jose, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Shannon E. Gilvey, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
shannon@jibraellaw.com
PG&E CORP: N.D. Cal. Flips Grant of DRRT's Amended Bid for Relief
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled In re: PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and
Electric Company, Case No. 22-cv-02633-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California reverses the Bankruptcy Court's
grant of DRRT's Rule 60(b) motion and remands for further
proceedings consistent with this order.
Before the Court is the appeal filed by Appellant PG&E Corporation
and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, as debtors and reorganized
debtors (together, the "Debtors" or "PG&E"), of the Bankruptcy
Court's Order Granting DRRT's Amended Motion for Relief from Orders
Concerning Reorganized Debtors' Eleventh and Thirteenth Securities
Claims Omnibus Objections (Claims Barred by the Statute of Repose)
entered on April 8, 2022. PG&E appeals the Bankruptcy Court's
decision granting relief to Appellees DRRT as articulated at a
hearing on March 15, 2022. The bankruptcy case is assigned Case No.
19-30088 (DM) (Bankr. N.D. Cal.).
On Jan. 29, 2019, the Debtors commenced voluntary cases for relief
under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code in the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of
California. Significantly, the Debtors needed to propose a plan of
reorganization that satisfied the requirements of A.B. 1054.
In light of the "increased risk of catastrophic wildfires," A.B.
1054 created the "Go-Forward Wildfire Fund" as a multi-billion
dollar safety-net to compensate future victims of public utility
fires by reducing the costs to ratepayers in addressing
utility-caused catastrophic wildfires, supporting the credit
worthiness of electrical corporations, like the Debtors, and
providing "a mechanism to attract capital for investment in safe,
clean, and reliable power for California at a reasonable cost to
ratepayers," Section 1(a) of the Assembly Bill 1054 ("AB 1054"),
also known as the California Wildfire Fund.
For the Debtors to qualify for the Go-Forward Wildfire Fund,
however, A.B. 1054 required, among other things, the Debtors to
obtain an order from the Bankruptcy Court confirming a plan of
reorganization by June 30, 2020. After more than 16 months of
negotiations among a variety of stakeholders, and following
confirmation hearings that spanned several weeks, the Debtors' Plan
of Reorganization dated June 19, 2020 was confirmed by the
Bankruptcy Court on June 20, 2020, and became effective on July 1,
2020 ("Effective Date").
The DRRT Claims Dispute arises from a securities class action
alleging that the Debtors, as well as individual officers,
directors, and underwriters, violated the federal securities laws
by misleading investors about their wildfire safety practices. The
DRRT Claimants are a party to the class action and filed proofs of
claim based on alleged losses relating to prepetition purchases of
the Debtors' debt and equity securities. Following the Debtors'
joint chapter 11 plan of reorganization, the Bankruptcy Court
entered an order approving the Securities Claims Procedures on Jan.
25, 2021. The Securities Claims Procedures authorized the Debtors
to file omnibus objections.
On Aug. 3, 2021, the Debtors filed their Eleventh Securities Claims
Omnibus Objection (Claims Barred by the Statute of Repose) (the
"11th Omnibus Objection"). On Aug. 18, 2021, they filed their
Thirteenth Securities Claims Omnibus Objection (Claims Barred by
the Statute of Repose) (the "13th Omnibus Objection"). The DRRT
Claimants failed to timely oppose either Omnibus Objection.
Accordingly, on Sept. 9 and Sept. 24, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court
entered orders disallowing certain claims filed by DRRT Claimants
based on the 11th and 13th Omnibus Objections.
In response to the Bankruptcy Court's disallowance of claims, on
Nov. 18, 2021, DRRT filed its initial motion for relief. DRRT then
filed an amended Motion for relief on Dec. 21, 2021. DRRT's amended
motion sought relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b)(1), as made applicable by Bankruptcy Rule 9024, arguing that
its failure to respond was a result of "excusable neglect," namely
its failure to open or process the Omnibus Objections, which were
sent via regular first-class mail from the United States Postal
Services (USPS), until after the respective deadline to file the
objections.
DRRT argued that the 11th and 13th Omnibus Objections were
unsupported because they asserted only a three-year statute of
repose under the Securities Act of 1933, rather than recognizing a
five-year statute of repose under the Exchange Act of 1934. PG&E
opposed the Motion, arguing that both procedurally under Rule 60(b)
and as a substantive matter, the Bankruptcy Court correctly
disallowed DRRT's claims.
On March 15, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court held a hearing on DRRT's
request for relief from the order disallowing its claims. The
Bankruptcy Court's discussion with the parties at the hearing
extensively covered the merits of the challenged order, as well as
the parties' arguments regarding the Rule 60(b) excusable neglect
factors. Counsel for PG&E repeatedly stated his position that the
merits could not be reached unless and until DRRT met its burden
under Rule 60(b).
The Bankruptcy Court instructed the parties to draft an order
granting relief to DRRT and permitting DRRT to oppose the 11th and
13th Omnibus Objections. On April 8, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court
entered the order granting DRRT's Motion to reinstate its claims
"insofar as they assert claims arising under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder." A corrected order was entered
on April 25, 2022.
On April 22, 2022, PG&E appealed.
Judge Gilliam finds that the Bankruptcy Court abused its discretion
in granting Rule 60(b) relief to DRRT. The Court cannot conclude
that the Bankruptcy Court inappropriately reviewed the merits as a
matter of law. In addition, Judge Gilliam finds that the Bankruptcy
Court abused its discretion by not addressing the Pioneer factors,
citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship,
507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993).
PG&E argues that the Bankruptcy Court (1) improperly considered the
merits of the underlying order before finding excusable neglect
under Rule 60(b), which was legal error; and (2) committed
reversible error by failing to apply the mandatory Pioneer factors
in granting relief under Rule 60(b)(1).
While it is something of a close call based on the record, the
Court disagrees that the Bankruptcy Court erred as a matter of law
by addressing the merits before considering whether the
requirements of Rule 60(b) were met. But the Court agrees that the
Bankruptcy Court did not adequately explain its consideration of or
findings regarding the Pioneer "excusable neglect" factors, and
reverses and remands on that basis.
Hence, the Court reverses and remands for further proceedings
consistent with this order. The Clerk is directed to remand this
appeal to the California Northern Bankruptcy Court and close the
case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 24, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3dz23z3k from Leagle.com.
PHARMAGENICS LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bids in Ibarra Due Nov. 27
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PEDRO IBARRA, v.
PHARMAGENICS LLC, et al. Case No. 8:23-cv-00116-CJC-ADS (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered a scheduling order
as follows:
order
-- All discovery, including discovery April 25, 2024
motions, shall be completed by:
-- The parties shall have until June 24, 2024
to file and have heard all
other motions, including motions to
join or amend the pleadings:
-- A pretrial conference will be held on: August 26,
2024
-- The case is set for a jury trial: September 3,
2024
-- The parties shall have until May 9, 2024
to conduct settlement proceedings:
-- The Plaintiff shall have until Nov. 27, 2023
to file and have heard any class
certification motion:
A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NMtPUb at no extra charge.[CC]
PKLL INC: Faces Tan Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
POH EAN TAN, WAI LOONG KONG, and CHOW SIM SENG, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PKLL
INC. D/B/A COCO MALAYSIAN & THAI CUISINE, PIANG LIM LIEW A/K/A
"JERRY", and KOOI SHIAM LIEW A/K/A "GRACE," Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-02512 (D.N.J., May 8, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law including unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid overtime wages, unlawful withholding of earned tips, and
unlawful wage deduction.
Plaintiffs Poh Ean Tan and Chow Sim Seng were employed as
waitresses at the Defendants' restaurant located at 1803 Lincoln
Hwy., Edison New Jersey from mid-July 2020 until on or around April
11, 2023 and from November 17, 2022, until on or around February
28, 2023, respectively.
Plaintiff Wai Loong Kong was employed as a chef at the Defendants'
restaurant located at 1803 Lincoln Hwy., Edison New Jersey from May
20, 2020 until on or around April 11, 2023.
PKLL Inc. is an owner and operator of a restaurant under the name
Coco Malaysian & Thai Cuisine, with a principal business address at
1803 Lincoln Hwy., Edison, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ziyi Gao, Esq.
HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 1003
Flushing, NY 11354
Telephone: (718) 353-8588
Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
E-mail: zgao@hanglaw.com
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Dispositive Bid Deadlines in Berlanga Modified
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCISCO BERLANGA, v.
POLARIS INDUSTRIES INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00949-KJM-DMC
(E.D. Cal.), Hon. Judge entered an order granting stipulation
modifying dispositive motion deadlines:
-- The dispositive motions currently due to be filed on May 5,
2023
will now be due after the Court rules on Plaintiff's Motion
for
Class Certification.
-- The hearing on dispositive motions currently scheduled for
June
30, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. is vacated, and will be rescheduled
after
the Court rules on Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.
Polaris is an American manufacturer of snowmobiles, atv, and
neighborhood electric vehicles.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nHKZb1 at no extra charge.[CC]
PROGRESSIVE PREMIER: Class Cert Discovery Extended to June 2
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE BOST,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PROGRESSIVE PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, Case No.
4:22-cv-00127-TCB (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr.
entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
extension of time to file their reply in support of class
certification and opposition to the defendants' Daubert motions.
-- The discovery is extended to June 2, 2023.
-- The Plaintiffs' deadline for filing a reply in support of
their
motion for class certification and an opposition to each of
the
Defendants' Daubert motions shall be June 9, 2023.
-- The Defendants' deadline to file a reply in support of each
of
their Daubert motions shall be June 30, 2023.
Progressive Premier operates as an insurance company. The Company
offers car, home, renters, condo, motorcycle, life, pet,
commercial, health, business, boat, and other insurance products
and services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42c7gwt at no extra charge.[CC]
QUALCOMM INC: Appeals District Court's Class Certification Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Qualcomm Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 26, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 3, 2023, that the Company filed a petition with
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to appeal
the class certification order of the district court.
On January 23, 2017 and January 26, 2017, securities class action
complaints were filed by purported stockholders of the Company in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California against the Company and certain of its then current and
former officers and directors.
The complaints alleged, among other things, that the Company
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and
misleading statements and omissions of material fact in connection
with certain allegations that it was engaged in anticompetitive
conduct.
The complaints sought unspecified damages, interest, fees and
costs.
On May 4, 2017, the court consolidated the two actions, and on July
3, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint
asserting the same basic theories of liability and requesting the
same basic relief.
On May 23, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, and a hearing on the motion was held on October 19,
2022.
On March 20, 2023, the court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The
order denied class certification on the basis of alleged
misrepresentations relating to the Company's chip-level licensing
practices, but certified a class on the basis of alleged
misrepresentations relating to the separate operations of QCT and
QTL.
No trial date has been set.
On April 3, 2023, the Company filed a petition with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit)
seeking permission to appeal the district court's class
certification order. The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims
are without merit.
Qualcomm is a leading technology company that owns patents for
components inside of cell phones, handsets, and other devices.
Qualcomm does not manufacture the end-product ––
e.g., cell
phones and handsets –– but, rather, it patents and
sells the
components, such as chips, to the companies that make the
end-products.
QUALCOMM INC: Summary Judgment Hearing Set for July 20
------------------------------------------------------
Qualcomm Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 26, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 3, 2023, that the summary judgment motion hearing
of plaintiffs in consumer class suit is set for July 20, 2023.
Beginning in January 2017, a number of consumer class action
complaints were filed against us in the United States District
Courts for the Southern and Northern Districts of California, each
on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of cellular phones and
other cellular devices.
In April 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred the cases that had been filed in the Southern District
of California to the Northern District of California.
On July 11, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint alleging that the Company violated California and federal
antitrust and unfair competition laws by, among other things,
refusing to license standard-essential patents to its competitors,
conditioning the supply of certain of its baseband chipsets on the
purchaser first agreeing to license its entire patent portfolio,
entering into exclusive deals with companies, including Apple Inc.,
and charging unreasonably high royalties that do not comply with
its commitments to standard setting organizations.
The complaint sought unspecified damages and disgorgement and/or
restitution, as well as an order that it be enjoined from further
unlawful conduct.
On July 5, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, and on September 27, 2018, the court granted that
motion.
The Company appealed the district court's class certification order
to the Ninth Circuit.
On September 29, 2021, the Ninth Circuit vacated the class
certification order, ruling that the district court had failed to
correctly assess the propriety of applying California law to a
nationwide class, and remanded the case to the district court.
On June 10, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
limiting the proposed class to California residents rather than a
nationwide class.
On August 1, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, and on November 15, 2022, the court held a
hearing on its motion.
On January 6, 2023, the court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part its motion to dismiss.
The order preserved the plaintiffs' claims related to exclusive
dealing under California antitrust and unfair competition laws and
dismissed the remainder of the plaintiffs' claims, which were
related to its licensing practices.
On April 7, 2023, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment
on the plaintiffs' remaining claims.
A hearing on our motion is scheduled for July 20, 2023. The Company
believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit.
Qualcomm is a leading technology company that owns patents for
components inside of cell phones, handsets, and other devices.
Qualcomm does not manufacture the end-product e.g., "cell
phones and handsets but," rather, it patents and sells the
components, such as chips, to the companies that make the
end-products.
RCM TECHNOLOGY: Settlement in Class Suit Loses Initial Nod
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA GRADY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RCM
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-00842-JLS-SHK (Court), the
Hon. Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an order denying without
prejudice the plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class
action and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) settlement.
Any renewed motion for preliminary approval or motion for class
certification is due to be filed within 60 days from the issuance
of the Order, the Court says.
On February 7, 2022, Grady initiated this putative wage-and-hour
class action by filing a complaint in San Bernardino County
Superior Court.
Grady alleges the following causes of action on her own behalf and
on behalf of others similarly situated against the Defendant RCM
Technologies, Inc.:
-- (1) unpaid overtime in violation of California Labor Code
sections 510, 1194 and 1198 and IWC Wage Order No. 5;
-- (2) failure to provide meal periods in violation of
California
Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512(a) and California Code
of
Regulations tit. 8, section 11040;
-- (3) failure to provide rest breaks in violation of California
Labor Code section 226.7 and California Code of
Regulations
tit. 8, section 11040;
-- (4) failure to pay for all hours worked in violation of
California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 204 and
221–23;
-- (5) failure to keep accurate payroll records in violation of
California Labor Code sections 1174 and 1174.5;
-- (6) failure to furnish accurate wage statements in violation
of
California Labor Code sections 226;
-- (7) failure to timely pay all wages owed on separation under
California Labor Code sections 201–3;
-- (8) unfair competition in violation of California Business &
Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.; and
-- (9) enforcement of the California PAGA, California Labor Code
sections 2698, et seq.
On December 7, 2022, the parties engaged in mediation before
Michael J. Loeb of Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services,
Inc. Shortly thereafter, the parties reached an agreement to settle
the case.
On December 16, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation to stay the
case pending resolution of the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary
approval of the proposed class action and PAGA settlement.
The key terms of the Settlement are as follows. First, RCM has
agreed to pay a total gross settlement amount of $1,600,000. The
gross settlement amount will be allocated as follows:
(1) $200,000 will be allocated to the putative class's PAGA
claims;
(2) up to one third of the gross settlement fund, or
$533,333.33,
will be allocated to attorneys’ fees for class counsel;
(3) up to $15,000 will be allocated to compensate class counsel
for litigation costs incurred in prosecuting this action;
(4) up to $15,000 will be allocated to Grady as a class
representative service award;
(5) up to $31,050 will be allocated to the settlement
administration costs; and
(6) the remainder of the gross settlement amount—the "Net
Settlement Amount" -- will be distributed as payments to
participating class members.
RCM Technologies provides engineering, information technology, and
specialty health care services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/418YLkN at no extra charge.[CC]
REDBOX AUTOMATED: Faces Gamez Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Gamez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, Case No. 172841927 (Fla.
Cir., Hillsborough Cty., May 10, 2023) contends that the Defendant
promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending
unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of
the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
On or after July 1, 2021, the Defendant made, or knowingly allowed
to be made, a "telephonic sales call." The telephonic sales calls
involved an automated system for the selection or dialing of
telephone numbers or the playing of a recorded message when a
connection is completed. The telephonic sales was made without
Plaintiff's "prior express written consent," says the suit.
The Plaintiff and the Class members have been aggrieved by the
Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct, which adversely affected and
infringed upon their legal rights not to be subjected to the
illegal acts at issue.
The "Class" that Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined as:
-- All persons in the State of Florida who, (1) were sent a
telephonic sales call regarding Defendant's goods and/or
services, (2) using the same equipment or type of equipment
utilized to call Plaintiff, (3) without "prior express
written consent," (4) on or after July 1, 2021.
Redbox Automated is a consumer goods and services retailer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq.
KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A.
2110 West Platt Street
Tampa, FL 33606
Telephone: (813) 422–7782
Facsimile: (813) 422–7783
E-mail: ben@theKRfirm.com
RELENTLESS RESTAURANTS: Gaunt Seeks Proper Wages for Job Trainings
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL GAUNT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RELENTLESS RESTAURANTS, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 5:23-cv-05070-TLB (W.D. Ark., May 4, 2023), arises out of the
Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.
During part of the three years prior to the filing of this lawsuit,
the Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an hourly-paid lead prep
cook. Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours per week throughout their tenure with Defendant.
In addition, during his employment, Defendant required Plaintiff to
complete job-specific mandatory training from his home while off
the clock. After completing the training, Plaintiff and other
employees were not paid for the time they spent. As a result, the
Defendant's failed to pay them with lawful minimum wage and
overtime compensation, says the suit.
Relentless Restaurants, LLC is a limited liability company,
registered and licensed to do business in the State of Arkansas. It
is a franchisee owner of Newk's Eatery locations. Newk's Eatery is
a chain of fast casual cafes. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lindsey Noe, Esq.
Chris Burks, Esq.
WH LAW
2894 N McKee Circle #108
Fayetteville, AR 72703
Telephone: 479.888.4357
E-mail: lindsey@wh.law
chris@wh.law
RENT-A-CENTER EAST: Haque Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
AISHA HAQUE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RENT-A-CENTER EAST, INC., Defendant, Case
No. CACE-23-013356 (Fla. Cir. 17th Judicial Ct., Broward Cty., May
5, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's violations of the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act.
Allegedly, the Plaintiff began receiving unsolicited text messages
to his cellular telephone number on or about February 2022. The
texts originated from telephone number +1 (888) 655-1956, a number
solely owned and operated by Defendant. The Plaintiff never
provided Defendant with express written consent authorizing
Defendant to transmit telephonic sales calls and/or texts to
Plaintiffs cellular telephone number utilizing an automated system
for the selection and dialing of telephone numbers, says the suit.
Rent-A-Center East, Inc. maintains its primary place of business
and headquarters in Plano, Texas. Defendant directs, markets, and
provides business activities throughout the State of Florida. [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
E-mail: SPAM-Pleadings@attomeysoftheinjured.com
Jdover@attorneysoftheinjured.com
RITE AID: Faces Poppiti Suit Over Oral Care Products' False Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elba Poppiti, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Rite Aid Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-03914 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 10, 2023) alleges that "Oral Care Dry Mouth Discs"
manufactured, identified, marketed, and sold by the Defendant,
unlawfully claims to improve oral health by alleviating the
symptoms of dry mouth and mitigate salivary gland disorders.
The label of the Product describes how the Product "adheres to
mouth to provide lasting moisture," "soothes dry tissues" and
"promotes a healthy mouth" while "freshen[ing] breath," with a
background of blue splashing water. According to independent
testing, the Product is highly acidic, with a pH of 5.1,
significantly less than the critical pH of enamel or root dentin,
between 6 and 6.9. The result is that the tooth structure begins to
erode, confirmed by one study showing use of the Product caused
1.1% tooth loss, says the suit.
In light of the Product's acidity, its representation as beneficial
to oral health and able to alleviate symptoms of dry mouth is
misleading, the Plaintiff contends.
The Plaintiff was not aware that because of the Product's acidity,
it was detrimental to oral health by contributing to
demineralization, dental erosion, sensitivity, and caries and that
it was not authorized to claim to mitigate salivary gland
disorders. As a result of the false and misleading representations,
the Product is sold at premium price, approximately not less than
$7.99 per 40 discs, excluding tax and sales, the Plaintiff added.
Accordingly, the value of the Product that the Plaintiff purchased
was materially less than its value as represented by the
Defendant.
The Plaintiff seeks certification of the following classes:
-- New York Class: All persons in the State of New York who
purchased the Product during the statutes of limitations for
each cause of action alleged; and
-- Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class: All persons in the States
of Utah, North Dakota, Kansas, Mississippi, Arkansas, Alaska
and South Carolina who purchased the Product during the
statutes of limitations for each cause of action alleged.
The Plaintiff purchased the Product on one or more occasions within
the statutes of limitations for each cause of action alleged, at
Rite Aid locations in the Bronx, between June 2020 and May 2023,
and/or among other times.
Rite Aid is a retailer for prescriptions, OTC items, food,
household goods and other sundries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
ROOT INC: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Texas
-------------------------------------------------
Root 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 3, 2023, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act class suit in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.
On December 19, 2022, a purported class action complaint was filed
against the Company’s subsidiary, Root Insurance Company, in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case No.
1:22-cv-01328-LY) by an individual on her behalf and further
claiming to represent a putative class of insureds.
The complaint alleges that Root Insurance Company breached its
insurance contract and violated specific provisions of the Texas
Prompt Payment of Claims Act for an alleged failure to include
sales tax in total loss vehicle settlements.
The complaint seeks damages to include payment of alleged benefits
owed under the policy, in addition to pre- and post-judgment
interest and attorneys fees on behalf of the named plaintiff and
the putative class members.
Root Insurance Company has moved to dismiss the claims set forth in
the complaint.
The Company believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without
merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.
The lawsuit is in its early stages. Therefore, at this time, we
cannot predict the outcome or estimate the likelihood or magnitude
of our possible or potential loss contingency.
Root, Inc. is a technology company, with its principal executive
offices located at 80 E. Rich Street, Suite 500, Columbus, Ohio.
[BN]
ROOT INC: Continues to Defend Exchange Act Class Suit in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
Root 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 3, 2023, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Exchange Act purported class suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
On March 19, 2021, a purported class action complaint was filed
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio (Case No. 2:21-cv-01197) on behalf of certain Root
shareholders.
The complaint alleges that defendants made false or misleading
statements and omissions of purportedly material fact, in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act in
connection with and following the Company's initial public
offering. The complaint seeks unspecified damages.
The defendants motion to dismiss the claims set forth in the
complaint was granted and the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice
on March 31, 2023, which dismissal has been appealed.
The Company believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without
merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.
The lawsuit is in the early stages and, at this time, we are unable
to predict the outcome and we cannot estimate the likelihood or
magnitude of our possible or potential loss contingency.
Root, Inc. is a technology company, with its principal executive
offices located at 80 E. Rich Street, Suite 500, Columbus, Ohio.
[BN]
ROOT INC: Continues to Defend Insurance Contract Breach Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Root 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 3, 2023, that the Company continues to defend
itself from breach of insurance contract class suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.
On February 9, 2023, a purported class action complaint was filed
against the Company’s subsidiary, Root Insurance Company, in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (Case No.
3:23-cv-00089-JWD-RLB) by an individual on her behalf and further
claiming to represent a putative class of insureds.
The complaint alleges that Root Insurance Company breached its
insurance contract and violated specific provisions of Louisiana
law in settling her vehicle total loss claim.
The complaint seeks damages to include payment of alleged benefits
owed under the policy, in addition to pre- and post-judgment
interest, statutory penalties, attorneys fees and costs, and
injunctive relief on behalf of the named plaintiff and the putative
class members. The Company believes that the claims in this lawsuit
are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.
The lawsuit is in its early stages. Therefore, at this time, we
cannot predict the outcome or estimate the likelihood or magnitude
of our possible or potential loss contingency.
Root, Inc. is a technology company, with its principal executive
offices located at 80 E. Rich Street, Suite 500, Columbus, Ohio.
[BN]
SAMS WEST: Sanchez Bid for Class Certification Tossed
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carlos Sanchez v. Sams
West, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-05122-SVW-JC (C.D. Cal.), Hon. Judge
Stephen V. Wilson entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.
The case is a putative employment class action seeking to recover
for alleged off-the-clock (OTC) work.
Sam's West provides merchandise and services for business owners
and consumers.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42zZA79 at no extra charge.[CC]
SAN DIEGO, CA: Plaintiffs Must File Reply Brief by May 24
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRYL DUNSMORE, ANDREE
ANDRADE, ERNEST ARCHULETA, JAMES CLARK, ANTHONY EDWARDS, LISA
LANDERS, REANNA LEVY, JOSUE LOPEZ, CHRISTOPHER NELSON, CHRISTOPHER
NORWOOD, JESSE OLIVARES, GUSTAVO SEPULVEDA, MICHAEL TAYLOR, and
LAURA ZOERNER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO, SAN DIEGO COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT, and DOES 1 to 20,
inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Anthony Battaglia entered an order granting joint stipulation
to modify briefing schedule on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction and provisional class certification.
-- The Deadline for the Defendant County of San Diego to file its
Opposition Brief and supporting exhibits, is continued from
May
10, 2023, to May 17, 2023.
-- The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their Reply brief and
supporting exhibits is continued from May 24, 2023, to May 26,
2023.
-- Motion hearing remains as currently scheduled.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VYU0JH at no extra charge.[CC]
SATELLITE HEALTHCARE: Order Continuing Class Discovery Entered
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA CARRALEZ, and EUGENE
BAUTISTA, v. SATELLITE HEALTHCARE, INC. corporation; and DOES
1-100, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-01613-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal.), the
Court entered an order continuing discovery, motion and other
related deadlines.
Satellite Healthcare is a not-for-profit dialysis provider focusing
on patient-centered dialysis and kidney disease services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3M4eqxl at no extra charge.[CC]
SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Brant Conditional Certification Bid Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC R. BRANT, THOMAS
CAMPBELL, and BRIAN MINOR, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons, v. SCHNEIDER NATIONAL INC., et al.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01049-WCG (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge William C.
Griesbach entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification and for issuance of a notice.
The parties' agreed motion for limited supplemental briefing is
denied as moot. The Clerk is directed to set the matter on the
court's calendar to discuss further scheduling.
The Plaintiffs Eric Brant, Thomas Campbell, and Brian Minor brought
this action against the Defendants seek redress for alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and Wisconsin
state law.
The Plaintiffs seek conditional certification of the following
class:
"All individuals who leased a truck from Schneider Finance,
Inc.
and drove the leased truck for Schneider National, Inc. or any
of
its subsidiary, related, or affiliated companies pursuant to an
Owner-Operating Agreement at any time during the period
December
2013 to the present."
SNC is a federally authorized interstate motor carrier. SNC
transports freight using company drivers that Schneider classifies
as employees as well as drivers that Schneider refers to as owner
operators and classifies as independent contractors.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44JATab at no extra charge.[CC]
SELECTQUOTE AUTO: Class Certification Bid Due March 1, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADLEY P. DAVIS, v.
SELECTQUOTE AUTO & HOME INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
3:22-cv-00185-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Conrad
Jr. entered a pretrial order and case management plan as follows:
-- Rule 26 Disclosures: June 1, 2023
-- Class Certification Discovery: November 1, 2023
-- Expert Reports:
Plaintiff: December 1, 2023
Defendant: January 1, 2024
-- Expert Report Rebuttals: January 16, 2024
-- Class Certification Motion: March 1, 2024
-- Defendant's Response: April 1, 2024
-- Plaintiff’s Reply: April 16, 2024
A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VIJXIz at no extra charge.[CC]
SEPHORA USA: Martin Granted Leave to File First Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California grants the Plaintiff leave to file a
first amended complaint in the lawsuit entitled RUTH MARTIN,
Plaintiff v. SEPHORA USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-01355-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal.).
Plaintiff Ruth Martin initiated this putative class action on Oct.
23, 2022. Defendant Sephora USA, Inc., filed a motion to dismiss on
Jan. 24, 2023. The matter was referred to a United States
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B) and
Eastern District of California Local Rule 302.
The assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,
recommending that the Defendant's motion to dismiss be granted,
without prejudice, and that Plaintiff be granted leave to file a
first amended complaint consistent with the Court's findings. The
parties were granted 14 days in which to file objections to the
findings and recommendations. No party filed objections.
According to 28 U.S.C. Section 636 (b)(1)(C) and Eastern District
of California Local Rule 304, the Court has conducted a de novo
review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,
including the filed objections, the Court concludes that the
findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper
analysis.
Thus, the Court orders that:
1. the findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate
judge on March 30, 2023, are adopted in full;
2. Defendant Sephora USA, Inc.'s motion to dismiss is granted
with leave to amend as to the first cause of action only,
consistent with the findings and recommendations as adopted
by this order, and without leave to amend as to the second
cause of action;
3. the Plaintiff's prematurely filed first amended complaint
to the extent it complies with the findings and
recommendation adopted here, is deemed filed as of the date
of this order; and
4. consistent with the parties' stipulation, the Defendant's
responsive pleading will be filed within 21 days of the
order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 24, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p9awx6w from Leagle.com.
SHAMROCK CABINET: Settlement Deal in Millett Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL BRANDON MILLETT,
WILLIAM MORGAN, and BRANDON MENDOZA, on behalf of themselves
individually and all other similarly situated employees, v.
SHAMROCK CABINET & FIXTURE CORPORATION, Case No. 4:21-cv-00635-GAF
(W.D. Mo.), Hon. Judge Gary A. Fenner entered an order granting
preliminarily approving amended, unopposed omnibus motion for
certification of class action and preliminary approval of
settlement agreement.
The settlement class is defined as follows:
"All persons working as hourly, non-exempt employees of Shamrock
Cabinet & Fixture Corporation from September 2, 2018 through
March
29, 2022."
Any Class Members who timely and validly request exclusion from the
Class pursuant to the Class Notice disseminated in accordance with
this Order are excluded from the Class.
The Court, for purposes of this settlement, provisionally finds
that the Class satisfies the Rule 23(a) factors. Specifically, the
Court finds that:
a. The Class Members consist of approximately 201 individuals
currently or previously employed by the Defendant, and the
requirement of numerosity is satisfied.
The Court also appoints RG/2 Claims Administration LLC (“RG/2”)
as the
Settlement Administrator. If the proposed settlement is not finally
approved by the Court, or the settlement is terminated or fails to
become effective in accordance with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, this Class Certification shall be vacated without
further order of this Court, and the Court's prior certification
Order.
Shamrock Cabinet manufactures wooden home and commercial furniture.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nLViuz at no extra charge.[CC]
SIMPSON IMPORTS: Bartolotti Sues Over Mislabeled Canned Tomatoes
----------------------------------------------------------------
LOUIS BARTOLOTTI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIMPSON IMPORTS, LTD., Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-03900 (S.D.N.Y., May 9, 2023) is a class action
lawsuit against the Defendant's mislabeled SMT brand canned
tomatoes in the United States.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant does not
sell San Marzano tomatoes - it sells inferior Roma tomatoes. But
the Defendant utilizes highly misleading tomato packaging to trick
consumers into believing that they are purchasing genuine San
Marzano tomatoes, at San Marzano prices. The label used for all of
Defendant's tomato Products bears several features which make it
highly misleading. As a result, consumers have purchased hundreds
of thousands of Defendant's Products under the false, but
reasonable, impression that they were purchasing a San Marzano
varietal of tomato, when they were not, says the suit.
The Defendant has known or should have known about its misleading
packaging for years, but has taken no action to fix it. Instead,
the Defendant continues to rely on deception to reap much greater
profits than it would otherwise. If consumers knew the truth about
Defendant's Tomatoes, they would not have purchased them or would
pay significantly less for them than they did, the suit added.
SIMPSON IMPORTS, LTD. specialized specialty food, sauces,
seasonings, and cooking enhancers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew A. Girardi, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Fax: (212) 989-9163
Email: mgirardi@bursor.com
- and -
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
SMARTMATCH INSURANCE: Filing for Class Cert Bids Due Jan. 31, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VELMA JUANITA HOWELL,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SMARTMATCH INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC, Case No. (Court), the Hon. Judge
Brian C. Wimes entered a scheduling order for class certification
phase and trial order as follows:
-- The Plaintiff shall file any motion for Jan. 31, 2024
class certification on or before:
-- The parties shall amend all pleadings June 12, 2023
and/or add parties on or before:
-- The parties shall designate any expert Sept. 30, 2023
witnesses on or before:
-- All pretrial discovery authorized by Dec. 31, 2023
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
shall be completed on or before:
SmartMatch is an independent insurance comparison shopping agency
that partners with national carriers.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3M4Krp6 at no extra charge.[CC]
SONY ELECTRONICS: Lewis Sues Over Camera's Shutter Failures
-----------------------------------------------------------
HANNAH LEWIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff v. SONY ELECTRONICS INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:23-cv-00177-RH-MJF (N.D. Fla., May 6, 2023) arises out of the
Defendants' alleged false and misleading representations of its
a7iii camera, claiming for the Defendant's violations of the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and State Consumer
Fraud Acts, breach of contract, breach of express warranty,
negligent misrepresentation, fraud and unjust enrichment.
Allegedly, Sony Electronics Inc. breached the contract because the
a7iii camera failed to function due to its shutter failure and was
unwilling to repair it at no cost. The Plaintiff was harmed by
paying more for the camera in light of its premature failures and
inability to use the camera in the manner intended. Among other
things, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached its duty to
disclose and/or provide non-deceptive descriptions and marketing of
the a7iii camera.
Sony Electronics Inc. is a company that manufactures cameras with a
principal place of business in San Diego, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
SPOKEO INC: Kellman, et al., Seek to Certify Classes
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AVIVA KELLMAN, JASON FRY,
and NICHOLAS NEWELL individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. SPOKEO, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-08976-WHO
(N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
granting their motion to certify the Viewed-Prior-to-Purchases
Classes pursuant to Rules 23(b)(3) and 23(b)(2), and to certify the
Published Classes pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2).
-- Viewed-Prior-to-Purchase Classes:
Nationwide Viewed-Prior-to-Purchase Class (claims under
California law; represented by proposed class representatives
Stephens, Gallegos, and Boedeker):
"All United States residents who are not registered users of
Spokeo.com and whose teaser profile was viewed by a user
immediately prior to purchasing a Spokeo.com subscription on
or
after November 19, 2019, where such teaser profile includes a
name and home address."
California Viewed-Prior-to-Purchase Class (claims under
California law; represented by proposed class
representatives
Stephens and Gallegos):
"All California residents who are not registered users of
Spokeo.com and whose teaser profile was viewed by a user
immediately prior to purchasing a Spokeo.com subscription on
or
after November 19, 2019, where such teaser profile includes a
name and home address; and
Nationwide Viewed-Prior-to-Purchase in Indiana Class (claims
under Indiana law; represented by proposed class
representative
Boedeker):
"All United States residents who are not registered users of
Spokeo.com and whose teaser profile was viewed by a user
immediately prior to purchasing a Spokeo.com subscription on
or
after November 19, 2019, where the purchasing user's billing
information listed an address in Indiana, and where such
teaser
profile includes a name and home address;"
-- Published Classes:
Nationwide Published Teaser Profile Class (claims under
California law; represented by the Plaintiffs Kellman,
Newell,
and Fry and proposed class representatives Stephens,
Gallegos,
and Boedeker):
"All United States residents who are not registered users of
Spokeo.com and whose teaser profile is searchable on
www.spokeo.com, where such teaser profile includes a name and
home address.
California Published Teaser Profile Class (claims under
California law; represented by the Plaintiffs Kellman,
Stephens,
and Gallegos):
"All United States residents who are not registered users of
Spokeo.com and whose teaser profile is searchable on
www.spokeo.com, where such teaser profile includes a name and
home address."
Ohio Published Teaser Profile Class (claims under Ohio law;
represented by the Plaintiff Newell):
"All Ohio residents who are not registered users of
Spokeo.com
and whose teaser profile is searchable on www.spokeo.com,
where
such teaser profile includes a name and home address.
In the alternative, should the Court determine that only certain
issues are appropriate for class treatment, the Plaintiffs
respectfully request certification of those issues under Rule
23(c)(4).
The Plaintiffs further ask the Court for and Order:
-- appointing them and Susan Gledhill Stephens, Benny Gallegos,
and Shelly Boedeker as Class Representatives; and
-- appointing Morgan & Morgan LLP, Turke & Strauss LLP, and the
Law Office of Benjamin R. Osborn as Class Counsel.
On November 19, 2021, the Plaintiffs Aviva Kellman, Jason Fry, and
Nicholas Newell filed a class action complaint asserting claims
under California's, Ohio's, and Indiana's Right of Publicity
statutes and common law torts of misappropriation of name or
likeness.
The Plaintiffs also asserted claims under California's Unfair
Competition Law. The Plaintiffs allege that Spokeo uses their names
and personas without their consent to advertise subscriptions in
violation of their intellectual property and privacy rights.
On April 19, 2022, the Court denied Spokeo's motion to dismiss. On
July 8, 2022, the Court denied Spokeo’s motion to certify
interlocutory appeal on standing and CDA immunity. Prior to filing
this motion, the Parties filed a stipulation for leave to file an
amended complaint adding three additional named the Plaintiffs and
the Viewed-Prior-to-Purchase Classes.
Spokeo, which owns and operates the website www.spokeo.com, trades
on the public’s curiosity in learning potentially scandalous
information about friends, neighbors, and family members.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 3, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pcBq49 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael F. Ram, Esq.
Marie N. Appel, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 358-6913
Telephone: (415) 358-6293
E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com
mappel@forthepeople.com
- and -
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Brittany Resch, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703-3515
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
E-mail: raina@turkestrauss.com
sam@turkestrauss.com
brittanyr@turkestrauss.com
- and -
Benjamin R. Osborn, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF BENJAMIN R. OSBORN
102 Bergen Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (347) 645-0464
E-mail: ben@benosbornlaw.com
STANTEC CONSULTING: Plan Participants Get Class Status in Gotta
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Samantha Gotta, et al., v.
Stantec Consulting Services Incorporated, et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-01865-GMS (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge G. Murray Snow entered
an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Additionally,
1. Samantha Gotta and Michael De Sena are appointed as class
Representatives.
2. Edelson Lechtzin LLP and McKay Law LLC are appointed as class
counsel.
The Court further ordered that the Defendants motion for partial
summary judgment is granted on the Plaintiffs' claims for
prospective injunctive relief.
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 Plaintiffs filed their motion to certify on July 22, 2022, and
the Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on pril 14,
2023. Both motions are effectively unopposed.
The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class:
"all persons, except the 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."
Stantec provides architectural, engineering, and environmental
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nM7YBE at no extra charge.[CC]
STARBUCKS CORP: Mallouk Sues Over Illegal Biometric Info Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUZANNE MALLOUK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-03772-JHR (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2023) arises out of the
Defendant's violations of the Biometric Identifier Information Law.
From the time that Plaintiff Mallouk visited the Starbucks-Amazon
Go store on November 19, 2022 through March 13, 2023, Starbucks did
not post any signs at the 111 E. 59th Street store to disclose
Starbucks's collection, retention, conversion, storage, or sharing
of biometric identifier information, and Starbucks did not post any
signs at the other 620 8th Avenue Starbucks-Amazon Go store
location disclosing its collection, retention, conversion, storage,
or sharing collection of biometric identifier information.
On March 14, 2023, Starbucks posted the following sign its 111 E.
59th Street Starbucks–Amazon Go store location and its 620 8th
Avenue location in New York City. However, the signage that
Starbucks posted at its two Starbucks–Amazon Go stores on or
after March 14, 2023, falls woefully short of complying with the
Biometric Identifier Information Law's disclosure mandate, says the
suit.
Starbucks Corporation is a publicly traded company headquartered in
Seattle, Washington and incorporated in Washington. Starbucks is
the world's largest coffeehouse chain and serves its consumers
through more than 35,000 stores globally, including nearly 16,000
stores in the US, nearly 700 stores in New York, and nearly 200
stores in New York City. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher K. Leung, Esq.
POLLOCK COHEN LLP
111 Broadway, Suite 1804
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (917) 985-3995
E-mail: chris@pollockcohen.com
- and -
Peter Romer-Friedman, Esq.
PETER ROMER-FRIEDMAN LAW PLLC
1629 K Street NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 355-6364
E-mail: peter@prf-law.com
STATE FARM: Filing of Class Status Bid in Boobuli's Due Nov. 15
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOOBULI'S LLC, a
California limited liability company, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
and STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
3:20-cv-07074-WHO (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick
entered an order granting stipulation modifying pretrial schedule
as follows:
-- Summary Judgment Schedule:
Motion: July 26, 2023
Opposition: September 6,
2023
Reply: September 27,
2023
Hearing: October 11, 2023
-- Class Certification Schedule:
Motion: November 15,
2023
Opposition: December 6, 2023
Reply: December 20,
2023
Hearing: January 10, 2024
-- The following dates are unchanged:
Pretrial Conference: May 13, 2024
Trial: June 10, 2024
State Farm provides property liability insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44BvRww at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Birka-White, Esq.
Laura A. Carrier, Esq.
BIRKA-WHITE LAW OFFICES
78 E Prospect Ave,
Danville, CA 94526
Telephone: (866) 474-9999
The Defendant is represented by:
Anna S. McLean, Esq.
Frank Falzetta, Esq.
Jennifer Hoffman, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
Telephone: (415) 434-9100
Facsimile: (415) 434-3947
E-mail: amclean@sheppardmullin.com
ffalzetta@sheppardmullin.com
jhoffman@sheppardmullin.com
STATE FARM: Seeks June 2 Extension to Oppose Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA CLIPPINGER, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM
MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY and AUDATEX NORTH AMERICA, INC.
d/b/a AUDAEXPLORE, Case No. 2:20-cv-02482-TLP-cgc (W.D. Tenn.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting a 7-day
extension of the current deadline for the Defendants to file their
class certification oppositions and disclose expert reports, with a
new due date of June 2, 2023.
1. The current deadline for the Defendants to file their class
certification oppositions and disclose expert reports is May
26,
2023.
2. The Defendants request a 7-day extension of time, through and
including June 2, 2023, to file their class certification
oppositions and disclose expert reports.
3. Counsel for the Defendants has conferred with counsel for the
Plaintiff regarding this 7-day extension request, and the
Plaintiff does not oppose the Defendants’ request.
State Farm is a provider of general and life insurance, banking
products and mutual funds.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 3, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nBuihm at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Eric L. Robertson, Esq.
Peter W. Herzog, III, Esq.
Eric L. Robertson, Esq.
WHEELER TRIGG O’DONNELL LLP
One Metropolitan Square
211 N. Broadway, Suite 2825
St. Louis, MO 63102-2723
Telephone: (303) 244-1800
Facsimile: (303) 244-1879
E-mail: pherzog@wtotrial.com
robertson@wtotrial.com
- and -
Christopher L. Vescovo, Esq.
LEWIS THOMASON
40 South Main Street, Suite 2900
Memphis, TN 38103
Telephone: (901) 525-8721
Facsimile: (901) 525-6722
E-mail: cvescovo@lewisthmason.com
- and -
Paul T. Fox, Esq.
Kevin J. Quilty, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
77 West Wacker
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 456-8400
Facsimile: (312) 456-8435
E-mail: foxp@gtlaw.com
quiltyk@gtlaw.com
- and -
Odell Horton Jr., Esq.
WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS LLP
6070 Poplar Avenue, Suite 300
Memphis, TN 3811
Telephone: (901) 537-1082
Facsimile: (901) 537-1010
E-mail: ohorton@wyattfirm.com
STONE TECH: Fails to Pay Overtime Premiums, Gonzalez Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STONE TECH INDUSTRIES LLC, a New York
limited liability company, and SALIH OZEN, an individual,
Defendants, Case No. Case 1:23-cv-03781 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2023)
arises out of the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff Gonzalez worked for the Defendants as a construction
worker from approximately August 2020 through February 2021.
Throughout his employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff was
sometimes paid in cash with no pay stubs provided. In addition, the
Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiff any overtime premium for
hours worked over 40 in each workweek, says the suit.
Stone Tech Industries LLC is a New York domestic limited liability
company that owns and operates a construction company known as
Stone Tech Industries, which is authorized to and does business in
he confines of the Southern District of New York. [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
STURM RUGER: Briefing Schedule Entered in Data Breach Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sturm, Ruger & Co. Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending April 1, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 3, 2023, that the U.S. District Court
for New Jersey entered briefing schedule for the consolidated data
breach class suit in the U.S. District Court for Connecticut.
The Company was named in two purported class action lawsuits
arising out of a data breach at Freestyle Solutions, Inc., the
vendor who hosted the Company's ShopRuger.com website at the time
of the breach.
Jones v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., was filed in the U.S. District Court
for Connecticut on October 4, 2022 and Copeland v. Sturm, Ruger &
Company, et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for New Jersey
on October 27, 2022.
Copeland also named Freestyle Solutions, Inc. as a defendant.
By agreement of the parties, Copeland was dismissed, without
prejudice, and consolidated with Jones in the pending Connecticut
case.
On January 20, 2023, five plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint
naming the Company and Freestyle Software, Inc. as defendants.
The Complaint alleges causes of action for negligence, breach of
implied warranties, and unjust enrichment.
The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on a variety of grounds, and
a briefing schedule was entered by the court.
Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
designs, manufactures, and sells firearms under the Ruger name and
trademark in the United States. It operates in two segments,
Firearms and Castings. Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. was founded in
1949 and is based in Southport, Connecticut.
SUMTER ORIGINAL: Court Certifies Class of Tipped Employees in Stoke
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHASIDY N. STOKES, KELLIAN
N. WINESKI, PAMELA KELLEY, LEXUS HARRIS, MALCOLM PERRY, and MICHAEL
SHEEHAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. SUMTER ORIGINAL BREWERY, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-01801-MGL
(D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Mary Geiger Lewis entered an order
granting consent motion to certify class and granting as modified
motion for settlement approval:
"All persons who worked as tipped employees for Sumter Original
Brewery, LLC, and were paid an hourly wage below $7.25 per
hour,
at any time during the Release Period" as defined in the notice
and settlement agreement for the purposes of notice and
settlement."
The Court directed the parties to confer regarding whether signed
consent and the opportunity to object to the settlement by putative
class members is required in this case. The parties replied that
written consent was needed and provided an amended notice and
opt-in form. The Court again directed the parties to explain why
the opt-in form failed to provide an opportunity for putative class
members to object. The parties replied another time, informing the
Court they believe a chance to object and final approval of the
settlement are unrequired by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The Court has reviewed the parties' motions, replies, and proposed
notice and opt-in forms. Although it agrees with the parties that
including information about objections in the notice is
unnecessary, it will refrain from granting final approval of the
settlement until the opt-in period expires. At that point, the
parties may move for final approval and advise the Court the number
and proportion of putative class members who ultimately opt-in.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42h9XNE at no extra charge.[CC]
SUTTER VALLEY: Tinnin Parties Must File Case Disposition by June 23
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled KRISTEENA TINNIN, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUTTER VALLEY MEDICAL
FOUNDATION, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-00482-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Erica P.
Grosjean of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California rules that by no later than June 23, 2023, the parties
will make a filing regarding the disposition of this case, such as
a motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement.
On April 2, 2020, the Plaintiff filed this putative class action,
which alleges various wage, hour and other labor-related claims
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code,
as well as a representative action claim for civil penalties under
the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.
On Dec. 1, 2022, the Court set a briefing schedule for the
Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification. A hearing on
the motion for class certification, as well as a scheduling
conference, was set for April 28, 2023. However, the Defendant
filed a response to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
on March 24, 2023, notifying the Court that "the parties have
reached a tentative global settlement of the claims in this
action."
Now before the Court is the parties' joint status report, which
states that this case, in conjunction with two related state court
cases, has settled. According to the report, the parties are in the
process of executing a final Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and
expect to have all signatures returned in short order, at which
point they will commence drafting a long-form class action
settlement agreement. The parties will present that agreement to
the Superior Court for approval. The parties' agreement
contemplates dismissal of this action in its entirety following
completion of the approval process.
Accordingly, the parties request the Court defer any scheduling or
other activity in this case until the state court settlement
approval process is complete and that the April 28 scheduling
conference be vacated.
In light of the parties' report, Judge Grosjean orders as follows:
1. By no later than June 23, 2023, the parties will make a
filing regarding the disposition of this case, e.g., a
stipulation for voluntary dismissal, see Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(a), or a motion for preliminary approval of a class
action settlement;
2. Given that the Plaintiff has asserted class and
representative claims, if the parties believe that a
stipulation for voluntary dismissal is appropriate, they
should include legal authority for why their claims may be
resolved without further Court approval; and
3. Further, the Court vacates all other pending deadlines and
hearings.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 24, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mr4b6mz8 from Leagle.com.
TACTILE SYSTEMS: Hearing on Final OK of Settlement Set for August
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tactile Systems Technology 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 8, 2023, that the final
approval hearing for Brian Mart class suit settlement will be held
on August 23, 2023.
The Company and certain of its present or former officers have been
sued in a purported securities class action lawsuit that was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
on September 29, 2020, and that is pending under the caption Brian
Mart v. Tactile Systems Technology, Inc., et al., File No.
0:20-cv-02074-NEB-BRT (the "Mart Lawsuit").
On April 19, 2021, the plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against
the Company and eight of its present and former officers and
directors.
Plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of investors who
purchased our common stock in the market during the time period
from May 7, 2018 through June 8, 2020 ("alleged class period").
The Amended Complaint alleges the following claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"):
(1) that the Company and certain officer defendants made materially
false or misleading public statements about its business,
operational and compliance policies, and results during the alleged
class period in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act; (2)
that the Company and the individual defendants engaged in a scheme
to defraud investors in order to allow the individual defendants to
sell its stock in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act;
(3) that the individual defendants engaged in improper insider
trading of its stock in violation of Section 20A of the Exchange
Act; and (4) that the Company and the individual defendants are
liable under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act because each
defendant is a controlling person.
On June 18, 2021, the Company and the individual defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.
On March 31, 2022, the court granted in part, and denied in part,
the defendants' motion to dismiss.
All claims against three individual defendants were dismissed, and
most claims against four other individual defendants were
dismissed.
On November 21, 2022, the Company announced that it entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding to settle this matter.
The Company does not expect to fund any portion of cash payments
made in connection with the $5 million settlement amount.
The settlement does not constitute an admission of liability or
wrongdoing by the Company.
The settlement is subject to court approval.
On February 28, 2023, the parties executed a stipulation of
settlement and the plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of the class settlement with the court.
On April 26, 2023, the court issued a minute order indicating the
motion would be approved and on May 4, 2023, issued the written
order granting the motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement.
A hearing for final approval of the settlement will be held on
August 23, 2023.
Tactile Systems Technology, Inc., incorporated in 1995, is a
medical technology company that develops and provides medical
devices for the treatment of chronic diseases at home. Tactile's
principal area of therapeutic focus is vascular disease, with a
goal of advancing the standard of care in treating lymphedema4 and
chronic venous insufficiency.[BN]
TESLA INC: Parties Seek Stay of Amans Suit
------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW AMANS and BABEK
MALEK, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals, v. TESLA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
3:21-cv-03577-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties request that the Court
enter an order:
-- staying the current case schedule and all related deadlines,
and
-- setting the deadline for the Plaintiffs to move for
preliminary
approval of the forthcoming class action settlement on June
12,
2023.
In support of the joint motion, the Parties state as follows:
1. Following over a year of discussions and the engagement of
mediator Robert A. Meyer, Esq. of JAMS, the Parties have
reached
an agreement in principle to resolve this litigation on a
class-
wide basis that will provide meaningful relief to the class.
2. Because the Parties are now working diligently to draft,
finalize, and execute a written settlement agreement
reflecting
that agreement, the Parties respectfully request that the
Court
stay all case deadlines pending preliminary and final
approval
of the forthcoming settlement.
This includes the Plaintiffs' May 8, 2023 deadline to move for
class certification, and the related class certification briefing
deadlines.
The Plaintiffs anticipate that they will move for preliminary
approval of the forthcoming settlement agreement no later than June
12, 2023.
The relief requested herein will not unduly delay this case or
prejudice any party, nor is it made for any improper purpose.
Rather, the request is made jointly by the Parties and in a timely
manner.
Tesla is an American multinational automotive and clean energy
company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NMjl7i at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eve-Lynn Rapp, Esq.
EDELSON PC WILMER CUTLER
2101 Pearl Street
Boulder, CO 80302
Telephone: (720) 741-0076
Facsimile: (720) 741-0081
E-mail: erapp@edelson.com
- and -
Justin T. Berger, Esq.
Saravenaz “Nazy” J. Fahimi
COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
San Francisco Airport Office Center
840 Malcolm Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
E-mail: jberger@cpmlegal.com
sfahimi@cpmlegal.com
- and -
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
J. Aaron Lawson, Esq.
Yaman Salahi, Esq.
EDELSON PC
150 California Street, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 212-9300
Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
alawson@edelson.com
ysalahi@edelson.com
- and -
Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 W. University Dr., Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (212) 937-7294
Facsimile: (248) 652.2852
E-mail: pm@millerlawpc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
David C. Marcus, Esq.
PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 443-5312
E-mail: david.marcus@wilmerhale.com
- and -
Allison Bingxue Que, Esq.
Alan Schoenfeld, Esq.
Ryan Chabot, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Telephone: (650) 858-6000
E-mail: allison.que@wilmerhale.com
alan.schoenfeld@wilmerhale.com
ryan.chabot@wilmerhale.com
TOYOTA MOTOR: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by Sept. 8
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLENN KESSELMAN, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
et al. v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., a California
corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-06010-TJH-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. entered an order granting stipulation to
continue deadlines as follows:
1. All deadlines related to briefing and discovery in the
Court's
Class Certification Briefing Order are vacated.
2. The Plaintiffs shall file their Motion(s) for Class
Certification on or before September 8, 2023.
3. The Defendants shall have until September 29, 2023, to take
the
deposition of any expert disclosed in connection with the
Plaintiffs' Motion(s) for Class Certification.
4. The Defendants shall file their Opposition(s) to any
Motion(s)
for Class Certification on or before November 3, 2023.
5. The Plaintiffs shall have until November 24, 2023 to take the
deposition of any expert disclosed in connection with the
Defendants' Opposition(s) to any Motion(s) for Class
Certification.
6. The Plaintiffs shall file their Reply to any Opposition(s) to
the Motion(s) for Class Certification on or before December
15,
2023.
7. The hearing date for the Motion(s) for Class Certification
shall
be January 5, 2024, and taken under submission.
8. The last day to hear a motion to amend the pleadings or add
new
parties shall be October 13, 2023.
9. The status conference currently set for November 20, 2023 at
10:00 remains unchanged.
Toyota Motor is the North American Toyota sales, marketing, and
distribution subsidiary devoted to the United States market.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nE0PU5 at no extra charge.[CC]
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Wollam Due July 20
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CYNTHIA WOLLAM, as Trustee
of the Irrevocable Trust of Miles E. Wollam and Mary H. Wollam,
Individually, and on Behalf of the Class, v. TRANSAMERICA LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, an Iowa Corporation, Case No. 4:21-cv-09134-JST
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order that the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification and the briefing shall
now proceed according to the following schedule of deadlines, which
constitutes a continuance of about 60 days:
-- The Plaintiff's deadline to file July 20, 2023
motion for class certification
on or before:
-- The Defendant's deadline to file Sept. 14, 2023
opposition to motion for class
certification on or before:
-- The Plaintiff's reply in support Oct. 12, 2023
of motion for class certification
due on or before:
-- Motion Hearing set for: Nov. 9, 2023
The Plaintiff filed her complaint against the Defendant on October
19, 2021. The Defendant Answered the First Amended Complaint on
February 1, 2022. The Court held an Initial Case Management
Conference on March 8, 2022.
Transamerica Life offers life, health, and dental insurance,
A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3M4OJN4 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
225 Broadway, 19th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 325-0492
Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
- and -
Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq.
Sarah Ball, Esq.
WINTERS & ASSOCIATES
8489 La Mesa Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
Telephone: (619) 234-9000
Facsimile: (619) 750-0413
E-mail: jackbwinters@earthlink.net
sball@einsurelaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Vivian I. Orlando, Esq.
MAYNARD NEXSEN LLP
10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 550
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 596-4500
Facsimile: (205) 254-1999
E-mail: vorlando@maynardnexsen.com
- and -
Larry M. Golub, Esq.
SACRO & WALKER LLP
700 North Brand Blvd., Ste. 610
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 721-9597
Facsimile: (818) 721-9670
E-mail: lgolub@sacrowalker.com
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: July 20 Extension for Class Cert Filing Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CYNTHIA WOLLAM, as Trustee
of the Irrevocable Trust of Miles E. Wollam and Mary H. Wollam,
Individually, and on Behalf of the Class, v. TRANSAMERICA LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, an Iowa Corporation, Case No. 4:21-cv-09134-JST
(N.D. Cal.), the Parties file joint stipulation and request to
extend time to file class certification motion:
-- The Plaintiff's deadline to file motion July 20, 2023
for class certification on or before:
-- The Defendant's deadline to file Sept. 14, 2023
opposition to motion for class
certification on or before:
-- The Plaintiff's reply in support of Oct. 12, 2023
motion for class certification due
on or before:
Transamerica Life operates as an insurance firm. The Company offers
life, health, and dental insurance, A copy of the Court's order.
A copy of Parties' motion dated May 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nws96R at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
225 Broadway, 19th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 325-0492
Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
- and -
Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq.
Sarah Ball, Esq.
WINTERS & ASSOCIATES
8489 La Mesa Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
Telephone: (619) 234-9000
Facsimile: (619) 750-0413
E-mail: jackbwinters@earthlink.net
sball@einsurelaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Vivian I. Orlando, Esq.
MAYNARD NEXSEN LLP
10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 550
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 596-4500
Facsimile: (205) 254-1999
E-mail: vorlando@maynardnexsen.com
- and -
Larry M. Golub, Esq.
SACRO & WALKER LLP
700 North Brand Blvd., Ste. 610
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 721-9597
Facsimile: (818) 721-9670
E-mail: lgolub@sacrowalker.com
TRAVEL INSURED: Edleson Has Until July 5 to File Reply Brief
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOUIS B. EDLESON, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. TRAVEL
INSURED INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00323-WQH-DDL
(S.D. Cal.), the Parties submit a joint motion for an order
extending:
-- by one week, until May 19, 2023, the deadline for the
Defendants
to file their brief in opposition to the Plaintiffs motion for
class certification; and
-- until July 5, 2023, the deadline for the Plaintiff to file his
reply brief in further support of the motion for class
certification.
On March 24, 2023, the Plaintiff filed his motion for class
certification. On April 6, 2023, the Court entered an order
granting the Parties' Joint Motion for Briefing Schedule, which set
(1) May 12, 2023, as the deadline for the Defendants to file their
brief in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification; and (2) June 26, 2023, as the deadline for the
Plaintiff to file his reply brief in further support of the motion
for class certification.
Travel Insured provides comprehensive travel insurance plans to
worldwide travelers.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 4, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HSrVxw at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858) 914-2001
Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
The Defendants are represented by:
Steven B. Weisburd, Esq.
Markham R. Leventhal, Esq.
CARLTON FIELDS, LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2913
Telephone: (310) 843-6300
Facsimile: (310) 843-6301
E-mail: sweisburd@carltonfields.com
mleventhal@carltonfields.com
- and -
Michael N. Wolgin, Esq.
CARLTON FIELDS, P.A.
2 Miami Central, Suite 1200
700 NW 1st Avenue
Miami, FL 33136
E-mail: mwolgin@carltonfields.com
TRUIST BANK: Filing for Class Certification Bids Due May 3, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN TRUONG, v. TRUIST
BANK, Case No. 1:19-cv-00128-DBB-DAO (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge
David Keesler entered a pretrial order and case management plan as
follows:
-- Rule 26 Disclosures: May 10, 2023
-- Expert Reports:
Plaintiff: February 9, 2024
Defendant: March 8, 2024
-- Discovery Completion: April 12, 2024
-- Mediation Report: April 26, 2024
-- Class Certification Motions May 3, 2024
-- Dispositive Motions: July 19, 2024
-- Trial Date: October 22, 2024
Truist Bank offers a wide range of financial products and services
for individuals and businesses.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NNmOCP at no extra charge.[CC]
TS INNOVATION: Faces Subramanian Suit Over Stock Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------
SUBASH SUBRAMANIAN, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TS INNOVATION ACQUISITIONS SPONSOR, L.L.C.
ROBERT J. SPEYER, JERRY I. SPEYER, TISHMAN SPEYER PROPERTIES, L.P.,
TISHMAN SPEYER PROPERTIES, INC., PAUL A. GALIANO, JENNY WONG,
JOSHUA KAZAM, JENNIFER RUBIO, NED SEGAL, AND MICHELANGELO VOLPI,
Case No. 2023-0514 (Del. Ch., May 10, 2023) is a Verified Class
Action Complaint on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated stockholders of TS Innovation Acquisitions, Inc. (TSIA), a
special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), which, through a merger
of its wholly-owned subsidiary, Lionet Merger Sub Inc., acquired
Latch, Inc. as its wholly owned subsidiary.
The Plaintiff asserts breach of fiduciary duty claims arising from
the Merger against
(a) Robert J. Speyer, Paul A. Galiano, Jenny Wong, Joshua
Kazam, Jennifer Rubio, Ned Segal, and Michelangelo Volpi,
in their capacity as members of TSIA's board
of directors; and
(b) TS Innovations Acquisitions Sponsor, L.L.C., Tishman Speyer
Properties, L.P., Tishman Speyer Properties, Inc., Jerry I.
Speyer, and Robert J. Speyer, in their capacities as TSIA's
controlling stockholders.
On August 25, 2022, after the market closed, Latch filed a form 8-K
stating that "[b]ased on the preliminary findings of the
Investigation, certain revenue recognition errors occurred as a
result of unreported sales arrangements due to sales activity that
was inconsistent with the Company's internal controls and
procedures" and that the company would be restating its
consolidated financial statements for 2021 and 2022 as a result.
Latch's stock price fell $0.13, or 12.2%, to close at $0.95 per
share on August 26, 2022, following this announcement.
On November 10, 2022, Latch filed another Form 12b-25 Notification
of Late Filing with the SEC, again citing the Audit Committee's
investigation and stating that it had been “expanded to include
an investigation of the Company's financial statements for 2019 and
2020”—which notably pre-date the Merger.
On April 3, 2023, Latch filed another Form 12b-25 again citing the
Audit Committee's investigation, confirming that Latch's
consolidated financial statements for 2019, 2020, 2021, and the
first quarter of 2022 should no longer be relied upon as a result
of internal control deficiencies and errors relating to the manner
in which Latch recognized revenue.
On the same day, April 3, 2023, Latch's stock price allegedly
closed trading at $0.69 per share.
In addition to breaching the duty of loyalty, the TSIA Individual
Defendants breached their duty of candor by withholding information
regarding the dilution of the shares. Without this information,
coupled with the affirmative misrepresentations regarding Legacy
Latch's sales and projected growth, the TSIA stockholders were not
able to make an informed decision on whether to redeem their shares
for $10, or remain invested in TSIA through the Merger, the suit
contends.
Mr. Subramanian, an adult resident of Flower Mound, Texas,
purchased shares of TSIA stock prior to the May 11, 2021 and was
entitled to redeem his shares in connection with the Merger. Mr.
Subramanian did not redeem his shares and now holds Latch stock.
TSIA, now Latch, is a Delaware corporation formed as a SPAC in
2020.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
DELEEUW LAW LLC
1301 Walnut Green Road
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 274-2180
E-mail: brad@deleeuwlaw.com
- and -
Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 308-5888
E-mail: eagel@bespc.com
walker@bespc.com
UNITED STATES OIL: Continues to Defend Lucas Class Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
United States Oil Fund LP disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Lucas class suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
On June 19, 2020, USCF, USO, John P. Love, and Stuart P. Crumbaugh
were named as defendants in a putative class action filed by
purported shareholder Robert Lucas (the "Lucas Class Action"). The
Court thereafter consolidated the Lucas Class Action with two
related putative class actions filed on July 31, 2020 and August
13, 2020, and appointed a lead plaintiff. The consolidated class
action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under the caption In re: United States Oil
Fund, LP Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04740.
On November 30, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
(the "Amended Lucas Class Complaint").
The Amended Lucas Class Complaint asserts claims under the 1933
Act, the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5.
The Amended Lucas Class Complaint challenges statements in
registration statements that became effective on February 25, 2020
and March 23, 2020 as well as subsequent public statements through
April 2020 concerning certain extraordinary market conditions and
the attendant risks that caused the demand for oil to fall
precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi
Arabia-Russia oil price war.
The Amended Lucas Class Complaint purports to have been brought by
an investor in USO on behalf of a class of similarly-situated
shareholders who purchased USO securities between February 25, 2020
and April 28, 2020 and pursuant to the challenged registration
statements.
The Amended Lucas Class Complaint seeks to certify a class and to
award the class compensatory damages at an amount to be determined
at trial as well as costs and attorney's fees.
The Amended Lucas Class Complaint named as defendants USCF, USO,
John P. Love, Stuart P. Crumbaugh, Nicholas D. Gerber, Andrew F
Ngim, Robert L. Nguyen, Peter M. Robinson, Gordon L. Ellis, and
Malcolm R. Fobes III, as well as the marketing agent, ALPS
Distributors, Inc., and the Authorized Participants: ABN Amro, BNP
Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup
Global Markets, Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche
Bank Securities Inc., Goldman Sachs & Company, J.P. Morgan
Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corporation,
Morgan Stanley & Company Inc., Nomura Securities International
Inc., RBC Capital Markets LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, UBS
Securities LLC, and Virtu Financial BD LLC.
The lead plaintiff has filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of its
claims against BNP Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel
Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse
Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Morgan Stanley &
Company, Inc., Nomura Securities International, Inc., RBC Capital
Markets, LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, and UBS Securities LLC.
USCF, USO, and the individual defendants in In re: United States
Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation intend to vigorously contest
such claims and have moved for their dismissal.
United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO") is a Delaware limited
partnership organized on May 12, 2005. USO maintains its main
business office at 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1530, Oakland,
California 94612. USO is a commodity pool that issues limited
partnership interests ("shares") traded on the NYSE Arca, Inc. It
operates pursuant to the terms of the Sixth Amended and Restated
Agreement of Limited Partnership dated as of March 1, 2013 (as
amended from time to time, the "LP Agreement"), which grants full
management control to its general partner, United States Commodity
Funds LLC ("USCF").
UNITED STATES POLO: Binder Sues Over Mislabeled Apparel Items
-------------------------------------------------------------
DEMETRA BINDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES POLO ASSOCIATION; USPA
PROPERTIES INC., and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-02910 (N.D. Ill., May 9, 2023) is an action against the
Defendants alleging to have advertised false price discounts for
merchandise sold throughout their retail and outlet stores
(hereinafter sometimes referred to collectively as "retail
stores").
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff purchased apparel items,
accessories, and other items at the Defendants' retail stores that
were deceptively represented as discounted from a false advertised
reference price.
The Plaintiff seeks to halt the dissemination of this false,
misleading, and deceptive pricing scheme, to correct the false and
misleading perception it has created in the minds of consumers, and
to obtain redress for those who have overpaid for merchandise
tainted by this deceptive pricing scheme. The Plaintiff also seeks
to enjoin Defendants from using false and misleading
misrepresentations regarding former price comparisons in their
labeling and advertising permanently, says the suit.
UNITED STATES POLO ASSOCIATION retail and outlet stores in New
Jersey and Illinois, and advertises, markets, distributes, and/or
sells clothing and clothing accessories in New Jersey and Illinois,
and throughout the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katrina Carroll, Esq.
Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 750-1265
Facsimile: (312) 212-5919
Email: katrina@lcllp.com
kyle@lcllp.com
- and -
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
Scott G. Braden, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 762-1910
Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
Email: todd@lcllp.com
scott@lcllp.com
UNIVERSAL CITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Clarke Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
ATIBA CLARKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLC; and DOES 1 to
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV10449 (Cal., Super., Los
Angeles Cty., May 11, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals,
and provide accurate wage statements.
Plaintiff Clarke was employed by the Defendants as a staff.
UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLC operates as an entertainment company.
The Company produces and distributes motion pictures and television
programs, as well as movies, shows, theme parks, mini-series, and
other related services. Universal City Studios serves customers in
the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
Courtney M. Miller, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 432-0000
Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
cmiller@lelawfirm.com
WHT1@lelawfirm.com
UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT: Sued Over Mismanagement of Retirement Fund
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TYLER BAKER, individually and on behalf of The University of
Vermont Medical Center 403(b) Plan, Plaintiff v. THE UNTVERSITY OF
VERMONT MEDICAL CENTER, INC.; BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF VERMONT MEDICAL CENTER; DC FIDUCIARY INVESTMENT COMMITTEE; and
JOHN DOES l-45, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00087-gwc (D. Vt., May
10, 2023) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.
According to the complaint, the University of Vemtont Medical
Center 403(b) Plan (the "Plan") assets under management qualifies
it as a mega plan in the defined contribution plan marketplace. As
a mega plan, the Plan had substantial bargaining power regarding
the fees and expenses that were charged against participants'
investments.
For example, according to Morningstar Inc. research, participants
in small, defined-contribution plans with assets totaling $25
million or less, on average, pay 84 basis points on investment
fees, while participants in plans with more than $500 million pay
just 40 basis points. The Defendants, however, inter alia, failed
to exercise appropriate judgment and permitted the Plan's serice
providers to charge excessive administrative fees and expenses,
says the suit.
During the putative Class Period, the Defendants, as "fiduciaries"
of the Plan, breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to the
Plaintiff, and to the other participants of the Plan by failing to
adequately monitor and control the Plan's recordkeeping costs, the
suit contends.
THE UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT MEDICAL CENTER (UVMMC) is a five-campus
academic medical facility under the corporate umbrella of the
University of Vermont Health Network that is anchored by a 562-bed
hospital in Burlington, Vermont. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Russell Barr, Esq.
BARR LAW GROUP
125 Mountain Road
Stowe, VT 05672
Telephone: (802) 253-6272
Facsimile: (802) 253-6055
Email: russ@barrlaw.com
- and -
Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Suite N-300
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2399
Email: elechtzin@edelson-law.com
medelson@edelson-law.com
- and -
Michael C. McKay, Esq.
MCKAY LAW, LLC
5635 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 117
Scottsdale, AZ 85250
Telephone: (480) 68l-7000
Email: mmckay@mckaylaw.us
VALVE CORP: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended to Jan. 26, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wolfire Games LLC et al v.
Valve Corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-00563-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge John C. Coughenour entered an order granting stipulated
motion to modify case schedule as follows:
Event Current Proposed
Date Date
Substantial Completion of Parties' May 1, 2023 Aug. 1,
2023
Document Productions
Final Deadline for Service of June 30, 2023 Aug 31,
2023
Third-Party Document Subpoenas
Close of Fact Discovery Oct. 31, 2023 Nov. 30,
2023
Deadline to file the Plaintiffs' Dec. 21, 2023 Jan. 26,
2024
Motion for Class Certification
accompanied by the evidence and
declarations on which the
Plaintiffs rely, and disclose
the Plaintiffs' Class Certification
Expert Report(s)”
Valve Corp. is an American video game developer, publisher, and
digital distribution company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pmbOlK at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alicia Cobb, Esq.
Steig D. Olson, Esq.
David LeRay, Esq.
Adam Wolfson, Esq.
Charles Stevens, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
1109 First Avenue, Suite 210
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 905-7000
Facsimile: (206) 905-7100
E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com
steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
charliestevens@quinnemanuel.com
- and -
Stephanie L. Jensen, Esq.
Kenneth R. O’Rourke, Esq.
Scott A. Sher, Esq.
Allison B. Smith, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &
ROSATI P.C.
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
Seattle, WA 98104-7036
Telephone (206) 883-2500
Facsimile: (206) 883-2699
E-mail: sjensen@wsgr.com
korourke@wsgr.com
ssher@wsgr.com
allison.smith@wsgr.com
- and -
W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
jcbourne@locklaw.com
- and -
David Golden, Esq.
A. Owen Glist, Esq.
Ankur Kapoor, Esq.
Jeffrey I. Shinder
CONSTANTINE CANNON LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Ave., 22nd Floor
Washington, D.C. 20004
Telephone: (202) 204-4527
Facsimile: (202) 204-3501
E-mail: dgolden@constantinecannon.com
oglist@constantinecannon.com
- and -
Kenneth J. Rubin, Esq.
Timothy B. McGranor, Esq.
Kara M. Mundy, Esq.
Thomas N. McCormick, Esq.
VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
52 East Gay Street
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone:(614) 464-6400
Facsimile:(614) 719-4796
E-mail: kjrubin@vorys.com
tbmcgranor@vorys.com
kmmundy@vorys.com
tnmccormick@vorys.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Gavin W. Skok, Esq.
Kristen Ward Broz, Esq.
Nathan M. Buchter, Esq.
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP, Esq.
1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4400
Seattle, WA 98154
Telephone: (206) 624-3600
E-mail: gskok@foxrothschild.com
kbroz@foxrothschild.com
nbuchter@foxrothschild.com
- and -
Charles B. Casper, Esq.
Peter Breslauer, Esq.
Robert E. Day, Esq.
Jessica Rizzo, Esq.
MONTGOMERY McCRACKEN WALKER
& RHOADS LLP
1735 Market Street, 21st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone (215) 772-1500
E-mail: ccasper@mmwr.com
pbreslauer@mmwr.com
rday@mmwr.com
jrizzo@mmwr.com
VANGUARD CLINICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Esters Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
FELICIA ESTERS a/k/a ESTES TRIAL MANAGEMENT FIRM, LLC, Plaintiff v.
VANGUARD CLINICAL, INC., and BEACON HILL STAFFING GROUP, LLC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00820-AJB-JLB (S.D. Cal., May 4, 2023)
is a class action arising out of the Defendants' violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff submitted "New hire paperwork - Vanguard / Beacon
Hill" in November 2021 to set up her company, Esters Trial
Management Firm, LLC (ETMF), as "an approved vendor in a B2B
relationship with Beacon Hill" as an independent contractor for the
staffing company, Beacon Hill, for Vanguard. Beacon Hill
facilitated the contract for ETMF to start working for Vanguard.
The contract began on December 6, 2021, lasting six months with the
option for Vanguard to extend it or hire Esters as an employee.
Despite Esters working for Vanguard being classified as an
independent contractor, at all times during the work she was
performing for Vanguard, she was doing the work of an employee
under the direction of Vanguard and being paid by Beacon Hill. Now,
Esters is seeking to recover for a breach of contract claim against
Vanguard. Plaintiff ETMF suffered damages for unpaid labor and
services. Moreover, Esters alleges that the Defendants Vanguard and
Beacon Hill, as joint employers, violated the FSLA and the
California Labor Code by failing to pay Esters on behalf of ETMF
time and one-half hour worked in excess of 40 per work week.
Vanguard, is a corporation that is incorporated under the laws of
the State of California and does business in the State of Texas.
Its principal place of business is in California. On the other
hand, Beacon Hill is a human resources and personnel company that
provides staffing services to companies. One such service that
Beacon Hill offers to its clients, like Defendant Vanguard, is
contracted services with independent contractors. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles M. R. Vethan, Esq.
Joseph L. Lanza, Esq.
THE VETHAN LAW FIRM, PC
Two Memorial City Plaza
820 Gessner, Suite 1510
Houston, TX 77024
Telephone: (713) 526-2222
Facsimile: (713) 526-2230
E-mail: edocs@vwtexlaw.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Court Narrows Claims in Rieger Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENI RIEGER, ALOHA DAVIS,
JODIE CHAPMAN, CARRIE VASSEL, KAREN BURNAUGH, TOM GARDEN, ADA and
ANGELI GOZON, HERNAN A. GONZALEZ, PATRICIA A. HENSLEY, CLYDIENE
FRANCIS, PETER and GUNNEL LOWEGARD, and GRANT BRADLEY individually,
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, v.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., a New Jersey corporation, d/b/a
AUDI OF AMERICA, INC., AUDI AG, a German corporation, and
VOLKSWAGEN AG, a German corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-10546-NLH-EAP
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Noel L. Hillman entered an opinion:
-- granting the Plaintiffs' motion to appoint interim lead class
counsel and steering-committee members; and
-- granting in part and denying in part VGA's motion to dismiss.
The Plaintiffs shall have 30 days to file an amended complaint
specifying its allegation against VGA and addressing the Court’s
decision as to their standing to represent a nationwide class. An
Order consistent with this Opinion will be entered ,the Court
said.
VGA, which conducts business under the name "Audi of America,
Inc.," is a New Jersey corporation with a principal place of
business in Herndon, Virginia that markets, distributes,
warranties, and sells Volkswagen and Audi-branded vehicles and
parts.
Rieger purchased a certified pre-owned 2015 Audi A4 Allroad from an
Audi dealership in San Diego, California on or about August 18,
2016, while the Gozons purchased a new 2013 Audi A4 from an Audi
dealership in Las Vegas, Nevada on or about April 25, 2013. The
Plaintiff Davis is a Florida domiciliary who purchased a certified
pre-owned 2017 Audi A4 on or about February 2, 2019, from an Audi
dealership in Jacksonville Florida.
VGA is a New Jersey corporation with a principal place of business
in Herndon, Virginia that markets, distributes, warranties, and
sells Volkswagen and Audi-branded vehicles and parts.
A copy of the Court's opinion dated May 4, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3M4Mb1C at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Abigail Gertner, Esq.
Amey J. Park, Esq.
Natalie Lesser, Esq.
Russell D. Paul, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA. 19103
The Defendants are represented by:
Homer B. Ramsey, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
1 Rockefeller Plaza
Floor 28
New York, N.Y. 10020
- and -
C. Michael Rowan, Jr., Esq.
HERZFELD & RUBIN, LLC
354 Eisenhower Parkway
Livingston, N.J. 07039
WALGREEN PHARMACY: Class Cert Bid Deadline Continued to March 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANITA GAMARRO, an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WALGREEN PHARMACY SERVICES MIDWEST, LLC, an Illinois limited
liability company; WALGREEN CO., an Illinois corporation; and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:22-cv-01811-MEMF-SP (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong entered an order
to continue class certification motion deadline pending mediation:
1. The Motion for Class Certification March 7, 2024.
deadline is continued to:
2. The deadline for the Defendant's April 4, 2024.
Opposition is continued to:
3. The Plaintiff's deadline to file May 2, 2024.
a reply in support of the Motion
for Class Certification is
continued to:
4. The hearing on the Motion for June 13, 2024
Class Certification is set for:
A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nHAiVW at no extra charge.[CC]
WALMART INC: Court Stays Guzman Suit Pending Mediation
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SALVADOR GUZMAN and JAMES
MARSHALL, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. WALMART INC., a Delaware corporation; WAL-MART
ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware corporation; WAL-MART STORES, INC., a
Delaware corporation and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
5:21-cv-09133-NC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Nathanael M. Cousins
entered a modified order granting stipulation to stay the case
pending mediation:
1. The case is stayed in its entirety pending mediation of the
matter, including the court's decision on the Plaintiffs'
Motion
for Class Certification.
2. The May 9, 2023, hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification is vacated, and will be rescheduled after the
Parties' mediation, if necessary.
The May 9, 2023, Case Management Conference is continued to October
25, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. by telephone with a joint update due
October 18, 2023, even if the case is still stayed.
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 2, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NOgF9l at no extra charge.[CC]
WALMART INC: Faces Farmer Suit Over Defective Touchscreen Tablets
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN FARMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-00397-GBW-KRS (D.N.M., May 8, 2023) is a consumer class
action individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
owners of touchscreen tablet computers that the Defendant marketed,
sold, and distributed to customers and retailers across the country
under its private label brand "Onn."
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant concealed
a material defect, specifically the 2019, 2020, and 2021 Onn Surf
and Pro tablets (the "Class Devices"). The displays of the Class
Devices, which are necessary for their operation, are prone to
cracking, developing black patches of "dead pixels," and otherwise
ceasing to function as the result of the Class Devices' defective
design and materials (the "Display Defect").
Had the Plaintiff and Class members known about the Display Defect
at the time of purchase, they would not have bought the Class
Devices, or would have paid substantially less for them, asserts
the suit.
WALMART INC. operates discount stores, supercenters, and
neighborhood markets. The Company offers merchandise such as
apparel, house wares, small appliances, electronics, musical
instruments, books, home improvement, shoes, jewelry, toddler,
games, household essentials, pets, pharmaceutical products, party
supplies, and automotive tools. Walmart serves customers worldwide.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin R. Kaufman, Esq.
Rosalind B. Bienvenu, Esq.
DURHAM, PITTARD & SPALDING, LLP
505 Cerrillos Road, Suite A209
Santa Fe, NM 87501
Telephone: (505) 986-0600
Facsimile: (505) 986-0632
Email: jkaufman@dpslawgroup.com
rbienvenu@dpslawgroup.com
- and -
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
Bryan Faubus, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H St NE
Washington D.C. 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
jrathod@classlawdc.com
bfaubus@classlawdc.com
WALMART INC: Thompson Sues Over Enhancers' Misleading Peach Labels
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART INC., Defendant, Case No.
8:23-cv-01002 (M.D. Fla., May 8, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendant for false and misleading adverting, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment, violations of the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and State Consumer
Fraud Acts, and breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of
merchantability/fitness for a particular purpose and Magnuson Moss
Warranty Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
peach flavored water or beverage enhancers under its Great Value
brand. Due to the product's peach front label, consumers are misled
that the product gets its peach taste only from natural flavoring
ingredients, but it actually contained artificial flavoring
ingredients as listed on its back label. As a result of the false
and misleading representations, the product is sold at a premium
price, says the suit.
Walmart Inc. is a retail company, with a principal place of
business in Bentonville, Arkansas, Benton County. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Wright, Esq.
THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A.
515 N. Flagler Dr., Ste. P300
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 514-0904
E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com
- and -
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 412
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
WB WASTE: Lopez Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification of Collective
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Juan Gabriel Blanco Lopez,
et al. v. WB Waste Solutions, LLC, Case No. 8:23-cv-00963-DLB (D.
Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order conditionally
certifying their overtime claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) as a collective action, and to facilitate the issuance of
notice to all potential class members.
WB Waste Solutions provides solutions for the proper waste removal
needs of commercial, residential, and industrial customers.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 4, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NYigt4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark Hanna, Esq.
Joni S. Jacobs, Esq.
MURPHY ANDERSON PLLC
1401 K St. NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 223-2620
Facsimile: (202) 296-9600
E-mail: mhanna@murphypllc.com
jjacobs@murphypllc.com
WC APA: Pennington Sues Over Fraudulent W-2 Filings to IRS
----------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN PENNINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WC APA, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:23-cv-00455-O (N.D. Tex., May 5, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendant for willful and fraudulent tax filings in violation
of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7434.
The case arises from the Defendant's practice of filing a false and
fraudulent W-2 to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) which
overreported the Plaintiff's and similarly situated employees'
earned wages. During the Plaintiff's employment, the Defendant
purposefully, willfully, and knowingly inflated the income
reflected on his 2021 W2. Because he was receiving social security
benefits, the overinflation of his 2021 income caused him to exceed
social security's cap on allowable earned income, which caused the
Social Security Administration to require him to repay $9,472.00 in
social security benefits that he had previously received, says the
Plaintiff.
Mr. Pennington was employed by the Defendant as an avionics
technician from October 5, 2020 through August 29, 2021.
WC APA, LLC is a temporary staffing company located in Fort Worth,
Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
WELMAKER LAW, PLLC
409 N. Fredonia, Suite 118
Longview, TX 75601
Telephone: (512) 799-2048
E-mail: doug@welmakerlaw.com
- and -
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 10099
Houston, TX 77206
Telephone: (713) 868-3388
Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
WILDFISH LLC: Fact Discovery Must be Completed by August 31
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Maricela Donet
Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
Wildfish, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01180-PGG-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger entered a civil case management plan and
scheduling order as follows:
-- No additional parties may be joined after May 31, 2023.
-- No amended pleadings may be filed after May 31, 2023.
-- All fact discovery shall be completed by Aug. 31, 2023.
-- Initial requests for production were/will be served by May 17,
2023.
-- Any subsequent requests for production must be served no later
than 45 days prior to the discovery completion deadline.
-- Initial interrogatories shall be served by May 17, 2023.
-- Any subsequent interrogatories must be served no later than 45
days prior to the discovery completion deadline.
The Plaintiff brings this class-action against the Defendant on
both an individual basis and on behalf of a nationwide class
against the Defendant for its violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA") and New York City Human Rights Law
("NYCHRL). Specifically, the Defendant failed to design the website
that it owns and operates, shop.redsbest.com, to be equally
accessible to the visually impaired as it is to sighted
individuals.
The Defendant's website offers an array of goods and services that
consumers can purchase online, including fish products and
merchandise. the Defendant's website also provides information
about itself and the products and services it sells.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42y7rSF at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Downes, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
225 Broadway Ste 39th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 595-6200
E-mail: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Peter T. Shapiro, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
77 Water Street, Suite 2100
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 232-1322
E-mail: peter.shapiro@lewisbrisbois.com
WINDSOR FASHION: Hankerson Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
EBONY HANKERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WINDSOR FASHION, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-23-013354 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial Ct., Broward Cty., May 5,
2023) arises out of the Defendant's violations of the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act.
Beginning on or about April of 2023, the Defendant began spamming
Plaintiff with unsolicited texts to Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number to promote its good and services. To transmit the above
telephonic sales calls and/or texts, Defendant utilized computer
software system that automatically selected and/or dialed
Plaintiffs and the Class members' telephone numbers. In addition,
the Defendant also failed to get prior express written consent from
the Plaintiff before engaging in telemarketing calls/or texts using
automated system, says the suit.
Windsor Fashion LLC maintains its primary place of business and
headquarters in Wilmington, Delaware. It directs, markets, and
provides business activities throughout the State of Florida. [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
E-mail: SPAM-Pleadings@attomeysoftheinjured.com
Jdover@attorneysoftheinjured.com
Y-MABS THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Y-mAbs Therapeutics, 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 8, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from securities class suit in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York.
On January 18, 2023, a purported Y-mAbs stockholder filed a
putative class action lawsuit against the Company and certain of
its current and former officers for alleged violations of the U.S.
federal securities laws in the United States District Court,
Southern District of New York (Case No.: 1:23-cv-00431).
The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, on behalf of a
proposed class consisting of those who acquired the Company's
common stock between October 6, 2020 and October 28, 2022.
The complaint alleges that there were material misrepresentations
and/or omissions regarding the FDA's consideration of the Company's
BLA for omburtamab for the treatment of pediatric patients with
CNS/leptomeningeal metastasis from neuroblastoma firstly submitted
in 2020 and resubmitted in 2022.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages, and costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees.
On April 4, 2023, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff for the
putative class.
On April 17, the Court entered a scheduling order under which the
lead plaintiff has until May 23, 2023 to file an amended complaint
and defendants have until July 11, 2023 to file their motion to
dismiss.
The Company believes that these claims are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against these claims.
Y-mAbs Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company focused on developing antibody therapeutics and medicines
for the treatment of cancer patients of all ages.[BN]
ZILLOW GROUP: Hearing on Final OK of Settlement Set for August 8
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zillow Group 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 3, 2023, that the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California scheduled August 8,
2023 as hearing date for the final approval of the consolidated
Vargosko and Shotwell securities class suits.
In August and September 2017, two purported class action lawsuits
were filed against us and certain of our executive officers,
alleging, among other things, violations of federal securities laws
on behalf of a class of those who purchased our common stock
between February 12, 2016 and August 8, 2017. One of those
purported class actions, captioned Vargosko v. Zillow Group, Inc.
et al, was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California. The other purported class action lawsuit,
captioned Shotwell v. Zillow Group, Inc. et al, was brought in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The
complaints allege, among other things, that during the period
between February 12, 2016 and August 8, 2017, the Company issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding our business
practices.
The complaints seek to recover, among other things, alleged damages
sustained by the purported class members as a result of the alleged
misconduct.
In November 2017, an amended complaint was filed against the
Company and certain of its executive officers in the Shotwell v.
Zillow Group purported class action lawsuit, extending the
beginning of the class period to November 17, 2014.
In January 2018, the Vargosko v. Zillow Group purported class
action lawsuit was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington and consolidated with the Shotwell
v. Zillow Group purported class action lawsuit.
In February 2018, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, and in April 2018, the Company filed its motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.
In October 2018, the Company's motion to dismiss was granted
without prejudice, and in November 2018, the plaintiffs filed a
second consolidated amended complaint, which it moved to dismiss in
December 2018.
On April 19, 2019, its motion to dismiss the second consolidated
amended complaint was denied.
On October 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification which was granted by the court on October 28, 2020.
On February 17, 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied its
petition for review of that decision.
On October 21, 2022, the parties jointly filed a notice of
settlement with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington to inform the court that the parties have reached an
agreement to settle this action.
On March 31, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
preliminary approval of the parties' proposed settlement, which
motion was granted by the court on April 3, 2023.
The terms of the parties' proposed settlement agreement are
contained in the settlement documents filed with the court on March
31, 2023.
The court has set August 8, 2023 as the hearing date for final
approval of the settlement.
The full amount of the settlement payment has been paid by the
Company's insurance carriers under the applicable insurance policy
and pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement.
Zillow Group provides marketing software and technology solutions
based in Washington.
*********
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 ***