/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230605.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, June 5, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 112 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Gebhart Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Marling Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Myers Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Sayre Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Smith Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 57 CATON: Colgate Sues Over Nonpayment of Construction Services ADVANCE STORES CO: Colon Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices AETNA INTERNATIONAL: S.W. Files Suit in W.D. Missouri AIMBRIDGE EMPLOYEE: Ramos Suit Removed to C.D. California AMERICAN HONDA: Court Sets Case Management Conference for July 6 AMERICOR FUNDING: Johnson-Gruver Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Arkansas AMSHER COLLECTIONS: Goldstein Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California AUDIOPHILE MUSIC: Settles Class Action Suit Over Vinyl Recordings AUTO-CHLOR SYSTEM: Sablowsky Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages AUTOZONERS LLC: Rivero Suit Removed to C.D. California AVANDIA MARKETING: TPPs Seek Class Cert. in Product Liability Suit BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over 2020 Benefit Card Fraud BEACHBOY CO: Fails to Pay Coaches' OT Wages, Lyons Suit Alleges BENS PURE MAPLE: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BIGHORN FIVE GUYS: Stebbins Suit Removed to W.D. Washington BIO TRUST NUTRITION: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BLUE CROSS: Steinhardt Suit Removed to C.D. California BLUESTEM BRANDS: Discloses Site Visitor's Private Info, Diaz Claims BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY: Bid to Certify Class in Omori Suit Denied BRIDGFORD FOOD: Castaneda Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois BRIGHTLINE INC: Ndifor Sues Over Inadequate Data Security BRIO WATER TECHNOLOGY: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BRISTOL COMMUNITY: Zejnullahu Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. CALIFORNIA COAST: Charman Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California CANDYLAND INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CANOPY GROWTH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 24 CARGILL MEAT: Luvianio Suit Removed to E.D. California CASCADIA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Greene Alleges CAT KNIGHT LLC: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CATONSVILLE HOSPITALITY: Narer Sues Over Unpaid Compensations CENTENNIAL BANK: Melillo Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas CENTER FOR AUTISM: Sacchitella Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages CERTAINTEED LLC: Trejo-Ramirez Suit Transferred to E.D. California CHAMPION PETFOODS: Class Status Denied in Rydman "Dog Food" Suit CHEFS' WAREHOUSE: Bermudez Files Suit in N.D. Illinois CHIPOTLE SERVICES: Cardoso Sues Over Failure to Compensate Wages CHLIC: Class Certification Hearing in RJ Suit Reset to July 27 CHURCH & DWIGHT: Gonzales Suit Removed to C.D. California CLASSPASS LLC: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York COMMUNITY HEALTH: McGowan Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee COPERACO LLC: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York COX AUTOMOTIVE CORP: Touch Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CURBSIDE CLOTHING: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CYBERCARTEL: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DAOU VINEYARDS LLC: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York DAVID PEYSER: Andrews Sues Over Alleged False Discount Scheme DESIGNER BRANDS: Bid to Strike Under Seal Nixed in Laguardia Suit DISH NETWORK: Clark Files Suit in D. Colorado DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: M.J. Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class DNC PARKS: Declarations of Oviedo, et al., Stricken DOT COM HOLDINGS: Bullock Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DRESSER LLC: Barnes Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Property Owners DRY GOODS LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Davis Class Suit DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Ducharme Class Suit DULUTH, GA: Businesses Seek Class-Action Suit Over Stormwater Fees EFFICIENT HOME: Gallardo Sues Over Deceptive Sale of Solar Panels EL CHARRO BAKERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Castellon Alleges EPHRAIM MCDOWELL: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Hale Alleges EPHRAIM MCDOWELL: Neikirk Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Torres Files Suit in D. South Dakota ETERNEVA INC: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York EXELA ENTERPRISE: Sierra Sues Over Failure to Pay Weekly EXPRESS DELI & TOBACCO: Lawrence Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York FOUR SEASONS: Garcia, Cosme Sue Over Nonpayment of OT Wages FOX CORPORATION: Ekstrom Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FREEJUMP AIRBAG: Faces Suit Over Defective Freejump Airbag Vests FULCRUM THERAPEUTICS: Celano Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts GANNETT CO: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Partly OK'd GEO GROUP: Suit Seeks to Certify California Wage and Hour Class GEOFF STANLEY: Plaintiffs Lose Class Certification Bid GERBS PUMPKIN SEED: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GILT GROUPE LP: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GIORGIO'S OF GRAMERCY: Ocampo Sues Over Unpaid Compensation GLOBAL DIAGNOSTIC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bolivar Alleges GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Kenan Suit Transferred to M.D. Georgia GLOBAL TECHNICAL: Tobias Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages GO TO GIFTS INC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GOLDEN QUEEN MINING: Nelson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GONG.IO LTD: Cervantes Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics GREAT EXPRESSIONS DENTAL: Coffey Files Suit in E.D. Michigan GREEN MESSENGERS: Ibarra Suit Removed to C.D. California HEALTH IN MOTION: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HEALTHRIGHT 360: Ramirez Suit Removed to N.D. California HEIMIES HABERDASHERY: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HODINKEE INC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HOME DEPOT: Smith Suit Removed to D. New Hampshire HOME PARTNERS: Curran Files Suit in D. Colorado HOUSING AUTHORITY: Neal-Burgin Suit Removed to C.D. California IGLOO PRODUCTS CORP: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York INSURANCE SUPERMARKET: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Dec. 22 IOWA HEALTH: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Ward Suit JANE MARKETPLACE: Valenzuela Files Suit in N.D. California JERNIGAN CAPITAL: Class Cert Oral Argument Set for June 9 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Tossed JULIA TESTA: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York KEEPER TAX: Mohr Sues Over Unsolicited Text Message Marketing KENDO HOLDINGS: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York KOSE AMERICA INC: Alvarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KOURY CORPORATION: Williams Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages Earned KREWE DU OPTIC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LANDMARK RECOVERY: Conditional Status of Black Action Sought LAVENDER BY THE BAY: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LAZER SPOT: Seeks More Time to Oppose Conditional Certification LEE ENTERPRISES: Seeks Dismissal of Customers' Privacy Class Suit LIVE VENTURES INC: Continues to Defend Sieggreen Class Suit LOS ANGELES, CA: Seeks to Bifurcate Discovery in Bradshaw Suit MAGELLAN HRSC: Class Cert Discovery Modified to May 17, 2024 MARGARITAS HOUSE: Huerta Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MARS PETCARE: Moore Suit Seeks to Certify Class MARS PETCARE: Plaintiffs Consider Sealing Class Cert Docs MDL 2972: Blackbaud Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due June 9 MDL 2972: Blackbaud Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due June 9 MDL 2972: Blackbaud Opposition to Graifman Class Cert Due June 9 MDL 2972: Blackbaud Opposition to Imhof Class Cert Bid Due June 9 MEDICAL MANAGEMENT OF CHICAGO: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D.N.Y. MEMORIAL HEALTH: Stendal Suit Removed to C.D. California MENZIES AVIATION (USA): Ngauamo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Must Respond to Bolling Class Action by June 9 MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid META PLATFORMS: 4 School Districts Join Social Media Class Suit MICHIGAN: Class Cert Discovery in Bailey Set for June 12 MICHIGAN: Class Cert Discovery in Pearson Set for June 12 MICHIGAN: Class Cert Discovery in Smith Suit Set for June 12 MID-FLORIDA PATHOLOGY: Ferry Sues Over Auto-Deduction for Breaks MILSTEAD AUTOMOTIVE: Hilton Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Bid for Class Certification Due Nov. 22 NATIONAL RIFLE: Crawford Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona NEW ERA CAP: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NEXIGHT INC: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NEXTERA ENERGY: Court Narrows Claims in Stallbaumer Class Suit NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Fails to Protect Patient's Info, Gordon Claims NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York OPTION CONSOMMATEURS: Quebec Super. Dismissed Motion to Stay Bid ORAL ROBERTS UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York OUTSOURCE UTILITY: Plagakis Suit Removed to E.D. California OZARK PIZZA: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Carson Suit Alleges PATINA GROUP: Gonzalez Suit Removed to C.D. California PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Discovery Stayed Pending Appeal PERFETTI VAN MELLE: Ruff Sues Over Misleading & Deceptive Labeling PIM BRANDS INC: Guerrero Files Suit in E.D. Missouri POWER UP FOODS: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PRESTIGE COMMUNITY: Parties Directed to Attend Mediation PRETZEL PETE INC: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PROGREXION HOLDINGS: Hit With WARN Class Action Over Mass Layoffs PROVANTAGE LLC: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York RALLYBRANDS LLC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York RANGAM CONSULTANTS: Sanchez Suit Removed to C.D. California RELIABLE LIFE INSURANCE: Abboud Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Missouri RL ON-TIME DELIVERY: Campos Suit Removed to C.D. California ROCK CITY KICKS: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York S&D SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Suit Alleges SAMMEE LLC: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA: Sued Over Unfair Child Welfare System SANDOZ CANADA: Won Dismissal of Pharmaceuticals Class Action Suit SAVOR GOODS LLC: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SEARCHLIGHT CAPITAL: Garfield Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty SHAQUILLE O'NEAL: Harper Sues Over Sale of Unregistered Securities SHARK BAR: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Action Suit SMART SNACKS LLC: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SMOKED MEATS CO: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation STEAK N SHAKE: Brown Conditional Certification Bid Partly OK'd SUNRISE SENIOR: Devi Suit Removed to E.D. California SWEET HOLLOW: Torres Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Premium Pay TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM: Ericsson Defeats Investor Class Action THUNDER BAY, ON: Water Leaks Class Suit Application Streams Online TIFOSI OPTICS INC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TMS HEALTH PARTNERS: Still Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TMX FINANCE: Kolstedt Seeks to Suspend Class Certification Deadline TORONTO-DOMINION: Arbitrage Fund Sues Over Drop in Share Price TUSCANY MARBLE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cano Suit Alleges UNI PRODUCTS INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York UNITED SODAS OF AMERICA: Morgan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York UNITED STATES: HACA Residents Cannot Sue HUD Over Underfunding UNITED STATES: Inmate Released From DOC Amid Medical Care Suit UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO: Class Cert. Hearing Continued to June 6 VOYAGE RUN CO: Morgan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WAKE COUNTY, NC: Sherrif Sued Over Unfair eCourt Implementation WALT DISNEY: James and Sevesind Sue Over Invasion of Privacy WALZ CAPS INC: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WEBSTER BANK: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach WEBSTER FINANCIAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Baker Alleges WELLS FARGO: Morris Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WILHELMINA INT'L: Continues to Defend Shanklin Class Suit in N.Y. WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Conneran Suit Removed to S.D. Florida [*] Vallecitos School District Joins Suit Against Social Media Cos. ********* 3M COMPANY: Gebhart Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ------------------------------------------------------------- Corey Gebhart Jacqueline Gebhart, his wife, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;) DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No. 2:23-cv-01547-RMG (D.S.C., April 14, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Corey Gebhart regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career, and was diagnosed with testicular cancer and/or other medical conditions as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq. John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq. WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A. 125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Phone: 732-855-6060 Facsimile: 732-726-4860 3M COMPANY: Marling Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Marling, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;) DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No. 2:23-cv-01548-RMG (D.S.C., April 14, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his career, and was diagnosed with prostate cancer and/or other medical related conditions as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq. John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq. WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A. 125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Phone: 732-855-6060 Facsimile: 732-726-4860 3M COMPANY: Myers Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gary Myers, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.s. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.;CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP., CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NE-MOERS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DC PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-01674-RMG (D.S.C., April 21, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Phone: 631-600-0000 Facsimile: 631-543-5450 - and - Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 3M COMPANY: Sayre Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Edward Sayre and Karen Sayre, his wife, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;) DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No. 2:23-cv-01549-RMG (D.S.C., April 14, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Edward Sayre regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career, and was diagnosed with bladder cancer and/or other medical conditions as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq. John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq. WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A. 125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Phone: 732-855-6060 Facsimile: 732-726-4860 3M COMPANY: Smith Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ray Smith, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.s. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.;CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP., CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NE-MOERS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DC PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-01546-RMG (D.S.C., April 14, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with multiple myeloma cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Phone: 631-600-0000 Facsimile: 631-543-5450 - and - Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 57 CATON: Colgate Sues Over Nonpayment of Construction Services --------------------------------------------------------------- COLGATE ENTERPRISE CORP, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated Article 3-A trust beneficiaries, Plaintiff v. AVIEW EQUITIES INC. and 57 CATON PARTNERS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 515283/2023 (N.Y. Sup., May 23, 2023) seeks for the enforcement of statutory trust under Article 3-A of the Lien Law against both Defendants. In or about 2021, 57 Caton entered a construction contract with Jun's Construction. Inc. under which Jun's agreed to serve as the general contractor for the construction of an apartment building. By contract executed January 28, 2022, Jun's issued a subcontract to Colgate, by which Colgate furnished and installed at the project's several construction temporary facilities, including a construction hoist, sidewalk bridge, scaffolding and roof protection. However, 2022. Colgate was advised by Jun's that the funding for the project had stopped for unknown reasons and that Jun's, which was itself owed large amounts past due under its prime contract with 57 Caton, was shutting down the work and demobilizing from the project due to the owner's nonpayment. Colgate sues on behalf of itself and all other persons entitled to share in the funds due or owing to Jun's as general contractor from 57 Caton and/or Aview, as "owner", as well as any funds due to the Defendants from the project's lending institution, pursuant to section 77 of Article 3-A of the New York Lien Law, says the suit. Aview Equities Inc. is a domestic corporation, in the business of real estate development, with its principal place of business at 1110 42nd Street, Brooklyn, New York. It sponsors a project for tire construction of a 131-unit apartment building at 57 Caton Place in Brooklyn. Aview set up 57 Caton as a corporate affiliate to function as the owner of the Project. Aview and 57 Caton share the same office address. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terrence J. O'Connor, Esq. TERRENCE O'CONNOR LAW OFFICE 1470 Bruckner Blvd. Bronx, NY, 10473 Telephone: (718)328-1610 ADVANCE STORES CO: Colon Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTIAN COLON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ADVANCE STORES COMPANY, INC. d/b/a ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, B.W.P. DISTRIBUTORS, INC., THOMAS R. GRECO, JEFF HALLY, and HARRY DOE, Defendants, Case No. 515038/2023 (N.Y. Sup., May 22, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations of the New York Labor Law and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Defendants employed Plaintiff Christian Colon from approximately April 15, 2015, until on or about February 26, 2016, and from approximately September 2020 to November 2020. Among other things, the Defendants violated the labor laws by failing to pay overtime wages and to provide proper wage statements and notices, says the suit. Advance Stores Company, Inc., d/b/a Advance Auto Parts, is a foreign business corporation, operating in New York, licensed to do business and doing business in the State of New York, with an address of 5008 Airport Road Roanoke, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Anthony Wolff, Esq. SACCO & FILLAS LLP 3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor, Astoria, NY 11102 Telephone: (718) 269-1627 E-mail: JWolff@saccofillas.com AETNA INTERNATIONAL: S.W. Files Suit in W.D. Missouri ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AETNA International LLC, et al. The case is styled as S.W., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AETNA International LLC, AETNA Inv., AETNA Health Management Inc., AETNA Health Inc., AETNA Corporate Services LLC, AETNA Resources LLC, NationsBenefits LLC, NationsBenefits Holdings LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00351-JAM (W.D. Mo., May 23, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Aetna Inc. -- https://www.aetnainternational.com/ -- provides health care services. The Company offers medical, pharmacy, dental, behavioral health, group life, disability, and health care management services.[BN] The Plaintiffs is represented by: Maureen M. Brady, Esq. Lucy McShane, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY LLC 1656 Washington Street, Suite 140 Kansas City, MO 64108 Phone: (816) 888-8010 Fax: (816) 332-6295 Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com AIMBRIDGE EMPLOYEE: Ramos Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Guillermo Ramos, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. AIMBRIDGE EMPLOYEE SERVICE CORP.; and DOES 1 to100, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV08786 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 24, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04029. The Complaint asserts class action claims for: failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage; failure to pay overtime wages for daily overtime worked; failure to authorize or permit meal periods; failure to authorize or permit rest periods; failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements; failure to timely pay all earned wages and final paychecks due at time of separation of employment; unfair business practices in violation of Business and Professions; all in violation of the Labor Code.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Linda Claxton, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 Email: linda.claxton@ogletree.com AMERICAN HONDA: Court Sets Case Management Conference for July 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONDA ANN BROWNING et al, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., a California corporation, and HONDA MOTOR COMPANY LTD., a Japanese corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-05417-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order setting a case management conference on July 6, 2023. On August 5, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their original complaint. The Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint was filed on December 15, 2020. On January 20, 2021, the Defendant AHM filed its Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. On June 17, 2021, the Court heard oral argument on this Motion to Dismiss, held an initial case management conference, and set the deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their Motion for Class Certification for August 5, 2022, approximately 13.5 months from the conference. On July 16, 2021, the Court granted AHM’s Motion to Dismiss without prejudice to the Plaintiffs filing an amended complaint by August 16, 2021. the Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint was filed on August 16, 2021. On September 30, 2021, AHM filed its Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. Briefing was completed on December 17, 2021, and the Court heard the Motion on February 3, 2022. American Honda develops and manufactures automobiles. A copy of the Court's order dated May 18, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WFyiur at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq. Cody R. Padgett, Esq. Laura E. Goolsby, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: tarek.zohdy@capstonelawyers.com cody.padgett@capstonelawyers.com laura.goolsby@capstonelawyers.com - and - Russell D. Paul, Esq. Amey J. Park, Esq. Abigail J. Gertner, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875.4604 E-mail: rpaul@bm.net apark@bm.net agertner@bm.net The Defendants are represented by: Amir Nassihi, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 555 Mission St. Suite 2300 San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 544-1900 Facsimile: (415) 391-0281 E-mail: anassihi@shb.com - and - Michael L. Mallow, Esq. Stephanie S. McGraw, Esq. 2049 Century Park East, #3000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 285-8330 Facsimile: (424) 204-9093 E-mail: mmallow@shb.com smcgraw@shb.com AMERICOR FUNDING: Johnson-Gruver Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Arkansas ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Americor Funding LLC, et al. The case is styled as Virginia Johnson-Gruver, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated v. Americor Funding LLC, Consumer Nsight LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00125-DPM (E.D. Ark., May 25, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Americor -- https://americor.com/ -- provides debt solutions to thousands individuals and families all over the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (508) 221-1510 Fax: (508) 221-1510 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Jason Michael Ryburn, Esq. Zach Ryburn, Esq. RYBURN LAW FIRM 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 231 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 228-8100 Email: jason@ryburnlawfirm.com zach@ryburnlawfirm.com AMSHER COLLECTIONS: Goldstein Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AmSher Collections Services Inc., et al. The case is styled as Zalman Goldstein, and others similarly situated v. AmSher Collections Services Inc., Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-03954 (C.D. Cal., May 23, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. AmSher Collection Services -- https://www.amsher.com/ -- is an agency that offers a wide range of services and solutions in the collection lifecycle to solve credits.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Climaco Limbo, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF AMIR J. GOLDSTEIN 8032 West Third Street, Suite 201 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Phone: (323) 937-0400 Fax: (866) 288-9194 Email: jcl@consumercounselgroup.com AUDIOPHILE MUSIC: Settles Class Action Suit Over Vinyl Recordings ----------------------------------------------------------------- strata-gee.com reports that earlier the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle issued a preliminary order approving a settlement in the matter of Stephen J. Tuttle, et al. v. Audiophile Music Direct, et al (including Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs). The settlement puts to rest all claims that have risen over the issue of Mobile Fidelity's marketing of premium vinyl recordings as all-analog when in fact, in many instances the production used Direct Stream Digital as part of the manufacturing process. See more on the Mobile Fidelity class action settlement Strata-gee was one of the first to write about the filing of the class action lawsuit against Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs (Mobile Fidelity or MoFi) back in August 2022. I told you about an action filed by Adam Stiles, a customer of Mobile Fidelity who sought to represent a class of similarly positioned individuals who had purchased records on an alleged false basis, due to misleading advertising and product descriptions. As it turns out, ultimately three different lawsuits, each seeking class action status, had been filed around the country. The first to be filed was the one mentioned above by Stephen Tuttle and Dustin Collman which was filed on August 2, 2022. The Tuttle case is the one ultimately selected to receive class action status and is the one that generated the settlement announced this month. Popular with Audiophiles You can get the full background from my original article, but in a nutshell, the complainants allege that MoFi was offering records for sale under designations as "Original Master Recording" and "Ultradisc One Step" created from the original master recording with an all analog production. These ostensibly pure-analog recordings are popular with audiophiles who often dislike digital recordings. Then in July 2022, a record store owner named Mike Esposito revealed that in fact MoFi uses DSD in the production of many of these recordings, never disclosing the digital element in the process. This angered many customers, leading some to head to court. Class is in Session Now, with this settlement, the company can put the matter behind them. Relief from MoFi will be offered to this group of aggrieved customers defined as the "Class" (this is from the actual court order) - "The parties' proposed settlement class (the 'Class') is comprised of:" All original retail consumers in the United States who, from March 19, 2007, through July 27, 2022 purchased, either directly from a Defendant or other retail merchants, new and unused Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab, Inc. ("MoFi") vinyl recordings which were marketed by Defendants using the series labeling descriptors "Original Master Recording" and/or "Ultradisc One-Step," that were sourced from original analog master tapes and which utilized a direct stream digital transfer step in the mastering chain, and provided that said purchasers still own said recordings (the "Applicable Records"). Excluded from the Class are persons who obtained subject Applicable Records from other sources. Tuttle v. Audiophile Music Direct Inc., ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT What Mobile Fidelity Will Offer Affected Customers The company has agreed to offer purchasers of the Applicable Records three options: -- Return for Refund - In this option, purchasers ("Class members") of "Applicable Records" can return them to the company for a full refund of their original purchase price plus tax and shipping -- 5% Cash Refund - For those Class members who prefer to keep their recordings, the company will refund 5% of the price they paid for the Applicable Records, plus tax and shipping -- 10% Credit Coupon - Another option for Class members who wish to retain their recordings, the company will offer them a coupon equal to 10% of the original purchase paid for Applicable Records plus tax and shipping. These coupons can then be applied to new purchases from MoFi's Music Direct website. Note that coupons expire 180 days after issuance and are not transferrable Those folks who have purchased multiple Applicable Records get to choose from these three options for each of their individual purchases. Class members must show proof of purchase and proof of ownership of the Applicable Records and multiple coupons can be combined for new purchases. Also to be Paid by Mobile Fidelity In addition to the above, the two named plaintiffs in this matter - Stephen J. Tuttle and Dustin Collman - will each be awarded $10,000 to be paid by Mobile Fidelity. Also, the plaintiff's attorneys in the matter will be awarded attorney's fees and costs of $290,000 - again to be paid by Mobile Fidelity. Finally, any other costs associated with the administration and processing of claims will additionally be covered by Mobile Fidelity. The total value of this settlement can't be known until all affected parties come forward to submit claims. There are projected to be about 40,000 potentially affected customers. Estimates place the potential total of this settlement to be somewhere north of $25 million. One analysis in the court filing calculated a theoretical maximum of $33 million in just customer claims, with all of the other items shown above to be added on top of that - although it is unlikely to reach that maximum. Final Details to be Settled in October The court has set a date for the final approval of this matter, with several interim deadlines for the many necessary intermediate steps between now and then. The final approval hearing will take place on October 30, 2023. [GN] AUTO-CHLOR SYSTEM: Sablowsky Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Mark Sablowsky and Sumner Johnson, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. AUTO-CHLOR SYSTEM, LLC, AUTO CHLOR SYSTEM OF NEW YORK CITY, INC., and AUTO-CHLOR SYSTEM OF THE MID SOUTH, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-02555-AGT (N.D. Cal., May 24, 2023), is brought against the Defendants seeking all relief available under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and that they are entitled to: unpaid wages from Auto-Chlor System for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay, as required by law, liquidated damages under the FLSA, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of this action on of all current and former exempt-classified Branch Managers ("BMs"). Consistent with the Defendants' policies, patterns, or practices, the Plaintiffs and the Putative Collective Members regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek without being paid overtime wages. The Defendants did not perform a person-by-person analysis of every BMs' job duties when making the decision to classify all of them (and other employees holding comparable positions but different titles) as exempt from the FLSA's overtime protections, as well as the protections of applicable state laws. The Defendants' unlawful conduct described in this Collective Action Complaint is pursuant to a corporate policy or practice of minimizing labor costs by violating the FLSA. The Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages for work performed by the Plaintiffs and Putative Collective Members in excess of 40 hours per workweek was willful. The Defendants' unlawful conduct has been widespread, repeated and consistent, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as BMs. The Defendants leases commercial dishwashers and related supplies under the brand name "Auto-Chlor System."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward J. Wynne, Esq. WYNNE LAW FIRM 80 E. Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Ste. 3G Larkspur, CA 94939 Phone: (415) 461-6400 Facsimile: (415) 461-3900 Email: ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com - and - Logan A. Pardell, Esq. PARDELL, KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO, PLLC 433 Plaza Real, Suite 275 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (561) 447-8444 Facsimile: (877) 453-8003 Email: lpardell@pkglegal.com AUTOZONERS LLC: Rivero Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Adrian Rivero, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AUTOZONERS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; AUTOZONE, INC., a Nevada corporation; AUTOZONE WEST, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; AUTOZONE PARTS, INC., a Nevada corporation; and JESUS BARRAGAN, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV07025 was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, State of California, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 19, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-03872. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges ten causes of action against Defendants: failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; waiting time penalties; wage statement violations; failure to timely pay wages; failure to indemnify; violation of Labor Code; and unfair competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Evan R. Moses, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART PC 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 239-9800 Fax: (213) 239-9045 Email: evan.moses@ogletreedeakins.com - and - Michael J. Nader, Esq. Alexandra M. Asterlin, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 840-3150 Facsimile: (916) 840-3159 Email: michael.nader@ogletree.com alexandra.asterlin@ogletree.com AVANDIA MARKETING: TPPs Seek Class Cert. in Product Liability Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit RE: AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. 2:07-md-01871-CMR (E.D. Pa.), the Third Party Payors (TPPs) ask the Court to enter an order of class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) of the following damages class:1 "All entities in the United States of America and its territories, which indirectly purchased, and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price for the drugs Avandia, Avandamet, and/or Avandaryl from May 25, 1999 until August 14, 2007. Included in the Class are self-insured non-governmental entities and third-party payers that offer insured plans to private individuals and groups. Likewise third-party payers that offer insured plans to government entities including the Federal Employee Program, Managed Medicaid, and Medicare Part D are class members. TPPs also move to appoint UFCW and J.B. Hunt as class representatives for the TPP class. TPPs additionally move to appoint Thomas M. Sobol and Erin C. Burns of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and James Dugan of the The Dugan Law Firm APLC as Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IGwgV9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. Erin C. Burns, Esq. Hannah W. Brennan, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP One Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 Facsimile: (617) 482-3003 E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com erinb@hbsslaw.com hannahb@hbsslaw.com - and - James R. Dugan, II, Esq. David S. Scalia, Esq. TerriAnne Benedetto, Esq. DUGAN LAW FIRM APLC One Canal Place – Suite 1000 365 Canal Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 648-0180 Facsimile: (504) 648-0181 E-mail: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com dscalia@dugan-lawfirm.com tbenedetto@dugan-lawfirm.com BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over 2020 Benefit Card Fraud ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jody Godoy at Reuters reports that Bank of America must face cardholder allegations that it bungled its response to unauthorized transactions on unemployment and disability benefits cards in California during the pandemic, a San Diego judge ruled. U.S. District Judge Larry Alan Burns said benefits recipients can move forward with a proposed class action lawsuit claiming the bank violated state law by issuing cards to millions of Californians that lacked standard security measures. The cardholders also claim Bank of America broke federal law by failing to investigate fraud claims or summarily freezing tens of thousands of accounts. The bank previously agreed to cease using automated fraud detection software to freeze accounts. Michael Rubin, an attorney representing the cardholders, called the ruling a "huge victory." The cardholders claim Bank of America failed to follow the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, which sets rules for banks to resolve account errors. They also say the bank violated California's consumer privacy law by issuing cards with outdated magnetic stripes, rather than chip technology, leaving them subject to fraud. Burns said they can move forward with those claims and others, including that the bank was a state actor that violated cardholders' constitutional right to due process by freezing accounts without notice. The judge dismissed claims that the bank violated California's Unfair Competition Law and that it breached its contract with the state. Last year, Bank of America paid $225 million to two U.S. regulators to settle claims that its fraud detection program improperly froze thousands of benefits accounts in 2020 and 2021. California estimated in 2021 that it had paid more than $111 billion in unemployment insurance benefits during the pandemic, with more than $10.4 billion in claims suspected to be fraudulent. The case is In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation, No. 21-02992, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California.[GN] BEACHBOY CO: Fails to Pay Coaches' OT Wages, Lyons Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA LYONS, Plaintiff v. THE BEACHBODY COMPANY, CARL DAIKELER, JON CONGDON, KATHY VRABECK, MICHAEL NEIMAND, MARC SUIDAN, HELENE KLEIN, and DOES 1–50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV11459 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 22, 2023) is a class action arising out of the Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. Plaintiff Jessica Lyons worked for Beachbody as a Team Beachbody Coach from approximately December 2016 to March 2023 in California. During that entire time, Ms. Lyons was under Beachbody's control, selling and marketing Beachbody products online in accordance with strict guidelines. However, Beachbody misclassified Lyons and coaches as independent contractors rather than as employees. In addition, Lyons regularly worked periods of more than five, ten and fifteen hours in a workday without being provided requisite mandatory timely, thirty-minute, duty-free meal periods. Among other things, Beachbody also failed to pay her an additional hour of wages at her regular rate for each workday a meal period and/or a legally compliant meal period was not provided, says the Plaintiff. Beachbody is a $3 billion publicly traded health and fitness empire with humble beginnings. It was founded in 1998, when it sold home exercise videos directly to consumers via infomercials and other advertising. In 2007, the company decided to expand in two ways. First, it began developing new products, including Shakeology, a line of nutrition shakes. It also developed the Team Beachbody Coach program, tapping into its dedicated base of customers to offer them the opportunity to sell the products for Beachbody. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen G. Simplicio, Esq. Shana H. Khader, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: ksimplicio@tzlegal.com skhader@tzlegal.com - and - Glenn A. Danas, Esq. Yana Hart, Esq. Katelyn Leeviraphan, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: gdanas@clarksonlawfirm.com yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com kleeviraphan@clarksonlawfirm.com BENS PURE MAPLE: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bens Pure Maple Products, LLC. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bens Pure Maple Products, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04176 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bens Pure Maple Products, LLC doing business as Ben's Sugar Shack -- https://bensmaplesyrup.com/ -- offers a wide range of award-winning, 100% Pure, New England maple products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com BIGHORN FIVE GUYS: Stebbins Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Bailey O. Stebbins, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. BIGHORN FIVE GUYS ACQUISITIONS, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, Case No. CVRI2301994 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of Pierce, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on May 19, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-05457. Through his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to ensure rest periods and compensate for missed rest periods under the Washington Industrial Welfare Act (IWA), Washington Minimum Wage Act (MWA), and Washington Wage Payment Act (WPA); failed to provide meal periods and compensate for missed meal periods under the IWA, MWA, and WPA; failed to pay overtime wages under the MWA; willfully withheld wages under the Washington Wage Rebate Act; failed to pay all tips under the MWA; discriminated against him based on his sex under Washington's Law Against Discrimination (WLAD); retaliated against him under the WLAD; retaliated against him under the MWA; and wrongfully discharged him in violation of public policy.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Andrew J. Sommer, Esq. Joel Moon, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 330-4500 Facsimile: (213) 330-4501 Email: asommer@fisherphillips.com jmoon@fisherphillips.com BIO TRUST NUTRITION: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bio Trust Nutrition, LLC. The case is styled as Frangie Espinal, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Bio Trust Nutrition, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04299 (S.D.N.Y., May 23, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. BioTRUST -- https://www.biotrust.com/ -- is providing customers with the highest quality, most effective nutrition products, vitamins and supplements on the market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal BLUE CROSS: Steinhardt Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Barry S. Steinhardt, an individual, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. Blue Cross of California, Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company, American Specialty Health Fitness, Inc., American Specialty Health Incorporated, DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 23STCV07649 was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 25, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04087 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Blue Shield of California -- http://www.blueshieldca.com/-- is a mutual benefit corporation and health plan founded in 1939 by the California Medical Association.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Zoe K. Wilhelm, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE AND REATH LLP 1800 Century Park East Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 203-4000 Fax: (310) 229-1285 Email: zoe.wilhelm@faegredrinker.com BLUESTEM BRANDS: Discloses Site Visitor's Private Info, Diaz Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- BRYAN DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BLUESTEM BRANDS, INC., a Delaware corporation dba WWW.APPLESEEDS.COM , Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-02510 (N.D. Cal., May 23, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act. When Plaintiff played the video on the website, Defendant knowingly disclosed the title to Facebook, along with numerous identifiers that constitute personally identifiable information. In other words, the Defendant disclosed Plaintiff's video viewing habits to a third party in a manner that any ordinary person can understand Plaintiff's viewing habits. The Defendant knowingly causes www.appleseeds.com to host the Facebook tracking Pixel and has configured a "Video Play" event to trigger whenever a user clicks the play button to watch the video, transmitting user data to Facebook, says the suit. Bluestem Brands, Inc. is a for-profit corporation that owns several brands that sell clothing to American consumers through its website, catalogs, and third parties. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY: Bid to Certify Class in Omori Suit Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ALAN THOMAS OMORI and LINFEI YANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 20-11021-NMG ((D. Mass.), Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denies the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The putative class action arises out of the decision by Brandeis to retain the full amount of tuition and fees collected from students for the Spring 2020 semester despite closing its on-campus facilities and transitioning from in-person to online instruction in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiffs brought a four-count complaint, alleging breach of contract, both express and implied (Counts I & II), unjust enrichment (Count III) and conversion (Count IV). They seek to recover, on behalf of a class, tuition and fees allegedly paid in consideration for "in-person instruction and use of campus facilities" which were denied to Brandeis students during the second half of the Spring 2020 academic term. In April 2021, the Court allowed, in part, and denied, in part, the Defendant's motion to dismiss, and, in October 2022, did the same with respect to its motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs' remaining putative class claim against the University is for breach of implied contract (Count II) as to tuition and a studio fee charged to certain students. The students now move to certify two classes pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, which the University has timely opposed. They filed a reply brief in support of the motion in April 2023, and the Court heard oral argument shortly thereafter. The Plaintiffs propose certifying two classes -- the "Tuition Class" and the "Studio Fee Class" -- under Fed. R. Civ. P 23(b)(3) ("Rule 23(b)(3)"): 1. The Tuition Class: All students enrolled at Brandeis University during the Spring 2020 academic term and charged tuition by Brandeis. 2. The Studio Fee Class: All students enrolled at Brandeis University during the Spring 2020 academic term and charged a Studio Fee by Brandeis. Rule 23(a) requires that a class meet the following four criteria: 1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; 2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; 3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and 4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The Plaintiffs seek to certify the proposed classes under Rule 23(b)(3) which requires that common questions of law or fact "predominate" over those affecting individual class members and that a class action be the "superior" method for fair and efficient adjudication. The standard for demonstrating Rule 23(b)(3) predominance is "far more demanding" than that for the related requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) commonality. Brandeis has not contested that the proposed classes satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) but instead opposes certification on the grounds that: 1) the proposed classes include class members who have no standing and 2) the students have not satisfied the requirements of predominance and superiority imposed by Rule 23(b)(3). Judge Gorton holds that the Plaintiffs' ability to demonstrate liability and damages on a class-wide basis is dependent upon the actual value of online, Spring 2020 education which the Plaintiffs propound and the propriety of their damages model. He says the Plaintiffs' inability to determine an actual value to be applied class-wide would break down the nexus between their proffered damages model and the class-wide demonstration of liability and measurement of damages. That failure would lead to countless questions about individual class members, the particular courses in which they were enrolled, the conduct of those courses post-COVID and which, if any, online courses offered pre-COVID were suitable comparisons. Such issues would predominate over common ones. Having found it necessary to consider the Plaintiffs' damages model at class certification, Judge Gorton begins with the Tuition Class. He concludes that the Plaintiffs cannot establish the actual value of the post-COVID education that Brandeis students received during Spring, 2020 and, therefore, cannot satisfy Rule 23(b)(3) predominance. The Plaintiffs' generic commitment to determining individual damages at a future point also does not accord with their treatment of Yang's supposed damages. Even if the Court were to countenance the allegations of a common injury with respect to studio fees, the existence of damages to any particular class member turns on an assessment of the individual facts concerning that person. Judge Gorton's conclusion as to superiority depends upon its findings on predominance. Because the actual value of online, post-COVID education in Spring 2020 is indeterminable and there is no damages model applicable class-wide, individual issues prevent a finding of superiority. While class certification is an important mechanism for the resolution of cases in which small amounts of damage are inflicted on large numbers of people, certification of the Tuition Class and/or Studio Fee Class would not be a more fair and efficient method of adjudicating this controversy. For these reasons, the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's May 17, 2023 Memorandum & Order is available at https://rb.gy/ahyp6 from Leagle.com. BRIDGFORD FOOD: Castaneda Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Neofito Castaneda, individually and on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. Bridgford Food Processing Corp., Case No. 2023CH02088 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Department, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 24, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-03297 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Constitutional - State Statute. Bridgford Foods -- https://www.bridgford.com/ -- manufactures frozen bread dough, biscuits, cinnamon roll doughs, sandwiches, beef jerky, snack, deli foods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Dore, Esq. JUSTICIA LABORAL LLC 6232 North Pulaski Rd., Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60646 Phone: (773) 415-4898 Email: jdore@justicialaboral.com The Defendants are represented by: Daniel I. Schlade, Esq. 6232 N. Pulaski, #300 Chicago, IL 60646 Phone: (773) 550-3775 Email: dleone@shankmanleone.com - and - James David Duffy, Esq. Dremain Taylor Moore, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP 55 East Monroe Street, 37th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 346-7500 Email: dduffy@thompsoncoburn.com dmoore@thompsoncoburn.com BRIGHTLINE INC: Ndifor Sues Over Inadequate Data Security --------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Ndifor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BRIGHTLINE, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-02503 (N.D. Cal., May 22, 2023), is brought seeks to hold Brightline responsible for the injuries Brightline inflicted on Plaintiff and approximately 27,7421 similarly situated persons ("Class Members") due to Brightline's impermissibly inadequate data security, which caused the personal information of Plaintiff and those similarly situated to be exfiltrated by unauthorized access by cybercriminals (the "Data Breach" or "Breach") between January 28, 2023 and January 30, 2023. The cybercriminals who perpetrated the Breach are a Russian-linked hacker/ransomware group responsible for numerous other hacking events. The data that Brightline caused to be exfiltrated by cybercriminals was highly sensitive. Upon information and belief, the exfiltrated data included personal identifying information ("PII") like individuals' names, addresses, dates of birth, member identification numbers, date of health plan coverage, Social Security numbers, and/or employer names. Prior to and through the date of the Data Breach, Brightline obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI (Protected Health Information) and then maintained that sensitive data in a negligent and/or reckless manner. As evidenced by the Data Breach, Brightline inadequately maintained its network, platform, and software—rendering these easy prey for cybercriminals. belief, the risk of the Data Breach was known to Brightline. Thus, Brightline was on notice that its inadequate data security created a heightened risk of exfiltration, compromise, and theft. Then, after the Data Breach, Brightline failed to provide timely notice to the affected Plaintiff and Class Members—thereby exacerbating their injuries. Ultimately, Brightline deprived Plaintiff and Class Members of the chance to take speedy measures to protect themselves and mitigate harm. Simply put, Brightline impermissibly left Plaintiff and Class Members in the dark—thereby causing their injuries to fester and the damage to spread. Even when Brightline finally notified Plaintiff and Class Members of their PII and PHI's exfiltration, Brightline failed to adequately describe the Data Breach and its effects. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to remedy these injuries on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals whose PII and PHI were exfiltrated and compromised in the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person and resident and citizen of San Diego, California. Brightline, Inc., is a technology and telehealth services company based in Palo Alto, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon A. Tostrud, Esq. TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 278-2600 Fax: (310) 278-2640 Email: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com - and - Brian P Murray, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Avenue, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Phone: (212) 682-5340 Fax: (212) 884-0988 Email: bmurray@glancylaw.com lalbert@glancylaw.com BRIO WATER TECHNOLOGY: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brio Water Technology, Inc. The case is styled as Shivan Bassaw, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Brio Water Technology, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04273 (S.D.N.Y., May 23, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Brio Water Tech -- https://briowt.com/ -- is a water product supplier that carries the industry's leading quality and most cost effective products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com BRISTOL COMMUNITY: Zejnullahu Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bristol Community College. The case is styled as Hava Zejnullahu, on behalf of Herself and all others similarly situated v. Bristol Community College, Case No. 2373CV00320 (Mass. Super. Ct., Bristol Cty., May 19, 2023). The case type is stated as "Contract/Business Cases." Bristol Community College -- https://bristolcc.edu/ -- provides an accessible, innovative and inclusive education that prepares students to navigate and succeed in our ever-changing world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kurt Hagstrom, Esq. HAGSTROM LAW GROUP 66 North Second St. New Bedford, MA 02740 CALIFORNIA COAST: Charman Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Coast Escrow, Inc. The case is styled as Thane Charman, individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. California Coast Escrow, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00932-H-KSC (S.D. Cal., May 22, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. California Coast Escrow -- https://cacoastescrow.com/ -- is a real estate escrow company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yuri Simpson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF YURI SIMPSON PO Box 16232 San Diego, CA 92176 Phone: (619) 762-1118 Email: yuri@lifelinelegal.com CANDYLAND INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Candyland, Inc. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Candyland, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04183 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Candyland -- https://candylandstore.com/ -- stores are famous for Chicago Mix popcorn, popcorn tins, fine caramel and chocolates, and hundreds of candy and nut varieties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com CANOPY GROWTH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 24 -------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP informs investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Canopy Growth Corporation (NASDAQ: CGC) securities between May 31, 2022 and May 10, 2023. Canopy Growth produces, distributes, and sells a diverse range of cannabis, hemp, and consumer packaged goods products for recreational and medical use. "although the BioSteel Review remains ongoing, the Company has preliminarily identified material misstatements" What is this Case About: Canopy Growth Corporation (CGC) Must Restate its Financial Statements According to the complaint, throughout the class period, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that there were material weaknesses in the Company's internal controls over accounting and financial reporting; (2) that, as a result, the Company improperly booked sales of its BioSteel business unit; (3) that, as a result, the Company's revenue was overstated; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On May 10, 2023, after the market closed, Canopy Growth announced that its audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022 and the quarters ended June 30, 2022, September 30, 2022 and December 31, 2022 should no longer be relied upon, and would need to be restated. The Company also disclosed that it "identified certain trends in the booking of sales by the [BioSteel] business unit for further review." The Company specified that "although the BioSteel Review remains ongoing, the Company has preliminarily identified material misstatements" and that "the correction of the misstatements is expected to reduce certain revenues previously recognized." On this news, Canopy Growth's stock price fell $0.18, or 14.8%, to close at $1.04 per share on May 11, 2023, on unusually heavy trading volume. What Now: Similarly situated shareholders may be eligible to participate in the class action against Canopy Growth Corporation. Shareholders who want to act as lead plaintiff for the class must file their papers by July 24, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, click here. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over $1 billion for shareholders. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.[GN] CARGILL MEAT: Luvianio Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jasmine Luvianio, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; And DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0003094 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 22, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00959-KJM-DB. The Complaint asserted the following causes of action: failure to pay overtime wages; failure to minimum wage; failure to pay all wages upon termination; failure to provide accurate wage statements; unfair competition.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jason E. Barsanti (SBN 235807) COZEN O'CONNOR 501 W. Broadway, Suite 1610 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-234-1700 Facsimile: 619-234-7831 Email: jbarsanti@cozen.com - and - Brett Greving (SBN 270883) COZEN O'CONNOR 101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-644-0914 Facsimile: 415-644-0978 Email: bgreving@cozen.com CASCADIA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Greene Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- KINDRA GREENE, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CASCADIA HEALTHCARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00253-BLW (D. Idaho, May 18, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Greene has worked for Cascadia as a registered nurse at Cascadia's facility in Boise, ID since approximately November 2021. Throughout her employment, Cascadia classified Greene as non-exempt and paid her on an hourly basis. The company also subjected Greene to its common practice of automatically deducting 30 minutes a day from her recorded work time for so-called "meal breaks," says the Plaintiff. Allegedly, Cascadia violated, and is violating, the FLSA by failing to pay Greene overtime wages at rates not less than 1.5 times of her regular rates of pay--based on all remuneration received--for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a single workweek, including hours worked "off the clock" during her unpaid meal periods. Cascadia is an Idaho limited liability company that maintains its headquarters in Eagle, ID. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Erika Birch, Esq. STRINDBERG SCHOLNICK BIRCH HALLAM HARSTAD THORNE 1516 West Hays Street Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: (208) 336-1788 Facsimile: (208) 344-7980 E-mail: erika@idahojobjustice.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 CAT KNIGHT LLC: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cat Knight LLC. The case is styled as Leshawn Young, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Cat Knight LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04130 (S.D.N.Y., May 18, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cat Knight LLC with its doing business as Painthelpers Accubrush imports and sells painting tools, most notably the Accubrush Paint Edger.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com CATONSVILLE HOSPITALITY: Narer Sues Over Unpaid Compensations ------------------------------------------------------------- Kristy L. Narer, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Catonsville Hospitality, LLC (d/b/a State Fare), Speakeasy Libations, LLC (d/b/a Speakeasy), Keith Holsey, Evan Brown, Case No. 1:23-cv-01313-GLR (D. Md., May 18, 2023), is brought for unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, damages, and relief provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and supplemental state law claims under the Maryland's Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL"), and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law ("MWPCL"). The Plaintiff generally worked 5 days a week at State Fare, but was frequently asked to pick up additional shifts and/or required to work beyond her regularly scheduled hours until she was released by a manager, and her hours of work would fluctuate from week to week. Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 per week throughout her employment. In November 2022, Plaintiff was reassigned to work at the Speakeasy, but continued to work one or two days a week at State Fare. Thereafter, Plaintiff was generally scheduled to work on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Saturday at the Speakeasy, and continued to work on Thursday and Sunday at State Fare. Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 per week in combined hours at both restaurants. The Defendants violated the FLSA, the MWHL, and MWPCL insofar as they failed to properly pay Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, overtime when they worked over forty hours per week, in the amount of one and one half times their respective regular rate of pay (as calculated in accordance with U.S. Department of Labor regulations), for overtime hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has worked at State Fare as a server and/or bartender since she was hired by the Defendants in the Summer of 2020. Catonsville Hospitality owns and operates State Fare, a restaurant and bar in Catonsville, Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Howard B. Hoffinan, Esq. Jordan S. Liew, Esq. HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAW, LLC 600 Jefferson Plaza, Ste. 205 Rockville, MD 20852 Phone: (301) 251-3752 Fax: (301) 251-3753 Email: hhoffinan@hoholaw.com iliew@hoholaw.com - and - Bradford W. Warbasse, Esq. P.O. Box 1284 Brooklandville, MD 21022 Phone: (443) 862-0062 Email: warbasselaw@gmail.com CENTENNIAL BANK: Melillo Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Centennial Bank. The case is styled as Jeannie Melillo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Centennial Bank doing business as: Happy State Bank, Case No. 4:23-cv-00464-BRW (E.D. Ark., May 18, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Centennial Bank is a customer focused bank that provides a broad range of commercial and retail banking and related financial services to businesses, investors, individuals and municipalities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Fax: (612) 336-2940 Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Joshua Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC 10800 Financial Centre Parkway Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com CENTER FOR AUTISM: Sacchitella Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Taryn Sacchitella and Christina Smith, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Center for Autism and Related Disorders, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 8:23-cv-00914 (C.D. Cal., May 24, 2023), is brought against the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") for unpaid wages from Defendants for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay, as required by law, liquidated damages under the FLSA, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Consistent with Defendants' policies and patterns or practices, Plaintiffs and Putative Collective Members regularly work in excess of 40 hours per workweek without being paid overtime wages. Defendants staff their centers leanly to minimize labor costs. As such, Plaintiffs and Putative Collective Members are the only non-clinical employees staffed at their centers. Thus, Defendants rely heavily on Plaintiffs and Putative Collective Members to handle all sales and customer service job functions at the center. Therefore, Plaintiffs and Putative Collective Members regularly work in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages for work performed by Plaintiffs and Putative Collective Members in excess of 40 hours per workweek has been willful because Defendants knew or should have known Plaintiffs and Putative Collective Members do not qualify for any particular exemption under the FLSA and, nevertheless, chose not to pay them overtime wages, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as an Operations Managers ("OMs"). The Defendants provide assessment and treatment for individuals with autism at its office locations nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael S. Morrison, Esq. ALEXANDER MORRISON + FEHR, LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone (310) 394-0888 Facsimile (310) 394-0811 Email: mmorrison@amfllp.com - and - Logan A. Pardell, Esq. PARDELL, KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO, PLLC 433 Plaza Real, Suite 275 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone (561) 447-8444 Facsimile (877) 453-8003 Email: lpardell@pkglegal.com CERTAINTEED LLC: Trejo-Ramirez Suit Transferred to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Francisco Trejo-Ramirez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CertainTeed, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-00874 was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 22, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00775-EPG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor. CertainTeed -- http://www.certainteed.com/-- is a North American manufacturer of building materials for both commercial and residential construction and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Saint-Gobain SA, based in Paris.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin F. Marquez, Esq. Daniel Kramer, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510 Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145 Phone: 213-381-9988 Fax: 213-381-9989 Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com dkramer@wilshirelawfirm.com - and - Benjamin H. Haber, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE 410 West Arden Ave., Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 265-1020 Fax: (818) 265-1021 Email: benjamin@lfjpc.com The Defendants are represented by: Daniel Nicholas Rojas, Esq. Melis Atalay, Esq. Evan R. Moses, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART 400 South Hope Street, Ste. 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 239-9800 Fax: (213) 239-9045 Email: daniel.rojas@ogletreedeakins.com melis.atalay@ogletreedeakins.com evan.moses@ogletreedeakins.com CHAMPION PETFOODS: Class Status Denied in Rydman "Dog Food" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HOLLY RYDMAN, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, v. CHAMPION PETFOODS USA, INC., et al. Case No. 2:18-cv-01578-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Thomas S. Zilly entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Judge Zilly also entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment: (a) the Plaintiff's CPA (Count I) and unjust enrichment (Count VII) claims are dismissed in part as to (i) affirmative misrepresentation and omission theories relating to the phrases "Biologically Appropriate," "Delivering Nutrients Naturally," "Nourish as Nature Intended," and "Ingredients We Love [From] People We Trust, " and (ii) theories premised on "regional/non-regional" and "heavy metals" omissions; (b) the Plaintiff’s CPA (Count I) and unjust enrichment (Count VII) claims survive as to (i) affirmative misrepresentation theories based on the "Fresh" and "Regional" packaging messages, and (ii) the "non-fresh" omissions theory vis-avis Champion's inclusion of regrinds and expired ingredients; and (c) the Plaintiff’s negligent misrepresentation (Count II), fraudulent misrepresentation (Count III), and breach of express warranty (Count V) claims are dismissed with prejudice. Although the Plaintiff has attempted to draft around the Ninth Circuit's decision in Reitman, the reasoning of Reitman applies with full force and effect to the ten classes that the Plaintiff has proposed to certify. With respect to the "non-fresh" omissions (regrinds and expired ingredients) theory, the Plaintiff has not identified questions with "common answers," or shown that "common, aggregation-enabling, issues" are more prevalent or important that "non-common, aggregation-defeating, individual issues." The Plaintiff has not satisfied Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement and, as a result, the Plaintiff’s motion to certify the ten proposed classes is denied. The Plaintiff Holly Rydman, a Washington resident, representing a putative class of similarly situated individuals, claims that she was misled by statements and omissions concerning dog food produced by defendants Champion. In her Second Amended Complaint(SAC), the Plaintiff alleges that the dog food she purchased "contained and/or had a material risk of containing non-conforming ingredients and contaminants, such as: (1) Heavy Metals; (2) non-fresh ingredients; [and] (3) non-regional ingredients." As a result, the Plaintiff contends the following statements found on Champion's packaging were misleading: (1) "Biologically Appropriate"; and (2) "Fresh Regional Ingredients." The Plaintiff purchased Champion dog food between approximately December 2014 and February 2018 from a local Washington pet store. A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oAWjWY at no extra charge.[CC] CHEFS' WAREHOUSE: Bermudez Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Chefs' Warehouse Midwest, LLC. The case is styled as Armando Bermudez, Fernando Paz, Andres S. Irizarry, and Jesse Soto, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, known and unknown v. The Chefs' Warehouse Midwest, LLC, a/k/a The Chefs' Warehouse Mid-West LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-03337 (N.D. Ill., May 25, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. The Chefs' Warehouse -- https://www.chefswarehouse.com/ -- are purveyors and curators of the world's finest specialty foods, supplies and ingredients for Chefs and restaurants.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel David Engelson, Esq. John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM Billhorn Law Firm 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 840 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 853-1450 Fax: (312) 853-1459 Email: sengelson@billhornlaw.com jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com CHIPOTLE SERVICES: Cardoso Sues Over Failure to Compensate Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anna Cardoso, as an individual and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees v. CHIPOTLE SERVICES, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 23STCV11524 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 22, 2023), is brought under California Labor Code as a result of the Defendant's failure to compensate the Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees for all meal and rest period premium wages earned, Defendant maintained inaccurate payroll records and failed to issue accurate, compliant, itemized wage statements. During the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant, the Defendant failed to adequately reimburse the Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees for all reasonable and necessary work expenditures, including, but not limited to, use of personal cellular phones for using Workforce application. Specifically, the Defendant required the Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees to use the Workforce application for various purposes, such as checking their hours and/or schedules, requesting sick days, and checking/requesting vacation time. Despite requiring the Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees to use their personal cellular phones for work-related purposes, the Defendant did not reimburse the Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees for their cellular phone expenses, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in the non-exempt job position of "Crew" (or similarly titled position) until November 11, 2022. The Defendants did (and do) business by operating the Chipotle Mexican Grill chain of restaurants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Sean M. Blakely, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180 El Segundo, CA 90245 Phone: (424) 292-2350 Fax: (424) 292-2355 Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com sblakely@haineslawgroup.com CHLIC: Class Certification Hearing in RJ Suit Reset to July 27 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RJ et al., v. CHLIC et al Case No. 5:20-cv-02255-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila entered an order granting plaintiffs' unopposed motion to move hearing on class certification. -- The hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is reset to July 27, 2023. A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45CkCoc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew M. Lavin, Esq. Aaron R. Modiano, Esq. ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY LLP 2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 350S Washington, D.C. 20037 Telephone: (202) 677-4030 Facsimile: (202) 677-4031 E-mail: matt.lavin@agg.com aaron.modiano@agg.com - and - David M. Lilienstein, Esq. Katie J. Spielman, Esq. DL LAW GROUP 345 Franklin St. San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 678-5050 Facsimile: (415) 358-8484 E-mail: david@dllawgroup.com katie@dllawgroup.com CHURCH & DWIGHT: Gonzales Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Geneva Gonzales, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 23STCV10029 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 24, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04030. In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges a single cause of action for violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA").[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer L. Roche, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 557-2900 Facsimile: (310) 557 2193 - and - Baldassare Vinti, Esq. Jeffrey H. Warshafsky, Esq. 11 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Phone: (310) 969-3000 Facsimile: (310) 969-2900 CLASSPASS LLC: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Classpass LLC. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Classpass LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04165 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. ClassPass -- https://classpass.com/ -- offers worldwide access to thousands of top-rated gyms, fitness studios, salons and spas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal COMMUNITY HEALTH: McGowan Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Health Systems, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Brandy McGowan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Community Health Systems, Inc., CHSPSC, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00520 (M.D. Tenn., May 22, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. Community Health Systems -- http://www.chs.net/-- is a Fortune 500 company based in Franklin, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyson S. Beridon, Esq. HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI AND WALL, PLLC 425 Walnut St., Ste. 2315 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 381-2224 Fax: (615) 255-5419 Email: alyson@hsglawgroup.com - and - Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq. HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI AND WALL, PLLC 223 Rosa L Parks Ave., Ste. 300 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 800-6225 Email: ben@hsglawgroup.com COPERACO LLC: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Coperaco LLC. The case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Coperaco LLC doing business as: Stone Street Coffee, Case No. 1:23-cv-04322 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Coperaco LLC doing business as Stone Street Coffee -- https://stonestreetcoffee.com/ -- provides you with artisanal quality coffee created through strong partnerships to source the best coffee beans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com COX AUTOMOTIVE CORP: Touch Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cox Automotive Corp Svc., LLC. The case is styled as Samnang Touch, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cox Automotive Corp Svc., LLC, Cox Automotive Mobility Solutions, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0005193 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 19, 2023). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Cox Automotive -- https://www.coxautoinc.com/ -- is the only company in the world that offers a complete set of solutions for the automotive dealer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP 515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316 Phone: 213-488-6555 Fax: 213-488-6554 Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com CURBSIDE CLOTHING: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Curbside Clothing, Inc. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Curbside Clothing, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04336-MKV (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Curbside Clothing -- https://www.curbsideclothing.com/ -- designs and sells t shirts, tank tops, long sleeves, hoodies, and accessory products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com CYBERCARTEL: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cybercartel International, Inc. The case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Cybercartel International, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04328 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cybercartel International -- https://cybercartel.com/ -- is an internet company that provides internet services for workplaces and offices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com DAOU VINEYARDS LLC: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Daou Vineyards, LLC. The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Daou Vineyards, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03848 (E.D.N.Y., May 24, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Daou Vineyards -- https://daouvineyards.com/ -- offers the latest and most prestigious wines from their portfolio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com DAVID PEYSER: Andrews Sues Over Alleged False Discount Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------- CARMEN ANDREWS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. DAVID PEYSER SPORTSWEAR, INC., d/b/a 32Degrees.com, Defendant, Case No. CVRI 23023641 (Cal. Super., Riverside Cty., May 22, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant's false discount advertising scheme perpetrated by 32Degrees.com via its website. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that 32Degrees.com advertises perpetual or near perpetual "sales" and percentage-off discounts on its website -- typically 50% to 80% off -- from Defendant's self-created list prices for its products. 32Degrees.com has engaged in a uniform policy of advertising and displaying false discounts and fictitious former or "regular" prices in the advertising, marketing, and sale of apparel and other personal items sold and offered for sale to California consumers on its website. In carrying out this scheme, the Defendant's marketing plan is to trick its customers into believing that the strikethrough prices listed on its 32Degrees.com website are the regular and normal prices at which the items in question are routinely, or were previously, sold and offered for sale by Defendant on its website. The Plaintiff and the other customers who fell victim to this scheme were harmed because they would not have purchased the items at the prices they paid had they known the items had never been regularly offered for sale at the higher reference price advertised on 32Degrees.com. DAVID PEYSER SPORTSWEAR, INC. is a premiere manufacturer, importer and distributor of men's and women's sportswear, outerwear, activewear and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel M. Hattis, Esq. Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq. HATTIS & LUKACS 11711 SE 8th St, Ste 120 Bellevue, WA 98005 Telephone: (425) 233-8650 Facsimile: (425) 412-7171 Email: dan@hattislaw.com pkl@hattislaw.com - and - Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq. DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C. 5 Greentree Centre, Suite 410 Marlton, NJ Telephone: (856) 797-9951 Facsimile: (856) 797-9978 Email: sdenittis@denittislaw.com sprince@denittislaw.com DESIGNER BRANDS: Bid to Strike Under Seal Nixed in Laguardia Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC LAGUARDIA, et al., v. DESIGNER BRANDS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02311-SDM-EPD (Court), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered an order denying without prejudice the Defendants motion for leave to file motion to strike under seal. Designer Brands is an American company that sells designer and name brand shoes and fashion accessories. A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43eElZm at no extra charge.[CC] DISH NETWORK: Clark Files Suit in D. Colorado --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DISH Network L.L.C. The case is styled as Daniel Clark, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DISH Network L.L.C., Case No. 1:23-cv-01315-SKC (D. Colo., May 24, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. DISH Network Corporation -- http://www.dish.com/-- is an American television provider and the owner of the direct-broadcast satellite provider Dish, commonly known as Dish Network, and the over-the-top IPTV service, Sling TV.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Fax: (612) 336-2940 Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: M.J. Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as M.J., et al., v. The District of Columbia, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01901-ACR (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1) and Local Civil Rule 23.1(b) certifying a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) consisting of: "all Medicaid-eligible District of Columbia children who now or in the future are under the age of 21, have a mental health disability, are not receiving medically necessary intensive community-based services, and are unnecessarily institutionalized or at serious risk of institutionalization." A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43qEfNU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sandra J. Bernstein, Esq. Mary Nell Clark, Esq. Eva I. Richardson, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS DC AT UNIVERSITY LEGAL SERVICES 220 I Street NE, Suite 130 Washington, D.C. 20002 Telephone: (202) 547-0198 - and - Ira A. Burnim, Esq. Lewis L. Bossing, Esq. Brittany Vanneman, Esq. JUDGE DAVID L. BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW 1090 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 220 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 467-5730 - and - Poonam Juneja, Esq. Brenda Star Adams, Esq. NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW 1212 Broadway, Suite 600 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 835-8098 - and - Howard Schiffman, Esq. Jason T. Mitchell, Esq. Laurent M. Abergel, Esq. SCHULTE ROTH & ZABEL LLP 901 Fifteenth Street NW, Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 729-7470 DNC PARKS: Declarations of Oviedo, et al., Stricken --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA SOCORRO VEGA, v. DNC PARKS & RESORTS AT ASILOMAR, INC., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00484-ADA-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley Boone entered an order that the declarations of Reina Oviedo, Alfredo Marquez, Sandra Diaz, and Kalli Southwood, are stricken and will not be considered by the Court in connection with the Plaintiff's motion for class certification or for any other purpose. The Plaintiff initiated this putative class action on April 12, 2029. Pursuant to the amended scheduling order, the pre-certification discovery cutoff was set for December 14, 2022. The Plaintiff filed a motion to certify a class on February 17, 2023. The hearing on the motion was originally set for April 26, 2023. On March 23, 2023, The Court continued the pre-certification discovery deadline to June 9, 2023. On May 10, 2023, the parties appeared by videoconference for an informal discovery conference. Pursuant to the matters discussed at the conference, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer to determine the propriety of a stipulation to strike some or all of the declarations of witnesses Kalli Southwood, Reina Oviedo, Alfredo Marquez, and Sandra Diaz from the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and required the parties to file any such stipulation no later than the close of business, May 16, 2023. On May 16, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation agreeing that the declarations of witnesses Kalli Southwood, Reina Oviedo, Alfredo Marquez, and Sandra Diaz, which the Plaintiff filed in support of her motion for class certification and has agreed to withdraw, are to be stricken and not considered by the Court for any purpose. A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42c4OFF at no extra charge.[CC] DOT COM HOLDINGS: Bullock Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dot Com Holdings of Buffalo, Inc. The case is styled as Justin Bullock, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Dot Com Holdings of Buffalo, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04346 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Dot Com Holdings of Buffalo, Inc. -- https://www.dchob.com/ -- operates as a holding company..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com DRESSER LLC: Barnes Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Property Owners ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB BARNES, et al, v. DRESSER, LLC, et al, Case No. 1:21-cv-00024-DCJ-JPM (W.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying the Class for the limited purposes of determining issues that are common to all Related Cases Plaintiffs; 2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and 3. appointing Jimmy R. Faircloth, Jr., Mary Katherine Price, and Richard F. Norem III as Class Counsel. -- Class Definition: The "Class Exposure Area" should include all property within 1.25 miles of the former Dresser Facility, with the class defined as: "All persons (natural and juridical), who (a) owned or leased property located in the Class Exposure Area impacted by the contaminants emanating from the Facility, or (b) resided in the Class Exposure Area and who have suffered property- related damages, such as diminution in value, damage to the natural resources, loss of enjoyment and use of property, nuisance, and remediation costs, from the contaminants emanating from the Facility." -- Class Counsel: Proposed Class Representatives are represented by Jimmy R. Faircloth, Jr. and the firm Faircloth Melton Sobel & Bash, LLC. From 1961 to 2016, Dresser Defendants owned, operated, and controlled an industrial facility located at 8011 Shreveport Highway, Pineville, Louisiana 71360 (the Dresser Facility), which manufactured, repaired, coated, and painted specialized valves and related products. The Dresser Contamination Plume extends off-site, under or near hundreds of parcels of privately owned property. As a result of the Dresser Defendants' actions, residents, property owners, and visitors to the affected area have been exposed to TCE and other dangerous substances. Many have been, or will be, sickened by such exposure. In addition, the value of property above and near the Dresser Contamination Plume has been reduced as a result the exposure. Reportedly, many residents and property owners have deferred filing claims while waiting on the results of the Dresser Investigation, now in its eleventh year. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MFQ0JD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jimmy R. Faircloth, Jr., Esq. Mary Katherine Price Richard F. Norem, III 105 Yorktown Drive Alexandria, LA 71303 Telephone: (318) 619-7755 Facsimile: (318) 619-7744 E-mail: jfaircloth@fairclothlaw.com kprice@fairclothlaw.com enorem@fairclothlaw.com DRY GOODS LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dry Goods, LLC. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Dry Goods, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04338-ALC (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Dry Goods -- https://www.drygoodsusa.com/ -- has an ever-changing selection of today's newest fashions from clothing to jewelry to accessories,.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Davis Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACQUELINE DAVIS, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-9168-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion to stay the Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its burden of proof. The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm, and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is inappropriate." DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members, it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their favor without their express consent would undermine public confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial system. DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on April 10, 2023. On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case. On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs' individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees and costs were awarded." DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and operations outsourcing services to the financial services and healthcare industries. A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nYSElo at no extra charge.[CC] DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Ducharme Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES DUCHARME, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:21-09091-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion to stay the Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its burden of proof. The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm, and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is inappropriate." DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members, it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their favor without their express consent would undermine public confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial system. DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on April 10, 2023. On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case. On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs' individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees and costs were awarded." DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and operations outsourcing services to the financial services and healthcare industries. A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Oba1Ku at no extra charge.[CC] DULUTH, GA: Businesses Seek Class-Action Suit Over Stormwater Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jana Hollingsworth at Star Tribune reports that two longtime Duluth businesses suing the city of Duluth over stormwater fees are asking a judge to certify the case as class-action, which has the potential to add more than 1,500 plaintiffs, according to their attorney. Moline Machinery and Walsh Windows filed a suit in 2021, alleging the city overcharged them when assessing stormwater service fees, while undercharging or not charging others. They say the city used an inappropriate method to calculate payments for commercial properties when considering the amount of impervious surface of each. "In internal emails, Duluth conceded that its stormwater billing has been 'highly flawed' and in 'disrepair' for many years," the filing reads. The businesses allege the city violated its own code for years by giving discounts to some commercial and multifamily properties while failing to charge others. For example, until 2021, the city gave steep discounts to waterfront properties, which amounted to more than $1 million annually, or 20% of its stormwater utility budget. Duluth collected about $5.2 million in stormwater fees in 2020, and businesses paid nearly half of that, the lawsuit says, at a rate higher than those in comparable cities. Attorneys for the city have asked the court to deny the class-action request, saying it fails to meet requirements. In court filings, attorneys for the city argue that stormwater discounts for best practices are indeed allowed, and that the city had begun reviewing and fixing its billing practices long before the 2021 lawsuit was filed, a process that was completed this year and included remeasuring the impervious surfaces of thousands of properties. That process did find some properties weren't correctly charged; some because the city wasn't aware of changes to amounts of impervious surfaces. What the businesses allege is "oversimplification" of the issue, attorney Emily McAdam wrote. An attorney for the city did not respond to messages. The lawsuit, which alleges a vast number of property owners are owed reimbursements, points to the BNSF Railway as an example of a waterfront property that wasn't charged in 2020. Without credits, it would have paid the city about $97,000. Instead, other commercial properties paid the difference, Moline attorney Shawn Raiter said. Holding ponds and grasses that retain water are some of the things the city would grant discounts for, although Raiter argues that in past years, there wasn't city code authorization or documentation to support them. More than 1,500 properties were billed at commercial rates in 2020, according to court documents, a number that also includes discounted properties. The city recently retained additional counsel for the case, which is scheduled for a February jury trial. [GN] EFFICIENT HOME: Gallardo Sues Over Deceptive Sale of Solar Panels ----------------------------------------------------------------- ESMERALDA GALLARDO, and all others similarly situated v. EFFICIENT HOME SERVICES OF FL, LLC, EFFICIENT HOME SERVICES OF TEXAS, LLC, DIVIDEND FINANCE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 23-007059-CI (Fla. Cir., 6th Judicial, Pinellas Cty., May 23, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' deceptive and unfair trade practices, fraud in the execution, and breach of contract. Despite being paid, EHS FL has failed to provide a working solar panel system at the properties. In addition, the Defendants allegedly failed to give the necessary disclosures as required under The E-Sign Act and the Truth and Lending Act, including, but not limited to failing to provide statutorily required disclosures of a three day cooling off period as the sale occurred at the Plaintiff's home, by not providing the actual cost of financing on the transaction as would be required under a mortgage, and by not providing the E-Sign Consent ahead of delivering items to the Plaintiff electronically. Efficient Home Services of FL is a Florida limited liability company that does business in this county by purportedly providing construction and solar materials to residents of the state of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryant H. Dunivan Jr., Esq. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ATTORNEY, PA 301 W. Platt St., #216. Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: 813.252.0239 Email: bryant@theconsumerprotectionattorney.com eservice@theconsumerprotectionattorney.com EL CHARRO BAKERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Castellon Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- BELKIS CASTELLON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EL CHARRO BAKERY 1 CORP. d/b/a EL CHARRO BAKERY; and ANTONIO AQUINO, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-03841 (E.D.N.Y., May 23, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Castellon was employed by the Defendants as a cashier. EL CHARRO BAKERY 1 CORP. owns and operates a bakery under the trade name "El Charro Bakery" at Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 EPHRAIM MCDOWELL: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Hale Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ ERNEST HALE, individually and for others similarly situated v. EPHRAIM MCDOWELL HEALTH, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00152-KKC (E.D. Ky., May 22, 2023), arises out of the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act. Plaintiff Hale worked for Ephraim McDowell Health, Inc. (EMH) as an external transporter at EMH's facilities in Kentucky from approximately 2000 until April 2022. He worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. But EMH does not pay him for all the hours he work. Instead, EMH automatically deducts 30 minutes a day from his work time for so-called meal breaks. Throughout his employment, EMH paid Hale under its shift differential pay scheme, paying him different hourly rates depending on what type of shift he worked. However, EMH failed to include these shift differentials in calculating Hale's regular rate of pay for overtime purposes. Accordingly, EMH uniformly deprives these transportation employees of proper premium overtime wages (including overtime compensation at the proper premium rate based on all remuneration received) for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the FLSA and KWHA, says the Plaintiff. EMH is a comprehensive, integrated healthcare delivery system that serves more than 119,000 residents from six counties in central Kentucky. The company employs transportation workers, including Hale and the putative class members, to transport patients and medical supplies between its various healthcare facilities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne L. Gilday, Esq. THE LAWRENCE FIRM, PSC 535 Madison Ave., Suite 500 Covington, KY 41011 Telephone: (859) 578-9130 Facsimile: (859) 578-1032 E-mail: anne.gilday@lawrencefirm.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 EPHRAIM MCDOWELL: Neikirk Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Kelly Neikirk, individually and for others similarly situated v. EPHRAIM MCDOWELL HEALTH, INC. (EMH), Case No. 5:23-cv-00153-DCR (E.D. Ky., May 22, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act (KWHA). The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. But EMH does not pay them for all the hours they work. Instead, EMH automatically deducts 30 minutes a day from these employees' work time for so-called meal breaks. the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members are thus not paid for that time. But EMH fails to provide the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members with bona fide meal breaks. Instead, EMH requires the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members to remain on-duty throughout their shifts and continuously subjects them to interruptions, including during their unpaid "meal breaks." EMH's auto-deduction policy violates the FLSA and the KWHA by depriving the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members of overtime pay for all overtime hours worked. Further, in addition to excluding time the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members worked during their unpaid "meal breaks," EMH also pays these employees different hourly rates (or "shift differentials") depending on what type of shifts they work. But EMH fails to include these shift differentials in calculating the Plaintiff's and the Putative Class Members' regular rates of pay for overtime purposes. EMH's shift differential pay scheme violates the FLSA and KWHA by failing to pay the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members overtime wages at rates not less than 1.5 times their regular rates of pay--based on all renumeration received--for all overtime hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for EMH as a Care Attendant in Kentucky. EMH is a Kentucky non-profit healthcare corporation that maintains its headquarters in Danville, Kentucky.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne L. Gilday, Esq. THE LAWRENCE FIRM, PSC 535 Madison Ave., Suite 500 Covington, KY 41011 Phone: (859) 578-9130 Facsimile: (859) 578-1032 Email: anne.gilday@lawrencefirm.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Torres Files Suit in D. South Dakota --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information Services, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Dr. Anthony Torres, D.O., individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated consumers v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Case No. 4:23-mc-00058-KES (D.S.D., May 22, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Motion to Enforce Subpoena and Compel. Equifax Information Services LLC -- http://www.equifax.com/-- provides data solutions. The Company offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and analytical solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: JD Haas, Esq. JD HAAS & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 1120 East 80th Street, Suite 200 Bloomington, MN 55420 Phone: (952) 345-1025 Fax: (952) 854-1665 Email: jdhaas@jdhaas.com ETERNEVA INC: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eterneva, Inc. The case is styled as Frangie Espinal, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Eterneva, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04300-LGS (S.D.N.Y., May 23, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Eterneva -- https://www.eterneva.com/ -- celebrates remarkable people and pets by turning their ashes into diamonds.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal EXELA ENTERPRISE: Sierra Sues Over Failure to Pay Weekly --------------------------------------------------------- Michael Sierra, Albert Asaro and Karain Crumpton, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. EXELA ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS, INC. and EXELA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-04349 (S.D.N.Y, May 24, 2023), is brought against the Defendants for failure to properly pay Plaintiffs and Class Members their wages on a weekly basis as required by the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). In practice, Defendants trampled on the wage rights of Plaintiffs and Class Members (manual workers in New York) by paying them bi-weekly instead of weekly as required by NYLL. The Defendants' practices had the effect of usurping the weekly wages of Plaintiffs and other Class Members. This, in turn, placed Plaintiffs and similarly situated manual workers under constant financial strain. Despite regularly spending more than twenty-five percent of their shifts performing the foregoing physical tasks, the Plaintiffs were compensated by Defendants on a bi-weekly basis, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by Exela as reprographic production workers. The Defendants, through their service known as "Exela HR Solutions," provide recruitment, staffing, employee management, payroll and other human resources services to multi-national corporations, including the nation's largest financial institutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc A. Rapaport, Esq. RAPAPORT LAW FIRM, PLLC 80 Eighth Avenue, Suite 206 New York, NY 10011 Phone: (212) 382-1600 Email: mrapaport@rapaportlaw.com - and - Meredith R. Miller, Esq. MILLER LAW, PLLC 167 Madison Avenue, Suite 503 New York, NY 10016 Phone: (347) 878-2587 Email: meredith@millerlaw.nyc EXPRESS DELI & TOBACCO: Lawrence Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Express Deli & Tobacco Corp., et al. The case is styled as Nana Queenie Lawrence, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Express Deli & Tobacco Corp., 132 Graham Realty Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-03801 (E.D.N.Y., May 22, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Express Deli & Tobacco Corp. is a Deli in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Johnston, Esq. JOHNSTON LAW LLC 1103 Stewart Avenue, Suite 200 Garden City, NY 11757 Phone: (516) 388-7611 Email: DJ@BellLG.com FOUR SEASONS: Garcia, Cosme Sue Over Nonpayment of OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Cesar Agusto Garcia and Jose Luis Olivares Cosme, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Four Seasons Business Park II, LTD and Four Seasons Business Park, I, LLC, and Julian Kubeczka, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-01871 (S.D. Tex., May 22, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor and Standards Act. Plaintiff Garcia worked for Four Seasons as a construction worker from June of 2019 until July 16, 2021 and Plaintiff Cosme worked for Four Seasons as a construction worker from 1998 until September of 2022. Garcia's and Cosme's job duties included, but were not limited to, framing and sheetrock work and painting. During the time they worked for the Defendants, the Plaintiffs regularly worked more than 40 hours per week and they were paid on an hourly basis. However, they were not paid for the hours that they worked over 40 in a workweek. Instead, they were paid with the same hourly rate for all the hours that they worked, the Plaintiff allege. Four Seasons Business Park II, Ltd. is a Texas limited partnership. The company may be served through its registered agent, Four Seasons Business Park I, LLC, through its registered agent Julian Kubeczka at 5825 W. Sam Houston Pkwy. N., Houston, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM P.O. Box 10099 Houston, TX 77206 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com FOX CORPORATION: Ekstrom Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fox Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Sarah Ekstrom, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fox Corporation, Tubi, Inc., Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC23606599 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 18, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Fox Corporation -- http://www.foxcorporation.com/-- is a publicly traded American multinational mass media company operated and controlled by media mogul Rupert Murdoch.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dustin Linley Collier, Esq. COLLIER LAW FIRM, LLP 240 Tamal Vista Blvd., #100 Corte Madera, CA 94925 Phone: 628-600-7204 FREEJUMP AIRBAG: Faces Suit Over Defective Freejump Airbag Vests ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey at classaction.org reports that a proposed class action alleges the maker of the Freejump Airbag vest has failed to warn consumers that the "unreasonably dangerous" equestrian product is defective and will "frequently" fail to inflate upon a fall from a horse. The 31-page lawsuit explains that the airbag vest, made by Freejump Developpement, is purportedly designed to activate a CO2 cartridge and inflate the air jacket, protecting the rider from the impact of a fall, when a lanyard connecting the vest to the horse's saddle becomes disengaged. The suit alleges, however, that the Bordeaux, France-based company has failed to warn consumers that the vests often do not inflate as designed and are in fact less effective than conventional body protectors at preventing serious injuries, even when inflated properly. Moreover, the case charges that the Freejump Airbag vest is advertised as a safer alternative to traditional body protectors despite the lack of any credible, scientific evidence to support this claim. The complaint, filed on May 23 in Virginia, contends that the defendant, who does business as Freejump System, has "aggressively marketed" its airbag vest as effective protective gear for riders despite knowing that the product is both less safe than alternatives and plagued by a defect that could leave riders without protection should they fall or be thrown from a horse. "Overwhelming data" contradicts Freejump Airbag vest safety claims, filing says Though statements in the product's user guide, on social media and the company's website tout the airbag vest as "the best protection" for horseback riders, numerous studies have produced "overwhelming data" that suggests the Freejump Airbag, even when inflated properly, provides less protection than a conventional body protector, the lawsuit shares. According to the suit, a 2015 French study that evaluated more than 2,000 riders and 67 falls concluded that "the rate of injury in riders wearing an air bag jacket was higher than for riders who fell without an air bag." Similar research in 2019 indicated that riders wearing an air jacket were almost twice as likely to sustain a severe or fatal injury in a fall compared to those who wore a traditional body protector, many of which are made of high-density foam and specifically engineered to reduce the impact of a fall on internal organs, the case relays. In light of the foregoing, the filing contends that Freejump System possesses no credible evidence to support the claim that its product provides "incomparable safety" and a "much higher level of protection" than alternative gear on the market. Despite this, the case points out, the Freejump Airbag vest was designed to be "worn on its own," without a standard body protector of any kind. "In order to offer adequate protection to riders, Defendant should have warned and instructed consumers to wear the Freejump Airbag with a traditional body protector," the filing argues. Freejump System cut corners on research and product testing, complaint alleges Though Freejump System purportedly had "no experience with airbag technology" prior to 2019, when it acquired Oscar & Gabrielle, a competition jacket maker, the company rolled out the Freejump Airbag in "less than 8 months of research and development," the lawsuit says. As the suit tells it, the defendant simply used the designs of other comparable air vests and focused on the "aesthetic look" of the product rather than bolstering its critical safety features. Upon its launch in February 2020, the Freejump Airbag was advertised as offering "superior performance" with regard to inflation speed, and a level of protection that "outperformed" all safety tests, the suit relays. The case contends, however, that the company in fact only conducted "the minimum amount of research and testing that would allow [it] to sell the Freejump Airbag as personal protective equipment." According to the complaint, the only research that occurred was impact absorption testing conducted through vertical drops. However, given that falls in equestrian sports are usually "far more complex than a standard, vertical fall," the filing contests that Freejump System should have conducted additional testing more representative of the reality of riding accidents. The lawsuit alleges that representations of the Freejump Airbag as safe and effective are "obviously false and misleading," arguing that no reasonable consumer would have purchased the product had known it was "defective and unreasonably dangerous." Plaintiff hospitalized after her air vest failed to inflate, lawsuit claims Per the suit, the plaintiff, a Virginia resident and experienced horse rider, purchased a Freejump Airbag in September 2020 because the product was advertised as a "safer and lightweight alternative" to a body protector. During a show-jumping competition in May 2021, the woman, who was wearing the air vest for the first time, was thrown from her horse as she approached a jump, the case says. The Freejump Airbag failed to inflate, and the woman landed on her back on the ground "with significant force," the complaint describes. The plaintiff was hospitalized for four days and underwent two surgeries for multiple spinal fractures, which afterward required lengthy physical therapy, the filing reports. According to the lawsuit, none of the advertising seen by the plaintiff disclosed that the Freejump Airbag would fail to inflate upon a fall from a horse; that it was less effective than traditional body armor at preventing spinal, back and neck injuries; or that the product should be worn over a body protector. "Had Defendant made these disclosures, Plaintiff would not have purchased the Freejump Airbag or would have paid significantly less for the product," the suit says. Who's covered by the lawsuit? The case looks to represent anyone in the United States who purchased a Freejump Airbag. I bought a Freejump Airbag vest. How can I join the lawsuit? Usually there's nothing you need to do to join a class action lawsuit when it's first filed. The time to take action is generally when the case reaches a settlement, at which point the people covered by the deal—known as class members—may be notified directly by email or regular mail with information about their rights and instructions on what to do next. Remember, it can take months or even years for a class action lawsuit to be resolved.[GN] FULCRUM THERAPEUTICS: Celano Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Gerald Celano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fulcrum Therapeutics, Inc., Bryan Stuart, Robert J. Gould, Esther Rajavelu, Case No. 1:23-cv-02360 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on May 19, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-11125-IT to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities for Securities Exchange Act. Fulcrum Therapeutics -- https://www.fulcrumtx.com/ -- is a biotechnology company that focuses on identifying and treating rare genetic diseases at their root cause.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Henry Przybylowski, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Fax: (917) 463-1044 Email: tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Charles A. Brown, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP The New York Times Building 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 813-8800 Email: cbrown@goodwinlaw.com GANNETT CO: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEAN ZOULEK v. GANNETT CO INC and A MARKETING RESOURCE (AMR) LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01464-BHL (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Brett H. Ludwig entered an order granting in part and denying in part AM's motion to strike class allegation: -- The motion is granted with respect to allegations relating to any Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) class, and those allegations are stricken. -- The balance of the motion is denied. AMR argues that Zoulek cannot satisfy the typicality or adequacy requirements with respect to the "Do Not Call Registry Class" because she is subject to the potentially unique "established business relationship" defense. For the same reasons just explained, that argument, at this stage of the proceedings, is insufficient to support a motion to strike. Indeed, the redefinition Zoulek proposed in her response brief would also tend to dispel any concerns about her typicality or adequacy if it turns out that she is subject to an established business relationship defense. Zoulek's complaint proposes two nationwide classes under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3): 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) AMR called on behalf of Gannett more than one time, (2) within any 12-month period, (3) where the person's telephone number had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days, (4) for substantially the same reason the Defendants called the Plaintiff. Internal Do Not Call Class: "All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through class certification (1) AMR called on behalf of Gannett more than one time, (2) within any 12-month period (3) for substantially the same reason the Defendants called the Plaintiff, (4) including at least once after the person requested that they stop calling. AMR argues that these classes should be stricken for three reasons: (1) neither is amenable to certification under Rule 23(b)(2); (2) both fail the predominance inquiry under Rule 23(b)(3); and (3) Zoulek is an atypical, inadequate representative for the "Do Not Call Registry Class. " Despite unified disdain for the practice, and a federal law -- the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) -- that arguably proscribes many of them, the barrage of robocalls persists, as this lawsuit demonstrates. The Plaintiff Zoulek's complaint alleges that between August and December 2022, AMR called her at least 17 times, in violation of the TCPA, in an unwanted and unrequited effort to get her to resubscribe to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Jean Zoulek registered her phone number on the National Do Not Call registry (DNC) on December 16, 2006. Inclusion on the DNC indicates a consumer's desire not to receive solicitation by phone. This desire "must be honored indefinitely, or until the registration is cancelled by the consumer or the telephone number is removed by the database administrator." Zoulek had not cancelled her registration, nor had her number been removed from the DNC by an administrator. Zoulek did, however, cancel something in 2022. In June of that year, she ended her nearly 40-year subscription to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Shortly thereafter, she received a call from AMR -- a telemarketing company contracted to perform sales and customer retention work for Gannett Co., Inc., the owner of the Journal Sentinel. Gannett is an American mass media holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 18, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MGhvTf at no extra charge.[CC] GEO GROUP: Suit Seeks to Certify California Wage and Hour Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE RUBEN HERNANDEZ GOMEZ; SALESH PRASAD; GUILLERMO MEDINA REYES; EDGAR SANCHEZ; ADAN CASTILLO MERINO; IVAN OLIVA SIERRA; FIDEL GARCIA, ISAAC CARDONA HERNANDEZ, and PEDRO JESUS FIGUEROA PADILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE GEO GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 1:22-cv-00868-ADA-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting certification of the California Wage and Hour Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3): "all persons who (1) were detained at the Mesa Verde or Golden State Annex facilities at any time between July 13, 2018 and the date of final judgment in this matter and (2) participated in GEO's Voluntary Work Program at any point during their detention at Mesa Verde or Golden State Annex. GEO admits that it pays all detained immigrants employed in its Voluntary Work Programs (VWPs) at the Mesa Verde and Golden State Annex facilities $1 per day for their work -- far below California's minimum wage. The California Wage and Hour Class proposed in this motion consists of detained immigrants who worked in the VWP at either Mesa Verde or Golden State Annex from July 13, 2018, to the date of final judgment in this matter. Per GEO's acknowledged policies, confirmed by the employment records and declarations of representative class members, each member of the California Wage and Hour Class was paid $1 per day for the labor they performed in GEO's VWPs. Geo is a provider of government-outsourced services specializing in the management of correctional, detention and mental health. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 18, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OPFlip at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, Esq. Ernest Galvan, Esq. Michael Freedman, Esq. Ben Hattem, Esq. ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP 101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-1738 Telephone: (415) 433-6830 Facsimile: (415) 433-7104 E-mail: ggrunfeld@rbgg.com egalvan@rbgg.com mfreedman@rbgg.com bhattem@rbgg.com - and - Priya Arvind Patel, Esq. Trevor Kosmo, Esq. CENTRO LEGAL DE LA RAZA 3400 East 12th Street Oakland, CA 94601-3402 Telephone: (510) 437-1554 E-mail: ppatel@centrolegal.org tkosmo@centrolegal.org - and - Lisa V. Knox, Esq. CALIFORNIA COLLABORATIVE FOR IMMIGRANT JUSTICE 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1800 Oakland, CA 94612-4700 Telephone: (510) 230-6746 E-mail: lisa@ccijustice.org GEOFF STANLEY: Plaintiffs Lose Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY MCGOWAN, et al., v. GEOFF STANLEY, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-06971-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Denise Cote entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. A copy of the Court's order dated May 18, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OFfc5G at no extra charge.[CC] GERBS PUMPKIN SEED: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gerbs Pumpkin Seed Company. The case is styled as Frangie Espinal, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Gerbs Pumpkin Seed Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-04197-JMF (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Gerbs -- https://www.mygerbs.com/ -- offers allergy friendly foods from organic & Non-GMO dried fruit, pumpkin seeds, hemp seeds, healthy snacks, dark chocolate, rice, grains & more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal GILT GROUPE LP: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gilt Groupe, LP. The case is styled as Shivan Bassaw, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gilt Groupe, LP, Case No. 1:23-cv-04395 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Gilt -- http://www.ruegiltgroupe.com/-- is an online shopping and lifestyle website based in the United States, launched in 2007.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com GIORGIO'S OF GRAMERCY: Ocampo Sues Over Unpaid Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------- Domingo Ocampo, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. GIORGIO'S OF GRAMERCY INC. (D/B/A GIORGIO'S OF GRAMERCY), NICK GRAMTIKOUPLOS A.K.A NICK GRAMS, and JOSE VEGA, Case No. 1:23-cv-04255 (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2023), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor (herein the "Spread of Hours Wage Order"), including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Thwithout appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day. Furthermore, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff wages on a timely basis. In this regard, the Defendants have failed to provide timely wages to the Plaintiff Defendants' conduct extended beyond the Plaintiff to all other similarly situated employees. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as delivery worker and dishwasher at the restaurant. The Defendants own, operate, or control an American Restaurant, located in New York City under the name "Giorgio's of Gramercy."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catalina Sojo CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 GLOBAL DIAGNOSTIC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bolivar Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA JOSE SUAREZ BOLIVAR; MARIA VANESSA SUAREZ BOLIVAR; and EDNA PATRICIA AGUIRRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GLOBAL DIAGNOSTIC LABS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-01130-TPB-JSS (M.D. Fla., May 23, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as COVID-19 testers. GLOBAL DIAGNOSTIC LABS, LLC is a clinical medical laboratory in Norcross, GA. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Heidi B. Parker, Esq. EGAN, LEV & SIWICA, P.A. PO Box 2231 Orlando, FL 32802-2231 Telephone: (407) 422-1400 Email: hparker@eganlev.com - and - David Ricksecker, Esq. Matthew D. Purushotham, Esq. McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Ave., N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 833-8855 Email: dr@mselaborlaw.com mdp@mselaborlaw.com GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Kenan Suit Transferred to M.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Toya Kenan, Monica Cooper, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Global Payments Inc., Total Systems Services LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04270 was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia on May 23, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-00089-CDL to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for Denial of Overtime Compensation. Global Payments Inc. -- http://www.globalpayments.com/-- is an American multinational financial technology company that provides payment technology and services to merchants, issuers and consumers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. 8151 Peters Rd., Ste. 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: (954) 318-0268 Email: afrisch@forthepeople.com The Defendants are represented by: Paul G. Sherman, Esq. Joshua Yehuda Joel, Esq. Nathan David Chapman, Esq. 171 17th STNW Atlanta, GA 30363 Phone: (404) 400-7320 Email: psherman@kcozlaw.com jjoel@kcozlaw.com nchapman@kcozlaw.com GLOBAL TECHNICAL: Tobias Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Geoffrey Tobias, individually and for others similarly situated v. GLOBAL TECHNICAL TRAINING SERVICES, INC., Case No. 8:23-cv-02195-DCC (S.D.C., May 23, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff and the Straight Time Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a week. But the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and the Straight Time Employees overtime wages. Instead of paying overtime wages as required by the FLSA, the Defendant pays them the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 hours in a workweek (or "straight time for overtime"). the Defendant never paid the Plaintiff or the Straight Time Employees on a "salary basis." the Defendant pays the Plaintiff and the Straight Time Employees on an hourly basis, says the complaint. The Plaintiff works for the Defendant as an Initial Test Program (ITP) Engineer assigned to provide services to the Defendant's client, Southern Nuclear, at Plant Vogtle. The Defendant provides professional consulting services to nuclear energy, power utilities, wind, solar, and construction industry clients across the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: T. Christopher Tuck, Esq. T.A.C. Hargrove, II, Esq. ROGERS, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC 1037 Chuck Dawley Blvd., Building A Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Phone: 843-727-6500 Facsimile: 843-216-6509 Email: ctuck@rpwb.com thargrove@rpwb.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com GO TO GIFTS INC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Go To Gifts Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Go To Gifts Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04341 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Go To Gifts Inc. is a gift giving company in Camarillo, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com GOLDEN QUEEN MINING: Nelson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Golden Queen Mining Company, LLC. The case is styled as Seth Robert Nelson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Golden Queen Mining Company, LLC, Case No. BCV-23-101611 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., May 24, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Golden Queen -- https://goldenqueenllc.com/ -- produces both gold and silver metals from Soledad Mountain and is one of the last remaining gold mines in the state of California.[BN] GONG.IO LTD: Cervantes Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics ----------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN CERVANTES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GONG.IO LTD., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-02496-TSH (N.D. Cal., May 22, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Plaintiff Cervantes alleges that Gong.io Ltd. has wiretapped communications and illegally collected biometric information, such as voiceprints, of sales associates employed by companies who contract with Gong.io Ltd. The communications made during the sales calls are routed through the servers of and are used by Gong to, among other things, secretly observe, record, and analyze Website visitors' electronic communications in real time. In addition, the Defendant collected this information without the knowledge or consent of either the sales associate or the person on the other end of the sales call. By doing so, the Defendant violated the BIPA, says the Plaintiff. Gong.io Ltd. is a Delaware company with its principal place of business at 201 Spear St. 13th Floor, San Francisco, California. It is a marketing software-as-a-service company, primarily offering sales optimization software and applications focused on sales, customer service, marketing, and analytics. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com GREAT EXPRESSIONS DENTAL: Coffey Files Suit in E.D. Michigan ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Great Expressions Dental Centers, P.C. The case is styled as Crystal Coffey, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Great Expressions Dental Centers, P.C., Case No. 2:23-cv-11223-MFL-CI (E.D. Mich., May 23, 2023). The nature suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Great Expressions Dental Centers -- https://www.greatexpressions.com/ -- is a system of dental care offices based out of Southfield, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45208 Phone: (513) 381-2333 Fax: (513) 766-9011 GREEN MESSENGERS: Ibarra Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jonathan Ibarra and Jessica Nestor, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GREEN MESSENGERS, INC., a California corporation; AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 2 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV18020 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 22, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-03940. On April 21, 2023, Plaintiffs filed and served on Amazon the operative Third Amended Class Action Complaint ("TAC") seeking damages, statutory waiting time penalties, and restitution on behalf of a putative class "of all Defendants' current and former non-exempt employees in California" for: failure to pay all overtime wages; minimum wage violations; meal period violations; rest period violations; wage statement violations; waiting time penalties; and unfair competition.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: John S. Battenfeld, Esq. Max Fischer, Esq. Brian D. Fahy, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Phone: +1.213.612.2500 Fax: +1.213.612.2501 Email: john.battenfeld@morganlewis.com max.fischer@morganlewis.com brian.fahy@morganlewis.com - and - Sarah Zenewicz, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: +1.415.442.1000 Fax: +1.415.442.1001 Email: sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com HEALTH IN MOTION: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Health In Motion LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Health In Motion LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04244 (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Health In Motion LLC. Is a consultant in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com HEALTHRIGHT 360: Ramirez Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jamaal Ramirez, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. HEALTHRIGHT 360, a California Corporation; HEALTHRIGHT 360 FOUNDATION, a California Corporation; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC-23-605974 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, City and County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on May 25, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-02601-LJC. The Complaint contains eight causes of action, alleging: Unfair Competition; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Required Rest Breaks; Failure to Reimburse Required Business Expenses; Failure to Timely Pay Wages When Due; and Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Joanna L. Brooks, Esq. Benjamin R. Hart, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Treat Towers 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Phone: 925.932.2468 Fax: 925.946.980 Email: jbrooks@littler.com bhart@littler.com HEIMIES HABERDASHERY: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Heimies Haberdashery, Inc. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Heimies Haberdashery, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04184-VEC (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Heimies Haberdashery, Inc. -- https://heimies.com/ -- is a men's clothing store offering traditional men's suits & accessories in an old-fashioned location with a barber & a tobacconist.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com HODINKEE INC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hodinkee, Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Hodinkee, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04173 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hodinkee -- https://www.hodinkee.com/ -- stylized as HODINKEE, is a New York City-based watch website, known as an influential editorial and e-commerce site for new and vintage wristwatches.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com HOME DEPOT: Smith Suit Removed to D. New Hampshire -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Pamela Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Case No. 216-2013-cv-00234 was removed from the Superior Court of New Hampshire, to the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire on May 25, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00294. The foregoing claims arise from Plaintiff's allegations that Home Depot unlawfully received and disclosed to unauthorized persons consumers' personal data found on drivers' licenses without their knowledge or consent. The Plaintiff contends that this conduct violates the New Hampshire Driver Privacy Act and requests that the Court "prevent Defendant from further encroaching upon the privacy rights of New Hampshire residents, and to recover liquidated damages for Defendant's violations of the DPA."[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Kathleen M. Mahan, Esq. HINCKLEY ALLEN 650 Elm Street Manchester, NH 03101 Phone: (603)-545-6118 Email: kmahan@hinckleyallen.com - and - S. Stewart Haskins II, Esq. Elizabeth Adler, Esq. Misty L. Peterson, Esq. Mandi Goodman, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30309-3521 Phone: 404-572-4600 Fax: 404-572-5100 Email: shaskins@kslaw.com eadler@kslaw.com mpeterson@kslaw.com mgoodman@kslaw.com HOME PARTNERS: Curran Files Suit in D. Colorado ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Home Partners Holdings LLC, et al. The case is styled as Michael Curran, Christa Curran, Kelly Colbert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Home Partners Holdings LLC, HPA US1 LLC, OPVHHJV LLC doing business as: Pathlight Property Management, Case No. 1:23-cv-01279 (D. Colo., May 22, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Home Partners -- https://www.homepartners.com/ -- provides responsible households that cannot obtain a mortgage a transparent path to home ownership.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anne T. Regan, Esq. HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC 8050 West 78th Street Edina, MN 55439 Phone: (952) 941-4005 Email: aregan@hjlawfirm.com HOUSING AUTHORITY: Neal-Burgin Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Xavier Neal-Burgin, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated v. Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV06525 was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 18, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-03826-SPG-JPR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles -- http://www.hacla.org/en-- is a state-chartered public agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric A Grover, Esq. Robert Spencer, Esq. KELLER GROVER LLP 1965 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Phone: (415) 543-1305 Fax: (415) 543-7861 Email: eagrover@kellergrover.com rspencer@kellergrover.com The Defendants are represented by: Brant H. Dveirin, Esq. Danielle E Stierna, Esq. Jon P. Kardassakis, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD AND SMITH LLP 633 West 5th Street Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 250-1800 Fax: (213) 250-7900 Email: Brant.dveirin@lewisbrisbois.com danielle.stierna@lewisbrisbois.com jon.kardassakis@lewisbrisbois.com IGLOO PRODUCTS CORP: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Igloo Products Corp. The case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Igloo Products Corp., Case No. 1:23-cv-04383 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Igloo Products Corp. -- https://www.igloocoolers.com/ -- is an American manufacturer of ice chests, drink containers, and supporting accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com INSURANCE SUPERMARKET: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Dec. 22 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID ULERY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. INSURANCE SUPERMARKET, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00490-MDB (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter a scheduling order as follows: -- Affirmative class expert disclosure and Oct. 13, 2023 expert reports: -- Rebuttal class expert disclosure and Nov. 17, 2023 expert reports: -- Motion for class certification: Dec. 22, 2023 -- Response to motion for class Jan. 26, 2023 certification: -- Reply to motion for class Feb. 9, 2024 certification: -- Class Certification Hearing Feb. 27, 2024 will be held in this case on: The Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the alleged illegal actions of the Defendants in negligently or willfully contacting the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Plaintiff alleges that he and putative Class Members were sent unwanted and unsolicited pre-recorded telemarketing solicitations for insurance, despite their numbers being registered on the national Do-Not-Call Registry and without their consent. Insurance Supermarket is a financial services firm that offers a range of consumer insurance and investment services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N33v7M at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. JORDAN RICHARDS PLLC 1800 SE 10th Avenue, Ste. 205 Ft. Lauderdale FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com - and – Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. EGGNATZ PASCUCCI PA 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, FL 33314 Telephone: (954) 889-3359 Facsimile: (954) 889-5913 E-mail: jeggnatz@justiceearned.com The Defendant is represented by: Jessica S. Reed-Baum, Esq. Amanda A. Simpson, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 950 17th Street, Suite 2600 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 892-0404 Facsimile: (303) 892-5575 E-mail: Jessica.Reed-Baum@JacksonLewis.com Amanda.Simpson@JacksonLewis.com IOWA HEALTH: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Ward Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cox v. Iowa Health System dba UnityPoint Health, Case No. 4:23-cv-04058-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows: -- Rule 16 scheduling conference The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference approximately 30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is filed. The conference will generally be conducted by telephone. -- Discovery plan The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least three calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference If the parties agree on all matters contained in the discovery plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16 scheduling conference be cancelled. -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most hearings by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to appear for an in-person hearing. -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the discovery deadline has already passed The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all discovery disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even if the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to conduct discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the Court, they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived. -- Settlement conferences and mediation The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to Judge Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or UnityPoint is a network of hospitals, clinics and home care services in Iowa, Illinois and Wisconsin. The system began in 1993, when Iowa Lutheran Hospital and Iowa Methodist Hospital in Des Moines merged, forming the state's largest provider of hospital and related health services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43t5mIc at no extra charge.[CC] JANE MARKETPLACE: Valenzuela Files Suit in N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jane Marketplace, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Sonya Valenzuela, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jane Marketplace, LLC d/b/a JANE.COM, Case No. 4:23-cv-02543-KAW (N.D. Cal., May 23, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Jane Marketplace, LLC doing business as Jane.Com -- https://jane.com/ -- is a daily deal site offering the latest trends in fashion and home decor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC 4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com JERNIGAN CAPITAL: Class Cert Oral Argument Set for June 9 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Erickson v. Jernigan Capital, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-09575-JLR-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katharine H. Parker entered an order setting oral argument for class certification for June 9, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 17D, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. Oral Argument shall focus on the Rule 23(b) predominance factor. Jernigan is a commercial real estate finance company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45yZmzy at no extra charge.[CC] JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYESHAH CARR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. and VOGUE INTERNATIONAL LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-06557-EK-JRC (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Eric Komitee entered an order denying without prejudice to renew the Defendants' motion to strike. The Court said, "This aspect of the class definition appears novel, to put it charitably -- even beyond its implications for the numerosity analysis. Nevertheless, the Defendants have invoked numerosity as the primary basis for challenging the class definition. And like other Rule 23(a) requirements, numerosity is a fact-intensive inquiry better resolved at the class certification stage. In deciding whether joinder is practicable, courts are directed to consider the number of class members and other factors, including: "judicial economy," the "geographic dispersion of class members, financial resources of class members, the ability of claimants to institute individual suits, and requests for prospective injunctive relief which would involve future class members." However unconventional this aspect of the class definition may be, the Court declines to strike the class allegations on this ground at this time. The Plaintiff Tyeshah Carr brings this putative class action against the Defendants Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. ("JJCI") and Vogue International LLC ("Vogue"), alleging that their haircare products contained a dangerous chemical that caused her hair loss and various scalp injuries. She alleges claims for design defect, failure to warn, and negligence. Vogue and JJCI develop, market, and distribute a line of shampoo and conditioner products under the brand name "OGX." In February 2021, Carr alleges, she (and her daughter) "used OGX Products" as directed on the product label. The OGX Products in question contained "DMDM hydantoin, " a chemical compound that works as a preservative and releases formaldehyde, the lawsuit says. Carr brings strict products-liability and negligence claims against the Defendants on behalf of the following class: "All residents of the United States who purchased OGX Products containing DMDM and suffered hair loss, thinning hair, or other injuries after using the product, who have retained Squitieri & Fearon, LLP as their counsel, and who have not separately filed a lawsuit against the Defendants by the date of the class certification order." She alleges that the OGX Products caused an "unreasonably high rate of adverse dermatological and other reactions" due to DMDM -- indeed, that "hundreds or thousands of other consumers" also suffered hair loss or other injuries from them. A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MXdTxD at no extra charge.[CC] JULIA TESTA: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Julia Testa, LLC. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Julia Testa, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03878 (E.D.N.Y., May 24, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Julia Testa -- https://juliatesta.com/ -- is a local NYC florist and designer flower shop based in SoHo, New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com KEEPER TAX: Mohr Sues Over Unsolicited Text Message Marketing ------------------------------------------------------------- Emily Mohr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KEEPER TAX, INC., Case No. 0:23-cv-60972-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 24, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA"), and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA") as a result to the Defendant's unsolicited text message marketing. The Defendant engages in unsolicited text message marketing, including to individuals who have registered their telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, and to those who have not provided Defendant with their prior express written consent as required by the FTSA. The Defendant's unsolicited text message spam caused Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including violations of their statutory rights, trespass, annoyance, nuisance, invasion of their privacy, and intrusion upon seclusion. Defendant's text messages also occupied storage space on Plaintiff's and the Class members' telephones. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks an injunction, statutory damages, and/or actual liquidated damages on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class members and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the unlawful actions of Defendant, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Broward County, Florida. The Defendant is a foreign limited liability company and a "telephone solicitor."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO PA 401 E Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400 Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and – Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 KENDO HOLDINGS: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kendo Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Kendo Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03879-FB-LB (E.D.N.Y., May 24, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. KENDO -- https://www.kendobrands.com/ -- is an innovative beauty brand incubator.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com KOSE AMERICA INC: Alvarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kose America, Inc. The case is styled as Vivian Alvarez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kose America, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04275 (S.D.N.Y., May 23, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Kose America, Inc. -- https://kose-usa.com/ -- is a cosmetics wholesaler in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com KOURY CORPORATION: Williams Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages Earned ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alexandria Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. KOURY CORPORATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-00425 (M.D.N.C., May 24, 2023), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA), against the Defendant because of Defendant's unlawful deprivation of the Plaintiffs' rights to the minimum wage and for failure to pay all wages earned. The Defendant's computerized time and attendance system automatically deducted a 30-minute meal break period per work shift ("Meal Break Deduction Policy"). The Plaintiff and all others similarly situated are subjected to Defendant's "Meal Break Deduction Policy." Given the demands of the restaurant and bar industry, Defendant knows that in order to perform their jobs, Plaintiff and others similarly situated cannot take their unpaid "meal break" or cannot take the full 30-minutes meal break. The Plaintiff and others similarly situated often perform compensable work for Defendant during their uncompensated "meal breaks." Defendant automatically deducts 30 minutes from Plaintiffs' time and pay, Defendant expects Plaintiff and others similarly situated to be available to work throughout their shifts. The Defendant knows that Plaintiff and others similarly situated often work their entire shift without taking a 30-minute break. Even though Defendant knows that Plaintiff and others similarly situated are working without taking a 30-minute unpaid meal break, Defendant fails to compensate Plaintiff and others similarly situated for their work, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a bartender from March of 2022 until February 20, 2023, the date of her unlawful termination. The Defendant operates and manages the Koury Convention Center, which is located within the Sheraton Greensboro at Four Seasons, in Greensboro, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trisha Pande, Esq. PATTERSON HARKAVY LLP 100 Europa Drive, Suite 420 Chapel Hill, NC 27517 Phone: (919) 942-5200 Fax: (866) 397-8671 Email: tpande@pathlaw.com - and – David Ricksecker, Esq. Rachel Lerner, Esq. McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Ave., NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 833-8855 Fax: (202) 452-1090 Email: dr@mselaborlaw.com rbl@mselaborlaw.com KREWE DU OPTIC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Krewe Du Optic, LLC. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Krewe Du Optic, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04333 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. KREWE -- https://www.krewe.com/ -- is an independent luxury sunglasses and eyewear company that celebrates individual style through culturally inspired frames.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com LANDMARK RECOVERY: Conditional Status of Black Action Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES BLACK, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. LANDMARK RECOVERY OF LOUISVILLE, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00217 (M.D. Tenn.), the Parties agree, stipulate, and jointly request that the Court enter an order that: a. conditionally certifies this case as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) consisting of all current and former Intake Patient Engagement Specialists of Defendant who worked in excess of 40 hours and who were classified as exempt, beginning three years preceding March 10, 2023, and continuing through the final disposition of this case (the Collective Class); b. approves the stipulated Notices and Consent Form; c. requires, within 21 days following the Court's granting of this Motion, Defendant to provide to Plaintiff's counsel an Excel spreadsheet containing the following information for each member of the Collective Class: name(s), dates of employment, last known mailing address(es), and last known personal e-mail address(es), and last known cellular telephone number(s); d. authorizes the Plaintiffs' counsel to distribute the approved Notices and Consent Form to members of the Collective Class via U.S. Mail (along with a prepaid return envelope addressed), E- mail, and one Short Message Service (SMS) / text message; e. authorizes Plaintiffs' counsel to send a reminder notice via U.S. mail and email approximately half-way through the 60-day notice period as set forth in the attached proposed order, which shall be the same Notices and Consent Form; and f. requires Consent Forms to join this action be postmarked (if returned by mail) or otherwise received within sixty (60) days of the date notices are sent via U.S. Mail, E-mail, and SMS / text message. Since the filing of Plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification and for the issuance of court-supervised notice on April 7, 2023, the Parties' have conferred, and that conferral has resulted in the filing of this Joint Motion and Stipulation. Such process includes an agreement on conditional certification pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a Court-approved notice and notice process. On March 10, 2023, Plaintiff Black initiated this action by filing a Collective Action Complaint under the FLSA) against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Specifically, the lawsuit alleges the Defendant uniformly misclassified its employees who work as Intake Patient Engagement Specialists ("IPESes") as salaried, exempt employees so as to avoid paying them overtime pay. This companywide misclassification resulted in Plaintiffs not being paid overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Defendant denies these claims and denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief. On April 7, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Conditional Class Certification and for the Issuance of Court-Supervised Notice. On April 21, 2023, the Defendant filed an Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Class Certification and for the Issuance of Court-Supervised Notice. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N45CZ2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. Nicole A. Chanin, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC Philips Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com nchanin@barrettjohnston.com - and - Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Jonathan O. Harris, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS, P.C. 611 Commerce Street City Space, Suite 2803 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 565-1661 Facsimile: (615) 206-2244 E-mail: jonathan.harris@jacksonlewis.com LAVENDER BY THE BAY: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lavender By The Bay Inc. The case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Lavender By The Bay Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04387 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lavender by the Bay -- https://lavenderbythebay.com/ -- is a proud family owned and operated lavender farm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com LAZER SPOT: Seeks More Time to Oppose Conditional Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORNELIUS JOHNSON AND JAMES STRICKLAND, v. LAZER SPOT, INC., A GEORGIA CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-01852-MHC (N.D. Ga.), Lazer Spot asks the Court to enter an order extending its time to file its Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Cornelius Johnson's and James Strickland's Motion for Conditional Certification up to and through June 7, 2023: 1. On April 26, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Conditional Certification and Supporting Briefing. 2. On April 27, 2023, counsel for the Parties conferred. Given the prior commitments of Defendant and its counsel, the Plaintiffs consented to Lazer Spot's request for an additional 14 days to submit its brief in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45BsYMD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. Andrew R. Frisch MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 867-4791 E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com afrisch@forthepeople.com - and - Carlos V. Leach, Esq. Adeash Lakraj, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 631 S. Orlando Avenue, Suite 300 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 E-mail: alakraj@theleachfirm.com cleach@theleachfirm.com yhernandez@theleachfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Brett C. Bartlett, Esq. Cary R. Burke, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 1075 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 885-1500 Facsimile:(404) 892-7065 E-mail: bbartlett@seyfarth.com caburke@seyfarth.com LEE ENTERPRISES: Seeks Dismissal of Customers' Privacy Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Clark Kauffman of Iowa Capital Dispatch reports that an Iowa newspaper publisher is asking a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit that alleges the company violated customers' privacy rights through information sharing with Facebook. The Iowa-based newspaper chain Lee Enterprises is facing a potential class-action lawsuit alleging it has shared readers' personal information with Facebook in violation of federal law. The lawsuit, filed last December in U.S. District Court, alleges that Lee's news-media websites offer users the option of subscribing to newsletters or to newspapers that provide consumers with access to articles and video content in exchange for their personal information, including names and mailing addresses. The lawsuit claims Lee doesn't inform subscribers their personal identifying information is captured by various tracking methods embedded in the Lee websites, which allegedly is then transferred to the social-media company Facebook. The plaintiffs allege violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act in 1988, which prohibits video providers from sharing, without consumers' consent, any personally identifiable information that is tied to a customer's viewing of prerecorded audio-video material. According to the plaintiffs, Facebook provides tools for web developers to monitor user interactions on their websites, and those interactions can then be shared with Facebook. Anyone with a developer's console tool, which is built directly into commonly available internet browsers, can then monitor the transmission of data between Facebook and companies like Lee, the lawsuit claims. Although the person monitoring the exchange of information wouldn't see the name of the Lee customer, they would see that customer's Facebook ID number -- which, the lawsuit claims, can easily be used to identify the Facebook user. The plaintiffs say that one can simply append an unidentified individual's Facebook ID number to the end of the URL www.facebook.com in any internet browser, and that will open up the Facebook user's public profile page, revealing whatever personal information they choose to have featured there. In addition, individuals can allegedly use fairly basic web-browsing tools to see the titles of whatever video content triggered the initial exchange of information between Lee and Facebook, providing an indirect link between named Facebook users and the specific videos they have watched on Lee websites. In a recent motion to dismiss the lawsuit, attorneys for Lee argued that in order for a violation of the law to exist, any information the company relayed to others "must be the type that would readily permit an ordinary person to identify a specific individual's video-watching behavior, without the need to combine it with other information in the recipient's possession." "But that is precisely what Lee discloses here," the plaintiffs have countered. "Anyone, even someone with extremely limited technical proficiency, can easily identify a person" once they have the Facebook ID code the lawsuit claims. In their motion to dismiss, attorneys for Lee appear to argue that because the Facebook ID code is, by itself, non-identifying, and must be used in a specific manner that's beyond the ability of the average person, no violation of law occurred. "A simple review of the software code screenshots that are cited in the complaint demonstrates that the code is meaningless to an 'ordinary person' without reference to multiple articles, policies, technical know-how and access to a specific tool to obtain and translate it," the company alleges. The court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss. In seeking class-action status for the case, the plaintiffs are alleging there are more than 100 potential class members and that the aggregate amount of money in controversy exceeds $5 million. The lawsuit seeks a temporary injunction requiring Lee to immediately remove tracking tools from the company's websites and to obtain the appropriate consent from subscribers for any information sharing that may take place. Lee publishes newspapers and other media content in 77 markets across 26 states. The company's 10 Iowa papers include the Quad-City Times in Davenport, the Sioux City Journal, the Mason City Globe-Gazette, the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier and the Muscatine Journal. [GN] LIVE VENTURES INC: Continues to Defend Sieggreen Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Live Ventures 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 11, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Sieggreen class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. On August 13, 2021, Daniel E. Sieggreen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint for violation of federal securities laws in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, naming as defendants the Company and the two executive officers named in the SEC Complaint described above. The allegations asserted are similar to those in the SEC Complaint. Among other relief, the complaint seeks damages in connection with the purchases and sales of the Company's securities between December 28, 2016 and August 3, 2021. As of December 17, 2021, the judge granted a stipulation to stay proceedings pending the resolutions of the motions to dismiss in the SEC Complaint. On February 1, 2023, the final motion to dismiss relating to the SEC Complaint was denied, which was subsequently noticed in the Sieggreen action on February 2, 2023. Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on March 6, 2023. On May 5, 2023, the Company and its executives filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. They strongly dispute and deny the allegations at issue in this case and intend to continue to defend themselves vigorously against these claims. Live Ventures Incorporated is a holding company with focus on value-oriented acquisitions of domestic middle-market companies based in Neveda. LOS ANGELES, CA: Seeks to Bifurcate Discovery in Bradshaw Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENNIS BRADSHAW, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal entity, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-06661-VAP-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants will move the Court on June 26, 2023 for an order bifurcating discovery in this case into class certification and merits phases, and staying all merits discovery until the Court has ruled on the class certification motion. The Defendants include MICHAEL FEUER, in his individual and official capacity; JAMES CLARK, in his individual and official capacity; THOMAS PETERS, in his individual and official capacity; THE LANDSKRONER LAW FIRM, LTD. dba LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN, LLC, a limited liability company; JACK LANDSKRONER, an individual; LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL J LIBMAN APC, a California Professional Corporation; MICHAEL J. LIBMAN, an individual; KIESEL LAW LLP, a California limited liability partnership; PAUL KIESEL, an individual; PARADIS LAW GROUP PLLC, a New York Professional Service Limited Liability Company; PAUL PARADIS, an individual. The putative class action arises out of the settlement entered in another class action entitled Jones v. City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC577267 (the "Jones Action"). The Jones Action was filed on behalf of the customers of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power ("LADWP") who were overbilled due to a new billing system implemented at LADWP. A settlement was reached in the Jones Action through which the City made LADWP customers whole by, inter alia, fully reimbursing the overbilled amounts. The Plaintiff Dennis Bradshaw was a member of the putative class in the Jones Action. He did not opt out of the class settlement and he received, without any dispute, a credit for his 2017 bill as part of the Jones settlement. After the settlement of the Jones Action in state court, Bradshaw filed the instant lawsuit in federal court, seeking to represent a putative class of ratepayers identical to the ones that were part of the Jones settlement. Bradshaw alleges that the Jones settlement was collusive, and he asserts claims ranging from legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, to claims for aiding and abetting legal malpractice and conspiracy to commit legal malpractice. A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45vaU73 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Michael Mccarthy, Esq. Vikram Sohal, Esq. NEMECEK & COLE 16255 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300 Encino, CA 91436-2300 Telephone: (818) 788-9500 Facsimile: (818) 501-0328 E-mail: mmccarthy@nemecek-cole.com vsohal@nemecek-cole.com MAGELLAN HRSC: Class Cert Discovery Modified to May 17, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SOFIA RIOS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. MAGELLAN HRSC, INC., an OHIO CORPORATION; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-01219-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kimberly J. Muller, entered an order modifying scheduling order as follows: -- Last Day to Complete Discovery Related May 17, 2024 to Class Certification: -- Hearing on Class Certification June 21, 2024 Motion(s) by: The Plaintiff filed her Complaint on May 23, 2022, in Sacramento County Superior Court, and the Defendant timely removed this matter to this Court on July 11, 2022. On November 17, 2022, the Parties filed their Joint Report of their Rule 26(f) Conference and Proposed Discovery Plan, which included proposed deadlines for the Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification, and for the Defendant to oppose such a motion. On December 2, 2022, this Court held an initial Case Management Conference, and issued its Initial Scheduling Order), which set a discovery completion date of August 18, 2023, and Class Certification Motion hearing date of September 22, 2023. The Court did not schedule any further dates past the Class Certification Motion hearing (i.e., no trial date has been set). A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oEVf4j at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Joshua S. Falakassa, Esq. FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (818) 456-6168 Facsimile: (888) 505-0868 E-mail: josh@falakassalaw.com - and - Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq. BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 975-1493 Facsimile: (310) 975-1215 E-mail: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com - and - Barbara A. Blackburn, Esq. Nathaniel H. Jenkins, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 830-7200 Facsimile: (916) 561-0828 E-mail: bblackburn@littler.com njenkins@littler.com MARGARITAS HOUSE: Huerta Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Margaritas House Cleaning Inc. and Janitorial Services. The case is styled as Anabel Huerta, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all person similarly situated v. Margaritas House Cleaning Inc. and Janitorial Services, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0005334 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 24, 2023). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Margaritas House Cleaning Inc. and Janitorial Services is a house cleaning service in Tracy, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harris Emran, Esq. EMRAN LAW 415 Mission Street, 37th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 890-0041 Email: info@emranlaw.com MARS PETCARE: Moore Suit Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMARA MOORE, GRETA L. ERVIN, RAFF ARANDO, NICHOLS SMITH, RENEE EDGREN, and CYNTHIA WELTON on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. MARS PETCARE US, INC.; ROYAL CANIN U.S.A., INC.; and HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-07001-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff Greta Ervin asks the Court to enter an order granting class certification as to the Defendant Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. Ms. Ervin requests an Order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2) & (3), certifying a Class of all persons who purchased Royal Canin Veterinary Diet pet food in the State of California within the Class Period (from December 7, 2012 (UCL) or December 7, 2013 (CLRA/FAL)) to the present. The Plaintiff further requests that she be appointed the Class Representative, and that, per Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g), Michael A. Kelly, Matthew D. Davis, and Ellen M. Carey be appointed as Class Counsel. Finally, Plaintiff requests an Order setting a deadline for the parties to submit a Proposed Notice and Proposed Notice Plan, per Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2), to the Court. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3orXlog at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. Kelly, Esq. Matthew D. Davis, Esq. WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108-2615 Telephone: (415) 981-7210 Facsimile: (415) 391-6965 E-mail: mkelly@walkuplawoffice.com mdavis@walkuplawoffice.com - and - Michael L. McGlamry, Esq. Michael Morrill, Esq. Kimberly J. Johnson, Esq. Caroline G. McGlamry, Esq. POPE MCGLAMRY, P.C. 3391 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (404) 523-7706 Facsimile: (404) 524-1648 E-mail: mmcglamry@pmkm.com mikemorrill@pmkm.com kimjohnson@pmkm.com carolinemcglamry@pmkm.com - and - Lynwood P. Evans, Esq. Edward J. Coyne III, Esq. Jeremy M. Wilson, Esq. Luke C. Tompkins, Esq. WARD AND SMITH, P.A. 127 Racine Drive Wilmington, NC 28403 Telephone: (910) 794-4800 Facsimile: (910) 794-4877 E-mail: lpe@wardandsmith.com ejcoyne@wardandsmith.com jw@wardandsmith.com LCTompkins@wardandsmith.com - and - Daniel Shulman, Esq. SHULMAN & BUSKE PLLC 126 North Third Street, Suite 401 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 870-7410 Facsimile: (612) 870-7462 E-mail: dan@shulmanbuske.com - and - Ellen M. Carey, Esq. FORDE & O’MEARA LLP 191 North Wacker Drive, 31st Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 641-1441 E-mail: ecarey@fordellp.com Counsel for Non-Party VetSource: Thomas R. Johnson, Esq. PERKINS COIE 1120 NW Couch Street, 10th Floor Portland, OR 97209-4128 Telephone: (503) 727-2176 Facsimile: (503) 347-2176 E-mail: TRJohnson@perkinscoie.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael Fredrick Tubach, Esq. Hannah Y. Chanoine Gerard Savaresse Jeffrey A. N. Kopczynski Anna Schneider Richard B. Goetz, Esq. Justine M. Daniels, Esq. Amy Laurendeau, Esq. O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3305 Direct: (415) 984-8876 Office: (415) 984-8700 Facsimile: (415) 984-8701 E-mail: mtubach@omm.com hchanoine@omm.com gsavaresse@omm.com jkopczski@omm.com aschneider@omm.com rgoetz@omm.com jdaniels@omm.com alaurendeau@omm.com - and - Jeffrey E. Faucette, Esq. SKAGGS FAUCETTE LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94111 Office: (415) 295-1197 Facsimile: (415) 433-5994 E-mail: jeff@skaggsfaucette.com - and - Stephen D. Raber, Esq. Joseph Bushur, Esq. Campbell Curry-Ledbetter, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 725 Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Office: (202) 434-5000 Facsimile: (2020 434-5029 E-mail: sraber@wc.com jbusher@wc.com ccurry-ledbetter@wc.com MARS PETCARE: Plaintiffs Consider Sealing Class Cert Docs --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMARA MOORE, GRETA L. ERVIN, RAFF ARANDO, NICHOLS SMITH, RENEE EDGREN, and CYNTHIA WELTON on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. MARS PETCARE US, INC.; ROYAL CANIN U.S.A., INC.; and HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-07001-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs file administrative motion to consider whether another party's or non-party's material should be sealed re: Plaintiff Ervin's motion for class certification as to Defendant Royal Canin USA. Pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order issued in the case, the materials sought to be sealed by this administrative motion have been designated by the Defendants as either "CONFIDENTIAL" or "CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY, " or, as to Exhibit 27, designated by non-party Vetsource as "CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY." The portions of the documents sought to be sealed are: Document Portions to be Filed Under Seal the Plaintiff Greta L. Ervin’s Page 6, Lines 3-5 (quoting Memorandum of Points and from sealed information); Authorities seeking Class Page 7, the percentages in Certification as to the Defendant lines 11-12; and Page 13, Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. lines 22-23 (quoting from sealed information). Exhibits to the Second Exhibits 14, 17, 21, 24, 25, Declaration of Matthew D. 26, and 27 should be sealed Davis in Support of the Plaintiff in their entirety. Greta L. Ervin’s Motion for Exhibit 1 is redacted at Page Class Certification as to 10, Line 24 pursuant to the Defendant Royal Canin U.S.A. Federal Rule, of Civil Inc. Procedure 5.2. Mars Petcare provides pet care products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MZoozx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. Kelly, Esq. Matthew D. Davis, Esq. WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108-2615 Telephone: (415) 981-7210 Facsimile: (415) 391-6965 E-mail: mkelly@walkuplawoffice.com mdavis@walkuplawoffice.com - and - Michael L. McGlamry, Esq. Michael Morrill, Esq. Kimberly J. Johnson, Esq. Caroline G. McGlamry, Esq. POPE MCGLAMRY, P.C. 3391 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (404) 523-7706 Facsimile: (404) 524-1648 E-mail: mmcglamry@pmkm.com mikemorrill@pmkm.com kimjohnson@pmkm.com carolinemcglamry@pmkm.com - and - Lynwood P. Evans, Esq. Edward J. Coyne III, Esq. Jeremy M. Wilson, Esq. Luke C. Tompkins, Esq. WARD AND SMITH, P.A. 127 Racine Drive Wilmington, NC 28403 Telephone: (910) 794-4800 Facsimile: (910) 794-4877 E-mail: lpe@wardandsmith.com ejcoyne@wardandsmith.com jw@wardandsmith.com LCTompkins@wardandsmith.com - and - Daniel Shulman, Esq. SHULMAN & BUSKE PLLC 126 North Third Street, Suite 401 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 870-7410 Facsimile: (612) 870-7462 E-mail: dan@shulmanbuske.com - and - Ellen M. Carey, Esq. FORDE & O’MEARA LLP 191 North Wacker Drive, 31st Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 641-1441 E-mail: ecarey@fordellp.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael Fredrick Tubach, Esq. Hannah Y. Chanoine Gerard Savaresse Jeffrey A. N. Kopczynski Anna Schneider Richard B. Goetz, Esq. Justine M. Daniels, Esq. Amy Laurendeau, Esq. O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3305 Direct: (415) 984-8876 Office: (415) 984-8700 Facsimile: (415) 984-8701 E-mail: mtubach@omm.com hchanoine@omm.com gsavaresse@omm.com jkopczski@omm.com aschneider@omm.com rgoetz@omm.com jdaniels@omm.com alaurendeau@omm.com - and - Jeffrey E. Faucette, Esq. SKAGGS FAUCETTE LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94111 Office: (415) 295-1197 Facsimile: (415) 433-5994 E-mail: jeff@skaggsfaucette.com - and - Stephen D. Raber, Esq. Joseph Bushur, Esq. Campbell Curry-Ledbetter, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 725 Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Office: (202) 434-5000 Facsimile: (2020 434-5029 E-mail: sraber@wc.com jbusher@wc.com ccurry-ledbetter@wc.com - and - Counsel for Non-Party VetSource: Thomas R. Johnson, Esq. PERKINS COIE 1120 NW Couch Street, 10th Floor Portland, OR 97209-4128 Telephone: (503) 727-2176 Facsimile: (503) 347-2176 E-mail: TRJohnson@perkinscoie.com MDL 2972: Blackbaud Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due June 9 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mesa, et al., v. Enloe Medical Center, Case No. 3:21-cv-01872 (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., entered a corrected amended scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline -- Blackbaud's opposition to class June 9, 2023 Certification: -- Blackbaud's rebuttal class June 9, 2023 certification expert disclosure: -- Blackbaud's Daubert Motion on June 9, 2023 Plaintiffs' class certification Experts: -- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a Aug. 3, 2023 motion seeking leave to submit rebuttal expert information with reply brief: -- Plaintiffs' response in opposition Sept. 11, 2023 to Blackbaud's Daubert Motions on Plaintiffs' class certification Experts: -- Blackbaud's reply in support of its Oct. 20, 2023 Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- Plaintiffs' reply in support of their Oct. 20, 2023 motion for class certification: -- Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions on Oct. 20, 2023 Blackbaud rebuttal class certification experts: -- Blackbaud's response in opposition Dec. 18, 2023 to the Plaintiffs' Daubert Motion on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Plaintiffs' reply in support on Jan. 22, 2024 their Daubert Motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Hearing on class certification: TBD and Daubert Motions: The Enloe case is consolidated in the Blackbaud, Inc., Customer Data Breach. The Lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The Plaintiffs in the actions allegedly received data breach notices from the following organizations: Atrium Health; Bread for the World; Crystal Stairs; Episcopal High School; Light of Life Rescue Mission; Planned Parenthood; St. David's Center for Child and Family Development; University of Wisconsin -- Eau Claire; WakeMed Foundation; and Manhattan School of Music. The Plaintiffs in the potential tag-along actions allegedly received notices from Allina Health; Bank Street College of Education; Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota; Harvard College; Inova Health System; KidsQuest Childrenss Museum; Lower East Side Tenement Museum; Mt. Sinai Health System; Northwest Memorial Healthcare; Nuvance Health; Planned Parenthood; Stetson University; Stony Brook University Hospital; and UMass Memorial Medical Center. The actions allege that numerous other schools, universities, healthcare institutions, and non-profit organizations were affected by the data breach. The Plaintiffs allege that the personal information compromised by the breach includes user names, email addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, social security numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, financial profiles, passwords, and health information. The common factual questions include: (1) Blackbaud's data security practices and whether the practices met industry standards; (2) how the unauthorized access occurred; (3) the extent of personal information affected by the breach; (4) when Blackbaud knew or should have known of the breach; (5) the investigation into the breach; and (6) the alleged delay in disclosure of the breach to Blackbaud clients and affected consumers. Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good community—nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations, and individual change agents. Enloe Medical Center is a 298-bed non-profit hospital with the mission of improving the quality of your life through patient-centered care. It is one of two Level II trauma centers north of Sacramento, houses the region's only Level II neonatal intensive care unit and operates the FlightCare air ambulance service. A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IvXr4H at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Blackbaud Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due June 9 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jobe v. Community Medical Centers, Case No. 3:21-cv-02461 (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., entered a corrected amended scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline -- Blackbaud's opposition to class June 9, 2023 Certification: -- Blackbaud's rebuttal class June 9, 2023 certification expert disclosure: -- Blackbaud's Daubert Motion on June 9, 2023 Plaintiffs' class certification Experts: -- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a Aug. 3, 2023 motion seeking leave to submit rebuttal expert information with reply brief: -- Plaintiffs' response in opposition Sept. 11, 2023 to Blackbaud's Daubert Motions on Plaintiffs' class certification Experts: -- Blackbaud's reply in support of its Oct. 20, 2023 Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- Plaintiffs' reply in support of their Oct. 20, 2023 motion for class certification: -- Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions on Oct. 20, 2023 Blackbaud rebuttal class certification experts: -- Blackbaud's response in opposition Dec. 18, 2023 to the Plaintiffs' Daubert Motion on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Plaintiffs' reply in support on Jan. 22, 2024 their Daubert Motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Hearing on class certification: TBD and Daubert Motions: The Jobe case is consolidated in the Blackbaud, Inc., Customer Data Breach. The Lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The Plaintiffs in the actions allegedly received data breach notices from the following organizations: Atrium Health; Bread for the World; Crystal Stairs; Episcopal High School; Light of Life Rescue Mission; Planned Parenthood; St. David's Center for Child and Family Development; University of Wisconsin -- Eau Claire; WakeMed Foundation; and Manhattan School of Music. The Plaintiffs in the potential tag-along actions allegedly received notices from Allina Health; Bank Street College of Education; Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota; Harvard College; Inova Health System; KidsQuest Childrenss Museum; Lower East Side Tenement Museum; Mt. Sinai Health System; Northwest Memorial Healthcare; Nuvance Health; Planned Parenthood; Stetson University; Stony Brook University Hospital; and UMass Memorial Medical Center. The actions allege that numerous other schools, universities, healthcare institutions, and non-profit organizations were affected by the data breach. The Plaintiffs allege that the personal information compromised by the breach includes user names, email addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, social security numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, financial profiles, passwords, and health information. The common factual questions include: (1) Blackbaud's data security practices and whether the practices met industry standards; (2) how the unauthorized access occurred; (3) the extent of personal information affected by the breach; (4) when Blackbaud knew or should have known of the breach; (5) the investigation into the breach; and (6) the alleged delay in disclosure of the breach to Blackbaud clients and affected consumers. Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good community—nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations, and individual change agents. A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MSpZZ5 at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Blackbaud Opposition to Graifman Class Cert Due June 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Graifman v. Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04512 (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., entered a corrected amended scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline -- Blackbaud's opposition to class June 9, 2023 Certification: -- Blackbaud's rebuttal class June 9, 2023 certification expert disclosure: -- Blackbaud's Daubert Motion on June 9, 2023 Plaintiffs' class certification Experts: -- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a Aug. 3, 2023 motion seeking leave to submit rebuttal expert information with reply brief: -- Plaintiffs' response in opposition Sept. 11, 2023 to Blackbaud's Daubert Motions on Plaintiffs' class certification Experts: -- Blackbaud's reply in support of its Oct. 20, 2023 Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- Plaintiffs' reply in support of their Oct. 20, 2023 motion for class certification: -- Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions on Oct. 20, 2023 Blackbaud rebuttal class certification experts: -- Blackbaud's response in opposition Dec. 18, 2023 to the Plaintiffs' Daubert Motion on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Plaintiffs' reply in support on Jan. 22, 2024 their Daubert Motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Hearing on class certification: TBD and Daubert Motions: The Graifman case is consolidated in the Blackbaud, Inc., Customer Data Breach. The Lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The Plaintiffs in the actions allegedly received data breach notices from the following organizations: Atrium Health; Bread for the World; Crystal Stairs; Episcopal High School; Light of Life Rescue Mission; Planned Parenthood; St. David's Center for Child and Family Development; University of Wisconsin -- Eau Claire; WakeMed Foundation; and Manhattan School of Music. The Plaintiffs in the potential tag-along actions allegedly received notices from Allina Health; Bank Street College of Education; Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota; Harvard College; Inova Health System; KidsQuest Childrenss Museum; Lower East Side Tenement Museum; Mt. Sinai Health System; Northwest Memorial Healthcare; Nuvance Health; Planned Parenthood; Stetson University; Stony Brook University Hospital; and UMass Memorial Medical Center. The actions allege that numerous other schools, universities, healthcare institutions, and non-profit organizations were affected by the data breach. The Plaintiffs allege that the personal information compromised by the breach includes user names, email addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, social security numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, financial profiles, passwords, and health information. The common factual questions include: (1) Blackbaud's data security practices and whether the practices met industry standards; (2) how the unauthorized access occurred; (3) the extent of personal information affected by the breach; (4) when Blackbaud knew or should have known of the breach; (5) the investigation into the breach; and (6) the alleged delay in disclosure of the breach to Blackbaud clients and affected consumers. Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good community—nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations, and individual change agents. A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3C8SI5L at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Blackbaud Opposition to Imhof Class Cert Bid Due June 9 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Imhof v. Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00003 (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., entered a corrected amended scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline -- Blackbaud's opposition to class June 9, 2023 Certification: -- Blackbaud's rebuttal class June 9, 2023 certification expert disclosure: -- Blackbaud's Daubert Motion on June 9, 2023 Plaintiffs' class certification Experts: -- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a Aug. 3, 2023 motion seeking leave to submit rebuttal expert information with reply brief: -- Plaintiffs' response in opposition Sept. 11, 2023 to Blackbaud's Daubert Motions on Plaintiffs' class certification Experts: -- Blackbaud's reply in support of its Oct. 20, 2023 Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- Plaintiffs' reply in support of their Oct. 20, 2023 motion for class certification: -- Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions on Oct. 20, 2023 Blackbaud rebuttal class certification experts: -- Blackbaud's response in opposition Dec. 18, 2023 to the Plaintiffs' Daubert Motion on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Plaintiffs' reply in support on Jan. 22, 2024 their Daubert Motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Hearing on class certification: TBD and Daubert Motions: The Imhof case is consolidated in the Blackbaud, Inc., Customer Data Breach. The Lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The Plaintiffs in the actions allegedly received data breach notices from the following organizations: Atrium Health; Bread for the World; Crystal Stairs; Episcopal High School; Light of Life Rescue Mission; Planned Parenthood; St. David's Center for Child and Family Development; University of Wisconsin -- Eau Claire; WakeMed Foundation; and Manhattan School of Music. The Plaintiffs in the potential tag-along actions allegedly received notices from Allina Health; Bank Street College of Education; Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota; Harvard College; Inova Health System; KidsQuest Childrenss Museum; Lower East Side Tenement Museum; Mt. Sinai Health System; Northwest Memorial Healthcare; Nuvance Health; Planned Parenthood; Stetson University; Stony Brook University Hospital; and UMass Memorial Medical Center. The actions allege that numerous other schools, universities, healthcare institutions, and non-profit organizations were affected by the data breach. The Plaintiffs allege that the personal information compromised by the breach includes user names, email addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, social security numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, financial profiles, passwords, and health information. The common factual questions include: (1) Blackbaud's data security practices and whether the practices met industry standards; (2) how the unauthorized access occurred; (3) the extent of personal information affected by the breach; (4) when Blackbaud knew or should have known of the breach; (5) the investigation into the breach; and (6) the alleged delay in disclosure of the breach to Blackbaud clients and affected consumers. Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good community—nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations, and individual change agents. A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MPXX09 at no extra charge.[CC] MEDICAL MANAGEMENT OF CHICAGO: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medical Management of Chicago, LLC. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Medical Management of Chicago, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03880 (E.D.N.Y., May 24, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Medical Management LLC provides administrative services to the medical field. The Company specializes in medical billing and revenue cycle management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com MEMORIAL HEALTH: Stendal Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Amy L. Stendal, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MEMORIAL HEALTH SERVICES, a California Nonprofit Corporation; LONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, a California Nonprofit Corporation; MILLER CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL LONG BEACH AUXILIARY, INC. a California Nonprofit Corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV06100 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 25, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04068. The Complaint asserts a cause of action under the PAGA based upon the following claims: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime; failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit rest periods; failure to timely pay wages during employment; failure to timely pay wages owed upon separation of employment; failure to reimburse necessary expenses; and knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized wage statement provisions.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Richard J. Simmons, Esq. Hilary A. Habib, Esq. Melissa M. Smith, Esq. Alexander W. Rafuse, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations 333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422 Phone: 213.620.1780 Facsimile: 213.620.1398 Email: rsimmons@sheppardmullin.com hhabib@sheppardmullin.com melissasmith@sheppardmullin.com arafuse@sheppardmullin.com MENZIES AVIATION (USA): Ngauamo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Menzies Aviation (USA), Inc., et al. The case is styled as Laukau Ngauamo, Marianne Ferrer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Menzies Aviation (USA), Inc., Aeroground, Inc., Does 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC23606680 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 23, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Menzies Aviation -- https://menziesaviation.com/ -- is a global provider of passenger, ramp and cargo handling services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory Mauro, Esq. THE MAURO LAW FIRM APLC 790 E Colorado Blvd., Fl. 9 Pasadena, CA 91101-2193 Phone: 626-698-0048 Fax: 626-698-0049 Email: greg@maurolawfirm.net MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Must Respond to Bolling Class Action by June 9 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATALIE BOLLING, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC and MERCEDES-BENZ GROUP AG, Case No. 1:23-cv-00671-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, jr. entered an order granting joint motion to extend time to respond to class action complaint and associated briefing deadlines: -- The deadline for MBUSA to answer or otherwise respond to the Class Action Complaint is extended through and including June 9, 2023. -- If MBUSA responds to the Class Action Complaint by motion, the deadline for the Plaintiff to file her opposition brief is extended through and including July 14, 2023. -- If MBUSA responds to the Class Action Complaint by motion, the deadline for MBUSA to file its reply brief is extended through and including August 4, 2023. -- Further, the Plaintiff is relieved from the deadlines to file any motion for class certification specified in Local Rule 23.1. the Plaintiff and MBUSA shall address the timing of briefing for class certification in the scheduling order required by Local Rule 16.2. Mercedes-Benz USA is a Mercedes-Benz Group-owned distributor for passenger cars in the United States, headquartered in Sandy Springs, Georgia. that sells cars from the Mercedes-Benz brand. Mercedes-Benz USA was founded in 1965 to integrate sales in the most important foreign market into the Group. A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3C1fs7n at no extra charge.[CC] MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH MONOPOLI, JAMES FITZPATRICK, SYNTHIA PRAGLIN, SAWNTANAIA HARRIS, TIMOTHY LEWIS, JOCELYN BROWN, AND RAFAEL LUGO RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, and DAIMLER AG, Case No. 1:21-cv-01353-SDG (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order enlarging of the time set forth in Local Rule 23.1(B) to file their motion for class certification. On March 21, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their Amended Class Action Complaint. The Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint on April 18, 2022, and the parties subsequently filed their responses and replies. On March 31, 2023, the Court entered its Order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss. Mercedes-Benz USA is a Mercedes-Benz Group-owned distributor for passenger cars in the United States, headquartered in Sandy Springs, Georgia. that sells cars from the Mercedes-Benz brand. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qexyQL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin Widlanski, Esq. Gail McQuilkin, Esq. Rachel Sullivan, Esq. Robert J. Neary, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 372-1800 Facsimile: (305) 372-3508 E-mail: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com gam@kttlaw.com rs@kttlaw.com rn@kttlaw.com - and - Michael A. Caplan, Esq. T. Brandon Waddell, Esq. CAPLAN COBB LLP 75 Fourteenth Street, NE, Suite 2750 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 596-5600 Facsimile: (404) 596-5604 E-mail: mcaplan@caplancobb.com bwaddell@caplancobb.co - and - Peter Prieto, Esq. John Gravante, III, Esq. Matthew Weinshall, Esq. PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. SunTrust International Center One S.E. 3rd Ave., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-2800 Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 E-mail: pprieto@podhurst.com jgravante@podhurst.com mweinshall@podhurst.com - and - Jack Scarola, Esq. SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY PA 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Telephone: (561) 686-6300 Facsimile: (561) 383-9451 E-mail: jsx@searcylaw.com - and - Michael Burger, Esq. SANTIAGO BURGER LLP 2280 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14610 Telephone: (585) 563-2400 Facsimile: (585) 563-7526 E-mail: mike@litgrp.com - and - George Franjola, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE FRANJOLA 233 SW 3rd Street, Suite 3 Ocala, FL 34471 Telephone: (352) 812-0462 E-mail: gfranjola@ocalalaw.com META PLATFORMS: 4 School Districts Join Social Media Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Shaquira Speaks at qcnews.com reports that four school districts in York County said they've been having issues with the student's social media presence across platforms like TikTok, Snapchat, and Instagram. Clover, Fort Mill, York District 1, and Rock Hill have all confirmed their addition to a social media class action lawsuit in hopes of reducing the mental health crisis among children. "Scientific literature has concluded that the addictive nature of social media platforms has contributed to some of the issues you see listed on the screen here," said Clover High School Principal Rod Ruth. He presented a slide show explaining the lawsuit and why the district should join. Studies show anxiety, depression, suicidal ideations, and eating disorders are plaguing young teens. Researchers link the issues to social media. "Some of the damages include calls for hiring additional personnel to address mental health. The resource allocation to address mental, emotional, and social health. The training and professional development for staff to address students experiencing a crisis. The lesson plans are geared toward addressing the dangers of social media and property damage to schools," Ruth said. He requested the district join the lawsuit in hopes of mitigating the mental health issues on social media platforms. "The intersection point with educational institutions is the fact that districts are often on the front line with this impact and schools must now divert resources in order to address these concerns," Ruth said. Socialmediavictims.org reports the rate of teen suicide has risen dramatically over the past decade, while social media use has also increased among teens. The CDC said the suicide rate for male teens rose 31 percent between 2007 and 2015. Fort Mill school district representative Joseph Burke said the main reason for joining the lawsuit was hoping for positive outcomes. "We deal with threats through social media. We deal with sometimes these challenges that caused disruptions or destruction of school property. There are a lot of issues like bullying and gender issues and body issues that come from social media," Burke said. "We deal every year with bullying and a lot of that does take place on social media. In recent years like those challenges happened, there was the bathroom challenge a few years ago where students caused damage to bathrooms in the district. So that's a financial cost. There was the recent swatting of schools which was a social media issue that caused a lot of issues in schools as far as safety." The Fort Mill School District attorney said some students are too young to operate the platforms based on the companies' policies anyway. Burke said they're hoping that positive changes come from the lawsuit that will help students understand social media as well as help districts restore mental health resources. The defendants in the lawsuit target the parent companies of the social media platforms Meta (Facebook and Instagram), Bytedance (TikTok), Snap (Snapchat), and Google (Youtube). [GN] MICHIGAN: Class Cert Discovery in Bailey Set for June 12 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAULA BAILEY, et al., on behalf of Themselves and other similarly situated, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-13442-VAR-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Victoria A. Roberts entered an order: -- setting briefing schedule on class certification discovery; -- setting briefing schedule on merits discovery; and -- setting status conferences. The Court orders counsel for plaintiffs to file a motion that sets forth the discovery it needs for a potential class certification motion. The Plaintiffs' counsel must submit this motion by June 12, 2023. The Defendant's response is due on July 27, 2023. the Plaintiff's reply is due on August 17, 2023. The Court also orders the Bailey parties to meet and confer on the submission of a revised merits discovery plan. The parties must meet by May 26, 2023. The joint discovery plan is due on June 9, 2023. The Court will hold a status conference to discuss this issue on June 27, 2023 at 10:30AM via Zoom. All motion, responses and replies ("motion papers") must conform to LRs 5.1 and 7.1, the Court's requirements, and the Judge's practice guidelines in all respects. Any motion filed must state that efforts were made to seek concurrence and that it was denied. If you fail to include this statement in any motion filed, the Court will strike it and it cannot be refiled. On May 3, 2023, the Court held a Status Conference via Zoom. Attending were Matthew Morgan, Melanie Johnson, Soloman Radner, Channing Robinson Holmes, Cari McGehee and Samantha Baker representing the Pearson and Bailey the Plaintiffs; Daniel Randazzo representing the Plaintiff Smith; Joshua Smith and Kristin Heyse representing the Defendants Michigan Department of Corrections, Heidi Washington, Sean Brewer, Russell Marlan, Kenneth McKee, Lloyd Rapelje, Lia Gulick, David Johnson, Karri Ousterhout, Jospeh Treppa, Dan Carter, Richard Bullard, Toni Moore, Ed Vallard, Jeremy Bush, Jeremy Howard, Marti Sherri, David Johnson, Kristina Fisher; Ronald Chapman representing the Defendants Corizon Health Inc., Thomas Hackney representing the Defendants Jeffrey Bomber, Robert Lacy, Rickey Coleman; and Thomas Sullivan representing the Defendants Wayne State University, James Blessman and Carmen McIntyre. the Defendants Keith Papendick and Craig Hutchinson failed to appear. The Michigan Department of Corrections oversees prisons and the parole and probation population in the state of Michigan, United States. A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/426SAy4 at no extra charge.[CC] MICHIGAN: Class Cert Discovery in Pearson Set for June 12 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MACHELLE PEARSON, et al., on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS., ET AL., Case No. 2:19-cv-10707-VAR-PTM (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Victoria A. Roberts entered an order: -- setting briefing schedule on class certification discovery; -- setting briefing schedule on merits discovery; and -- setting status conferences. The Court orders counsel for plaintiffs to file a motion that sets forth the discovery it needs for a potential class certification motion. The Plaintiffs' counsel must submit this motion by June 12, 2023. The Defendant's response is due on July 27, 2023. the Plaintiff's reply is due on August 17, 2023. The Court also orders the Bailey parties to meet and confer on the submission of a revised merits discovery plan. The parties must meet by May 26, 2023. The joint discovery plan is due on June 9, 2023. The Court will hold a status conference to discuss this issue on June 27, 2023 at 10:30AM via Zoom. All motion, responses and replies ("motion papers") must conform to LRs 5.1 and 7.1, the Court's requirements, and the Judge's practice guidelines in all respects. Any motion filed must state that efforts were made to seek concurrence and that it was denied. If you fail to include this statement in any motion filed, the Court will strike it and it cannot be refiled. On May 3, 2023, the Court held a Status Conference via Zoom. Attending were Matthew Morgan, Melanie Johnson, Soloman Radner, Channing Robinson Holmes, Cari McGehee and Samantha Baker representing the Pearson and Bailey the Plaintiffs; Daniel Randazzo representing the Plaintiff Smith; Joshua Smith and Kristin Heyse representing the Defendants Michigan Department of Corrections, Heidi Washington, Sean Brewer, Russell Marlan, Kenneth McKee, Lloyd Rapelje, Lia Gulick, David Johnson, Karri Ousterhout, Jospeh Treppa, Dan Carter, Richard Bullard, Toni Moore, Ed Vallard, Jeremy Bush, Jeremy Howard, Marti Sherri, David Johnson, Kristina Fisher; Ronald Chapman representing the Defendants Corizon Health Inc., Thomas Hackney representing the Defendants Jeffrey Bomber, Robert Lacy, Rickey Coleman; and Thomas Sullivan representing the Defendants Wayne State University, James Blessman and Carmen McIntyre. the Defendants Keith Papendick and Craig Hutchinson failed to appear. The Michigan Department of Corrections oversees prisons and the parole and probation population in the state of Michigan, United States. A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3C2GfAu at no extra charge.[CC] MICHIGAN: Class Cert Discovery in Smith Suit Set for June 12 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as REBECCA SMITH, et al., On behalf of themselves and Other similarly situated, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., Case No. 2:19-cv-10771-VAR-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Victoria A. Roberts entered an order: -- setting briefing schedule on class certification discovery; -- setting briefing schedule on merits discovery; and -- setting status conferences. The Court orders counsel for plaintiffs to file a motion that sets forth the discovery it needs for a potential class certification motion. The Plaintiffs' counsel must submit this motion by June 12, 2023. The Defendant's response is due on July 27, 2023. the Plaintiff’s reply is due on August 17, 2023. The Court also orders the Bailey parties to meet and confer on the submission of a revised merits discovery plan. The parties must meet by May 26, 2023. The joint discovery plan is due on June 9, 2023. The Court will hold a status conference to discuss this issue on June 27, 2023 at 10:30AM via Zoom. All motion, responses and replies ("motion papers") must conform to LRs 5.1 and 7.1, the Court's requirements, and the Judge’s practice guidelines in all respects. Any motion filed must state that efforts were made to seek concurrence and that it was denied. If you fail to include this statement in any motion filed, the Court will strike it and it cannot be refiled. On May 3, 2023, the Court held a Status Conference via Zoom. Attending were Matthew Morgan, Melanie Johnson, Soloman Radner, Channing Robinson Holmes, Cari McGehee and Samantha Baker representing the Pearson and Bailey the Plaintiffs; Daniel Randazzo representing the Plaintiff Smith; Joshua Smith and Kristin Heyse representing the Defendants Michigan Department of Corrections, Heidi Washington, Sean Brewer, Russell Marlan, Kenneth McKee, Lloyd Rapelje, Lia Gulick, David Johnson, Karri Ousterhout, Jospeh Treppa, Dan Carter, Richard Bullard, Toni Moore, Ed Vallard, Jeremy Bush, Jeremy Howard, Marti Sherri, David Johnson, Kristina Fisher; Ronald Chapman representing the Defendants Corizon Health Inc., Thomas Hackney representing the Defendants Jeffrey Bomber, Robert Lacy, Rickey Coleman; and Thomas Sullivan representing the Defendants Wayne State University, James Blessman and Carmen McIntyre. the Defendants Keith Papendick and Craig Hutchinson failed to appear. The Michigan Department of Corrections oversees prisons and the parole and probation population in the state of Michigan, United States. A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oE0Esw at no extra charge.[CC] MID-FLORIDA PATHOLOGY: Ferry Sues Over Auto-Deduction for Breaks ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARTIN FERRY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MID-FLORIDA PATHOLOGY, LLC., a Florida Limited Liability Company, STRATEGIC BUSINESS OUTSOURCING, LLC., a Florida Limited Liability Company, and OLEKSANDR ONUSHKO, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-00327 (M.D. Fla., May 23, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is employed by Defendants as a driver since approximately January 2020. During his employment, Plaintiff and other the class members regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in individual workweeks. Allegedly, the Defendants has a policy and practice to automatically deduct one hour of pay from Plaintiff and other similarly situated drivers' pay for one or more automatic meal break(s), although Plaintiff and Defendants’ other drivers did not actually take these breaks. In addition, the Defendants made the automatic meal break deduction even though, on almost every workday Plaintiff and other the class members worked through their meal break, which included completing scheduled deliveries to customers of Defendants on time, says the Plaintiff. The Defendants own and operate a carrier and logistics business and among other activities, provides vans to provide pathology services to customers in Florida, Georgia and Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah E. Storch, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 10368 W. SR 84, Suite 103 Davie, FL 33324 Telephone: (866) 344-9243 Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com MILSTEAD AUTOMOTIVE: Hilton Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS HILTON, JR. individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. MILSTEAD AUTOMOTIVE, LTD., MILSTEAD MANAGEMENT, LLC, AMY MILSTEAD, DEFENDANTS, Case No. 4:23-cv-01865 (S.D. Tex., May 22, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Family Medical Leave Act. Plaintiff Hilton worked for Milstead from 2020 through 2022 as a light-tow operator who managed tows and road-side services for passenger cars and trucks, and light-duty commercial vehicles. The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. But Milstead did not pay him an overtime wage calculated on his regular hourly wage. The Plaintiff brings this suit to recover minimum and overtime wages under the FLSA for Milstead's unlawful pay practices. Milstead Management, LLC is a Texas limited liability company that resides and conducts business in Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William "Carl" Wilson, Esq. WILSON WEHMEYER, PLLC 12012 Wickchester Lane, 470-B Houston, TX 77079 Telephone: (713) 670-6891 Facsimile: (888) 490-3698 E-mail: carl@wilsonwehmeyer.com MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Bid for Class Certification Due Nov. 22 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLARK, et al., v. MULTNOMAH COUNTY, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00501 (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Ann L. Aiken entered on motion for extension of Discovery & PTO Deadlines: -- Motion for class certification due by: Nov. 22, 2023 -- Amended pleadings are due 45 days following the Court's order on plaintiffs' motion for class certification. -- Fact discovery material to individual claims is to be completed 120 days following the Court's order on plaintiffs' motion for class certification. -- Dispositive motions are due 45 days following the close of fact discovery material to individual claims. ADR report is due 60 days following the Court's ruling on any dispositive motions. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus -- Prison Condition. NATIONAL RIFLE: Crawford Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Rifle Association of America Political Victory Fund, et al. The case is styled as Patricia Crawford, for herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Rifle Association of America Political Victory Fund, Unknown Parties John & Jane Does 1-10; and Does 110, Case No. 2:23-cv-00903-SPL (D. Ariz., May 23, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. National Rifle Association of America Political Victory Fund -- https://www.nrapvf.org/ -- the official NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) is NRA's political action committee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon Laurence Phelps, Esq. PHELPS & MOORE PLLC - SCOTTSDALE 6424 E Greenway Pkwy., Ste. 100 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Phone: (480) 534-1400 Fax: (480) 477-3900 Email: jon@phelpsandmoore.com NEW ERA CAP: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Era Cap, LLC. The case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. New Era Cap, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04385 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. New Era Cap -- https://www.neweracap.com/ -- is an international lifestyle brand with an authentic sports heritage that dates back 100 years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com NEXIGHT INC: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nexight Inc. The case is styled as Frangie Espinal, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Nexight Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04301 (S.D.N.Y., May 23, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Nexight -- https://nexightgroup.com/ -- is a small business in Silver Spring, MD that helps government & commercial clients solve complex technical & management problems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal NEXTERA ENERGY: Court Narrows Claims in Stallbaumer Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN STALLBAUMER, v. NEXTERA ENERGY RESOURCES, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-04031-HLT-ADM (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Holly L. Teeter entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim. The Court dismisses all claims against NEER and NEPM for failure to state a claim. The Court likewise dismisses the RICO, civil conspiracy, and class claims against Soldier Creek. The sole surviving claim is a claim for nuisance against Soldier Creek. The court further orders that the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Surreply Brief and motion for leave to file corrected Exhibit are denied as moot because the Defendants have withdrawn the personal-jurisdiction argument addressed in the proposed surreply. The Plaintiff's amended complaint finally includes class claims. The class claims are based on the Defendants' development of the Project. the Plaintiff identifies two classes: Class: All owners of property and residents in Nemaha County, Kansas that have suffered harm or damages resulting from liable conduct of any the Defendant based on claims made by the Plaintiff. Subclass: All owners of property and residents in Nemaha County, Kansas living within three miles of Corning, Kansas who have suffered harm or damages resulting from liable conduct of any the Defendant based on claims made by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff owns a farm in Nemaha County, Kansas, less than two miles from the city of Corning, Kansas. The Plaintiff's farm is near land on which the Defendants have constructed industrial wind turbines. The Defendants are engaged in power generating activities, including the Project. A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BYJjNI at no extra charge.[CC] NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Fails to Protect Patient's Info, Gordon Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Naomi Gordon, on behalf of her minor child N.L. individually and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NextGen Healthcare, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-02293-TWT (N.D. Ga., May 22, 2023) alleges claims for negligence, negligence per se, and breach of implied contract in connection with the data breach that occurred from March 29, 2023 to April 14, 2023. On March 30, 2023, NextGen learned that its networks containing its customers' or patients' personally identifiable information were impacted during a cyberattack. Although the Defendant discovered the Data Breach on March 30, it inexplicably waited until April 28, 2023, to notify the individuals whose information was impacted by the data breach, says the suit. NextGen Healthcare, Inc. is a Georgia corporation with its principal place of business at 3525 Piedmont Road Northeast, Building 6, Suite 700, Atlanta, Georgia. The company provides electronic health records and practice management services to doctors and other 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 - Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. Rachel K. Tack, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com rachel.tack@zimmreed.com NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northwestern University. The case is styled as Joseph Ortiz, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Northwestern University, Case No. 1:23-cv-04418 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Northwestern -- https://www.northwestern.edu/ -- is one of the country's leading private research and teaching universities, located in Evanston, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal OPTION CONSOMMATEURS: Quebec Super. Dismissed Motion to Stay Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- Catherine Martin and Francois M. Giroux of McCarthy Tetrault LLP report that on April 19, 2023, the Quebec Court of Appeal in Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha v. Option Consommateurs, 2023 QCCA 513 dismissed the appeal from a decision of the Quebec Superior Court, refusing to stay a Quebec class action in favor of a parallel class action filed in British Columbia. The lower court's decision had caused concerns because it contained comments calling into question pan-Canadian national class actions. The Court of Appeal decision is of interest because even if it upholds the first instance decision, it declines to echo the lower court's comments on pan-Canadian class actions, saying it is not necessary to do so in order to resolve the parties' dispute. This decision also reiterates the importance of judicial discretion in obtaining stay requests. Our analysis of the lower court's decision as well as a summary of the facts can be found here. Background The appellants are defendants in a Quebec class action that had been authorized and was proceeding on the merits. The appellants had applied to stay the Quebec class action in favour of a parallel class action proceeding in British Columbia, until final judgment on the common issues was rendered in that file. However, the Quebec class members were not part of the class in the BC case. As a result, the appellants sought to add Quebec class members to the BC class action and have one trial in BC on the common issues for all defendants with a national class. The appellants alternatively sought to stay the Quebec class action until the BC court adjudicated their request to add Quebec residents to the BC case. Superior Court of Quebec's Decision On April 19, 2022, the Quebec Superior Court (per Justice Donald Bisson) dismissed the application to stay the Quebec class action. Justice Bisson first dismissed the alternative request to suspend the Quebec case while awaiting a decision from the BC court on the request to add Quebec residents. Justice Bisson considered this was not appropriate or proportional nor in the interest of class members. Justice Bisson then found that the stay application did not contain any allegations regarding BC law or the jurisdiction of the BC court. He concluded that this lack of allegations alone justified the dismissal of the stay application given that the defendants failed to demonstrate that the BC court had jurisdiction over Quebec class members regarding Quebec law. Justice Bisson nevertheless continued his analysis to determine if the Quebec Superior Court was forum non conveniens and should decline jurisdiction in favor of the BC court, pursuant to article 3135 of the Civil Code of Quebec. Justice Bisson ultimately dismissed the forum non conveniens argument and concluded that, if Quebec class members were ever added to the BC class action, a judgment by the BC court involving Quebec class members could not be recognized in Quebec. Justice Bisson specified that it was not sufficient for defendants to submit to the jurisdiction of the BC court. This required the acceptance of the plaintiff, and in the context of a class action, the Court must analyze this from the perspective of the Quebec class members. Unlike the case of a typical plaintiff, the submission of the Quebec class members to the BC court cannot be assumed here because they did not institute the proceedings there. This therefore constituted a fatal obstacle to any forum non conveniens argument. Justice Bisson specified that this decision does not make it impossible in all cases to have national class actions decided outside of Quebec. When for instance Quebec class members consent, or if there are connecting factors with the relevant province outside of Quebec, then a national class in another province (outside of Quebec) would still be possible. However, other than in those circumstances, Justice Bisson held that it may be impossible for national class actions to be heard in BC or elsewhere. He then noted that his decision calls into question the established notion of pan-Canadian national class actions. Quebec Court of Appeal's Decision Later in 2022, the BC court (per Justice Basran) dismissed the appellants' request to add Quebec residents to that case (Ewert v. Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha, 2022 BCSC 1908). The decision was appealed, but the appeal was dismissed (Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha v. Ewert, 2023 BCCA 142). Therefore, the class definition in the BC case does not include Quebec residents. The Quebec Court of Appeal then rendered its decision. It noted that Justice Bisson's analysis of the forum non conveniens argument and his remarks calling into question the established notion of pan-Canadian national class actions constitute a non-binding obiter that is not necessary to resolve the parties' dispute. The Court of Appeal concluded that because the Quebec residents were not part of the certified BC class action, Justice Bisson did not need to go further and was justified to decline the application to stay the Quebec class action on this basis alone. The Court of Appeal reminded litigants that in any case, the power to order a stay of proceedings is ultimately a discretionary decision by the Superior Court judge, thereby suggesting that it could not be easily reviewed by higher courts. The Court ultimately dismissed the appeal. [GN] ORAL ROBERTS UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oral Roberts University, Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Ortiz, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Oral Roberts University, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04419 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Oral Roberts University -- https://oru.edu/ -- is a Christian university located in Tulsa, Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal OUTSOURCE UTILITY: Plagakis Suit Removed to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Nicholas Plagakis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OUTSOURCE UTILITY CONTRACTOR CORP., a California corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. BCV-23-101120 was removed from the Superior Court of the County of Kern, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 24, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00798-CDB. In his Complaint, Plaintiff brings eight claims on behalf of himself and a putative class of persons similarly situated: Recovery of Unpaid Minimum Wages and Liquidated Damages; Recovery of Unpaid Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods or Compensation in Lieu Thereof; Failure to Provide Rest Periods or Compensation in Lieu Thereof; Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Statements; Failure to Timely Pay All Wages Due Upon Separation of Employment; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Alejandro G. Ruiz, Esq. Randy R. Haj, Esq. Connor L. Kridle, Esq. PAYNE & FEARS LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (949) 851-1100 Facsimile: (949) 851-1212 Email: agr@paynefears.com rrh@paynefears.com clk@paynefears.com OZARK PIZZA: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Carson Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN CARSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OZARK PIZZA COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00122-JM (E.D. Ark., May 23, 2023) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Carson was employed by the Defendant as a delivery driver. OZARK PIZZA COMPANY, LLC owns and operates a franchise Papa John's fast food restaurant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Burks, Esq. Lindsey Noe, Esq. WH LAW 1 Riverfront Pl., Ste. 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Telephone: (501) 891-6000 Email: chris@wh.law lindsey.wh.law PATINA GROUP: Gonzalez Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jennifer D. Gonzalez, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. THE PATINA GROUP NEWCO, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 TO 50, Case No. 30-2023-0132173-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 25, 2023, and assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-00924. The Complaint asserts eleven causes of action for violation of the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code, set forth as: "Failure to Pay All Minimum Wages;" "Failure to Pay Split Shift Premiums;" "Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages;" "Failure to Remit Gratuities;" "Failure to Provide Rest Periods and Pay Missed Rest Period Premiums;" Failure to Provide Meal Periods and Pay Missed Meal Period Premiums;" "Failure to Maintain Accurate Employment Records;" "Failure to Pay Wages Timely during Employment;" "Failure to Pay All Wages Earned and Unpaid at Separation;" "Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements;" and "Violations of California's Unfair Competition Law."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jon D. Meer, Esq. Jonathan L. Brophy, Esq. Sofya Perelshteyn, Esq. Andrea Vizzo, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: jmeer@seyfarth.com jbrophy@seyfarth.com sperelshteyn@seyfarth.com avizzo@seyfarth.com PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Discovery Stayed Pending Appeal ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC PASSMAN and ISHMAEL ALVARADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-11711-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered an order granting joint motion and stipulation staying discovery pending resolution of plaintiffs' petition for leave to appeal the Court's May 2, 2023, order denying class certification to the United States court of appeals for the second circuit. Pursuant to the Parties May 11, 2023, stipulation: a. all discovery in this matter is stayed pending the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's (the "Second Circuit") ruling on the Plaintiffs' petition pursuant Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking leave to appeal this Court's denial of their motion for class certification ("the Plaintiffs' 23(f) Petition"). b. the Plaintiffs and the Defendant Peloton Interactive, Inc. will meet and confer within seven days of the Second Circuit's resolution of the Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) Petition to determine whether any additional merits discovery (including expert discovery) is needed. c. the Parties will submit a proposal to the Court within fourteen days following the Second Circuit's resolution of the Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) Petition. d. all discovery shall be completed within 113 days of the Second Circuit's resolution of the Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) Petition. Peloton is an American exercise equipment and media company based in New York City. A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OJree8 at no extra charge.[CC] PERFETTI VAN MELLE: Ruff Sues Over Misleading & Deceptive Labeling ------------------------------------------------------------------ Devonia Spearman Ruff, on behalf of herself and her minor child, J.R., and all others similarly situated v. PERFETTI VAN MELLE USA INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00070-DLB-CJS (E.D. Ky., May 24, 2023), is brought arising out of the misleading and deceptive labeling Of Airheads Gummies in violation of the Federal Food Drug & Cosmetic Act ("FDCA") the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004 ("FAI-CPA"), as well as State laws prohibiting misbranded food of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, which impose requirements identical to federal law. This is a consumer protection class action involving Airheads Gummies, a popular chewy candy that comes in six "fantastically fruity flavors" and that also contains a tree nut ingredient--coconut oil--despite a label on the candy's outer packaging stating prominently that it does not contain any tree nuts. Perfetti sold Airheads Gummies using a label that states prominently that the candy is both "peanut free" and "tree nut free." Perfetti sold and continues to sell Airheads Gummies with the same label today. The ingredients list for Airheads Gummies also discloses, in smaller type, that the candy contains coconut Oil, an allergen that the FDA considers a tree nut. Tree nuts are considered "major allergens" within the meaning of the FALCPA, and as such the manufacturer is required comply with the allergen labeling requirements of the FDCA. The packaging Of Airheads Gummies leads consumers to think that it is "tree nut free" because Of the bold logo on its labeling. Thus, consumers including Plaintiff and her son were and are misled into thinking the product contains no major allergens, when in fact it does, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and her son visited a retail outlet in Pearl, Mississippi, where they purchased Airheads Gummies. The Defendant manufactured, packaged, distributed, advertised, marketed and sold the Misbranded Products to millions Of customers nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex C. Davis, Esq. ALEX DAVIS LAW OFFICE PSC 445 Baxter Ave., Suite 275 Louisville, KY 40204 Phone: (502) 882-6000 Facsimile: (502) 587-2007 Email: alex@acdavislaw.com PIM BRANDS INC: Guerrero Files Suit in E.D. Missouri ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PIM Brands, Inc. The case is styled as Alexander Guerrero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PIM Brands, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-00690-RLW (E.D. Mo., May 25, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. PIM Brands Inc. -- https://pimbrands.com/ -- is the world's largest maker of real fruit snacks and related products and one of the world's largest makers of chocolate and non-chocolate confections.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel F. Harvath, Esq. HARVATH LAW GROUP LLC 75 W. Lockwood, Suite 1 St. Louis, MO 63119 Phone: (314) 550-3717 Email: dharvath@harvathlawgroup.com POWER UP FOODS: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Power Up Foods LLC. The case is styled as Yordaliza Taveras, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Power Up Foods LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04277 (S.D.N.Y., May 23, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Power Up Foods -- https://powerupfoods.com/ -- is a woman & minority-owned healthy snack start-up aiming to reimagine energy and how we consume it.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com PRESTIGE COMMUNITY: Parties Directed to Attend Mediation --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TU LE, an individual; GENEVA NGUYEN, an individual; MAI LY, an individual, on behalf of themselves and a class of all others similarly situated; v. PRESTIGE COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION, a national credit union; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 8:22-cv-00259-JVS-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James V. Selna entered an order on stipulation for briefing schedule and to continue all dates pending mediation and settlement discussions: -- The parties shall attend a mediation on June 15, 2023, before the Hon. Irma Gonzalez (Ret.) -- The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is voluntarily withdrawn without prejudice to filing a Motion for Summary Judgment on or before July 17, 2023. -- The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification may be amended on or before July 17, 2023. -- Opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment will be due on or before August 17, 2023. -- All Replies will be due on or before September 15, 2023. The hearing on the motions will be held on Monday, October 2, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43cXXNm at no extra charge.[CC] PRETZEL PETE INC: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pretzel Pete, Inc. The case is styled as Yordaliza Taveras, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pretzel Pete, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04279-ALC (S.D.N.Y., May 23, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Pretzel Pete, Inc. -- https://pretzelpete.com/ -- is a family-owned, Hatboro, Pennsylvania USA based manufacturer of value-added pretzel products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com PROGREXION HOLDINGS: Hit With WARN Class Action Over Mass Layoffs ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shweta Watwe at news.bloomberglaw.com reports that the holding company for Progrexion, the credit-report repair service, was hit with a proposed class action alleging the it shut down and laid off about 900 employees in violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. Kirsten Hansen filed the complaint in the US District Court for the District of Utah. PGX Holdings and its various subsidiaries including CreditRepair.com and Lexington Law are named in the complaint. Hansen worked at Progrexion Teleservices from February 2013 until April 2023.[GN] PROVANTAGE LLC: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Provantage LLC. The case is styled as Shivan Bassaw, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Provantage LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04272 (S.D.N.Y., May 23, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Provantage -- https://www.provantage.com/ -- has low discount prices on a wide range of computer hardware software GPS electronics office supplies books & more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com RALLYBRANDS LLC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rallybrands LLC. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Rallybrands LLC doing business as: BioLyte, Case No. 1:23-cv-04312 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Rally Brands, LLC doing business as BIOLYTE -- https://drinkbiolyte.com/ -- is the only clinical hydration drink to have the same amount of electrolytes as an IV bag.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com RANGAM CONSULTANTS: Sanchez Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Hector Omar Sanchez, an individual v. RANGAM CONSULTANTS, INC., a New Jersey Corporation; QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, a Delaware Corporation; QUEST DIAGNOSTICS HEALTH & WELLNESS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; QUEST DIAGNOSTICS TB, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 2023CU0E007985 was removed from the Superior Court for the County of Ventura, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 25, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04091. The Plaintiff asserts eight causes of action in his Complaint against Defendants: recovery of unpaid minimum wages and liquidated damages; recovery of unpaid overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; failure to provide rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof; violations of Labor Code; failure to timely pay all wages due upon separation of employment; failure to reimburse business expenses and unfair competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jonathan M. Brenner, Esq. Amish A. Shah, Esq. Benjamin T. Runge, Esq. EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2506 Phone: 310.556.8861 Facsimile: 310.553.2165 Email: jbrenner@ebglaw.com aashah@ebglaw.com brunge@ebglaw.com cemail@ebglaw.com RELIABLE LIFE INSURANCE: Abboud Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Missouri ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Reliable Life Insurance Company. The case is styled as Monica Abboud, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Reliable Life Insurance Company, Case No. 4:23-cv-00681 (E.D. Mo., May 23, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Reliable Life Insurance Company -- http://www.reliablelifeinsurance.com/-- is a specialty life insurer, focused on manufacturing and administering customized, private-label products for distributors of travel, life, child accident, disability and health insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Ave New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7127 Fax: (212) 989-9163 Email: ykopel@bursor.com RL ON-TIME DELIVERY: Campos Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Genaro Campos, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. RL ON-TIME DELIVERY SERVICE, INC.; FEDEX CORPORATION; FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC.; and DOES 1–100, inclusive, Case No. 56-2023-00575743-CU-OE-VTA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Ventura, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 25, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04082. In the Complaint, Plaintiff brings claims for, inter alia, Defendants' alleged failure to provide meal periods, provide rest periods, pay minimum and overtime wages, furnish timely and accurate wage statements, timely pay all wages, timely pay all wages upon separation, and reimburse business expenses. The Plaintiff also alleges Defendants committed acts of unfair competition as defined by the California Unfair Business Practices Act and violated the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Scott Voelz, Esq. Adam J. Karr, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899 Phone: (213) 430-6000 Facsimile: (213) 430-6407 Email: svoelz@omm.com akarr@omm.com - and - Allan W Gustin, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 610 Newport Center Drive, 17th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 823-6900 Facsimile: (949) 823-6994 Email: agustin@omm.com ROCK CITY KICKS: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rock City Kicks, LLC. The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Rock City Kicks, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04334 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Rock City Kicks -- https://rockcitykicks.com/ -- the biggest little sneaker store in America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com S&D SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ Jorge Garcia, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. S&D Security and Data Inc., Global Operations Security Services Inc., Shay Amir, and David Amir, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04291 (S.D.N.Y., May 23, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Articles 6 and 19 of the New York State Labor Law and their supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations. Plaintiff Garcia worked as an installation worker and general worker at Defendants' security and alarm systems companies from on or around December 2019 to, through and including, May 2023. He regularly worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours a week but never received an overtime premium of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for those hours. Among other things, the Defendants willfully and intentionally failed to compensate Garcia with the applicable minimum hourly wage in violation of the FLSA and NYLL, says the Plaintiff. S&D Security and Data Inc. is a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. It provides security and alarm systems installation services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com SAMMEE LLC: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sammee, LLC. The case is styled as Yordaliza Taveras, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sammee, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04281-LJL (S.D.N.Y., May 23, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. SAMMEE -- https://sammee.com/ -- delivers a curated DIY experience experience that provides everything needed to make the best boba tea at home.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA: Sued Over Unfair Child Welfare System ---------------------------------------------------------------- latimes.com reports that Salvador Hernandez at latimes.com reports that a federal class-action lawsuit on behalf of more than 5,800 youths alleges that San Bernardino County Children and Family Services, an agency that was deemed by a civil grand jury to be "too broken to fix," failed to protect those under its care and at times placed them in danger. The lawsuit, filed Thursday morning, claims that overburdened caseworkers are unable to perform required visits and inspections of foster homes and that the agency fails to properly vet homes and families where children are placed, sometimes with dire consequences. "In extreme cases, CFS has even placed children with known, registered sex offenders," the lawsuit says. Filed by A Better Childhood, a nonprofit group that uses civil litigation to push reform in child welfare systems, the suit seeks court intervention to mandate lower caseloads and require the agency to create procedures to keep foster children safe and to find them permanent homes. The suit also names the California Department of Social Services as a defendant. "Child welfare systems don't have to run as poorly as the San Bernardino child welfare system does," said Marcia Lowry, director of A Better Childhood. "These kids' lives have been wrecked by what's happening in the system." County officials did not respond to the allegations in the lawsuit but said in a statement that Children and Family Services hired 115 social services practitioners in the 2021-22 fiscal year and 67 more this fiscal year to reduce caseloads. The agency is also working with community partners to reduce the number of children that go into the system in the first place, the county said. According to the statement, the department has also added on-site counseling for staff, in an effort to reduce attrition, and has increased the number of beds in temporary shelters. A spokesperson with the California Department of Social Services said the agency does not comment on ongoing litigation. The lawsuit comes five months after the San Bernardino County grand jury called for Children and Family Services to be scrapped and replaced by a privately run center, saying it was "too broken to fix." The scathing December report pointed out that the number of children who were physically and sexually abused while in the system increased every year from 2019 to 2021. "The revelations that there are significant amounts of substantiated sexual abuse and physical abuse cases is eye-opening," the grand jury wrote. "There are significant and alarming number of cases involving already traumatized children that come into the care of the CFS who have been further physically or sexually abused by a system that was created to protect them." In 2019, 34 children under the care of the agency were physically abused, and 14 were sexually abused, according to the report. In 2020, 35 were physically abused and 27 were sexually abused, and in 2021, the respective numbers were 55 and 34, according to the grand jury. In a statement, a county spokesperson pushed back against the findings and recommendations made by the grand jury. "We believe that much of the San Bernardino County Grand Jury's report was built off bits of information without understanding the full context of cases or how Children and Family Services (CFS) is mandated to operate by the state," the statement says. "The County would like to note that while we appreciate the diligent work of the Grand Jury, many of their findings are not legally obtainable." The lawsuit, filed, echoed many of the concerns outlined in the grand jury's report. San Bernardino Children and Family Services has faced high caseworker turnover and caseloads up to six times larger than recommended, Lowry said. The Child Welfare League of America recommends 12 to 15 foster children per staffer, but in 2022, caseworkers in San Bernardino were working with as many as 70 to 90, according to the suit. Children spend an average of 551 days in the custody of the San Bernardino County agency, the suit claims, about 104 days longer than the national average. Foster homes have failed to be properly vetted, and required meetings and inspections are "perfunctory" and "fly-by" visits, according to the suit. According to San Bernardino County, CFS finalized adoptions of 1,550 children in 2021 and 2022. So far this year, the agency is on track to finalize 745. The suit also alleges that children have been placed in homes where they don't speak the language of the foster family. "Whether or not a child gets into a good foster home is a matter of serendipity, not a matter of design," Lowry said. "I'm sure there are people in the system who want to do a good job and just don't have the sources to do so." Although the grand jury found that the county agency had taken action to address the rising number of abuse cases, it called many of the steps "reactive" and not meant to prevent abuse from happening in the first place; for example, the creation of the Open Case Investigation Unit to investigate cases of alleged abuse and hold meetings with law enforcement. The grand jury alleged that the agency lacks independent oversight. "Presently, CFS has no local accountability, which allows them to operate behind an air of confidentiality," the report says. San Bernardino County Children and Family Services has been plagued with problems for more than 10 years, Lowry said, but despite blistering reviews and reports like those from the grand jury, little has changed. "Nothing else is working," she said about the decision to file the suit. A Better Childhood has active cases in New York, where it is based, as well as in New Jersey, Mississippi, Oregon, West Virginia, Alaska and Texas. Some previous lawsuits have resulted in federal mandates and federal oversight of welfare agencies. "A lawsuit may be different because we want the court to really examine and look at the system very carefully," said attorney Polly Towill, whose firm, Sheppard Mullin, has taken the case pro bono. "We want to prevent disasters." [GN] SANDOZ CANADA: Won Dismissal of Pharmaceuticals Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Peter J. Pliszka, Andrew Borrell and Zohaib I. Maladwala of Fasken reports that Sandoz Canada Inc. and several other pharmaceutical companies recently defeated a certification application and obtained summary dismissal of a proposed pharmaceutical product liability class action, successfully arguing that the plaintiff's claims of alleged increased risk of contracting cancer should be summarily dismissed because there is no basis in evidence or law to support such claims. Peter Pliszka, Andrew Borrell, and Zohaib Maladwala of Fasken represented Sandoz in securing this result. The putative class proceeding was issued against numerous pharmaceutical companies that make or distribute ranitidine, a histamine H2-receptor, in heartburn medication. The plaintiff alleged that ranitidine could, over time and under certain conditions, transform into N-nitrosodimethylamine ("NDMA"), which the plaintiff alleged was carcinogenic. The plaintiff's Notice of Civil Claim included claims for increased risk of harm and potential future harm. Sandoz, alongside other defendants, argued that the plaintiff's claim was fatally flawed both factually and legally because there was no scientific evidence that NDMA is carcinogenic in humans, and the plaintiff sought damages not for any actual harm suffered, but rather for an alleged increased risk of possible future harm. In reasons reported at Dussiaume v. Sandoz Canada Inc., 2023 BCSC 795, Justice Wilkinson agreed with Sandoz and the other defendants, and dismissed the plaintiff's certification motion and granted the defendants' summary judgment motion. The judge found that there was no evidence to support the plaintiff's factual allegation that NDMA is carcinogenic in humans. Thus, Justice Wilkinson held that there was no basis for the claim that, even if any ranitidine contained NDMA, it would present a risk of cancer. The judge also applied well-settled caselaw -- including Atlantic Lottery Corp. Inc. v. Babstock, 2020 SCC 19 -- to reject the plaintiff's various claims of damages. In Babstock, the Supreme Court confirmed that "there is no right to be free from the prospect of damage; there is only a right not to suffer damage [. . .]." As Justice Wilkinson observed, this "important limitation" on negligence claims has been applied across Canada, including in pharmaceutical product liability class actions. In particular, Justice Wilkinson relied on Palmer v. Teva Canada Ltd., 2022 ONSC 4690, a recent decision of Justice Perell in which Fasken also represented Sandoz, in successfully defeating another motion for certification of a proposed class action. Drawing on Palmer and Babstock, Justice Wilkinson found that the plaintiff's claims were "similarly flawed", writing that "[f]uture harms that might -- or might not -- occur are not compensable. The conduct of a defendant in negligence is only wrong to the extent that it causes an actual materialized loss." The plaintiff's foundational failure to plead compensable loss was also fatal to his claim for "medical monitoring" -- i.e., the cost of monitoring to provide early detection of any adverse health effects. Justice Wilkinson referred to as a helpful authority a case where a plaintiff was found to have tried to "short circuit the negligence analysis by presuming that the defendant's conduct had caused a physical injury that warranted such monitoring." The plaintiff in Dussiaume also alleged psychological injury -- for example, psychological injury occasioned by "learning about" the alleged adverse effects of ranitidine. However, Justice Wilkinson found that such claims were essentially derivative of the plaintiff's doomed claims for alleged risk of harm and potential future harm. "Just as claims for increased risks of physical harm are not compensable, claims for worries about increased risk of physical harm are also not compensable," wrote Justice Wilkinson. Similarly, "It follows that if the risk of a potential future physical harm is not compensable, neither is a harm one step removed [. . .]." Further, Justice Wilkinson concluded that any claims for psychological injury must fail because they did not rise above "ordinary annoyances, anxieties, and fears that people living in society must deal with," and they were not "reasonably foreseeable", meaning that there was "no basis in material fact or evidence to support the reason" for psychological injury in this case. Dussiaume is a welcome decision for current and prospective defendants in product liability class actions. It confirms that our courts will apply well-established principles about evidence and requisite elements of causes of action to prevent plaintiffs' lawyers from pursuing class actions that are founded upon speculation of possible future harms for which there is no basis in fact. Nevertheless, based on experience, we anticipate that the plaintiffs' bar will continue to make creative attempts to try to circumvent these established principles to assert claims against defendant manufacturers and distributors. If you would like to discuss any questions, thoughts and strategies about guarding against such claims, please contact the authors. [GN] SAVOR GOODS LLC: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Savor Goods, LLC. The case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Savor Goods, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04320-MKV (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Savor -- https://savor.us/ -- creates boxes and files that make organization super simple, modern, and sleek to fit your life and fit your decor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com SEARCHLIGHT CAPITAL: Garfield Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Garfield, Carmel Spamer, and Theodor Karl Schricker, Jr., on behalf of a class of similarly situated stockholders v. SEARCHLIGHT CAPITAL PARTNERS, L.P., GATO INVESTMENTS, L.P., GEMINI LATIN HOLDINGS LLC, PETER M. KERN, ERIC ZINTERHOFER, ADAM REISS, LEO HINDERY, JR., ERNESTO VARGAS GUAJARDO, ALAN J. SOKOL, and JAMES M. MCNAMARA, Case No. 2023-0555-JTL (Del. Chancery Ct., May 26, 2023), is brought against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty and to challenge a two-part conflicted transaction (the "Transactions") involving Hemisphere's controlling stockholder, Searchlight Capital Partners, L.P. Transactions consist of two interrelated components: The Searchlight Transaction. Searchlight acquired all the outstanding shares of Company stock that it did not already own (through its portfolio company Gato Investments, L.P. ("Gato")) for $7.00 per share in cash. The Pantaya Transaction. Concurrent with the Searchlight Transaction, Hemisphere divested and sold Pantaya, LLC ("Pantaya"), its Spanish-language streaming platform, to TelevisaUnivision, Inc. ("TelevisaUnivision") for $115 million in cash, plus certain Puerto Rican radio assets owned by TelevisaUnivision valued at $10 million. Searchlight was Hemisphere's controlling stockholder, holding over 70% of Hemisphere's voting power. In May 2021, Searchlight approached Hemisphere through an affiliate of its TelevisaUnivision entity to discuss a potential transaction. Because Searchlight had a significant ownership stake in TelevisaUnivision, creating a conflict of interest, Hemisphere's board of directors (the "Board") established a special committee (the "2021 Special Committee") to investigate a possible transaction. After agreeing to a restrictive standstill (the "Standstill") and conducting due diligence, the TelevisaUnivision affiliate informed Hemisphere that it was no longer interested in pursuing a transaction in August 2021. Five months later, in January 2022, Searchlight contacted Hemisphere directly to express interest in taking Hemisphere private while Hemisphere concurrently sold Pantaya to TelevisaUnivision. The Board reconstituted the 2021 Special Committee as a new special committee (the "Special Committee") to negotiate and oversee the potential transactions. But the Special Committee (and the entire Board) allowed Searchlight to control the process, resulting in an unfair price for the Transaction. First, the Special Committee abdicated its responsibility to oversee the sale process. While the Special Committee negotiated with Searchlight for the Searchlight Transaction, the Special Committee allowed Searchlight to conduct all negotiations with TelevisaUnivision on the Pantaya Transaction. Because Searchlight owned a large portion of TelevisaUnivision, Searchlight was incentivized to have TelevisaUnivision pay as little as possible for Pantaya. Despite this clear conflict, the Special Committee never bothered to contact TelevisaUnivision to negotiate price, instead blindly accepting Searchlight's representations. Moreover, TelevisaUnivision's related discussions with Searchlight without the prior written approval of the Special Committee violated its Standstill. Second, the Special Committee allowed Searchlight to truncate the Pantaya sales process so that Hemisphere could not pursue a third party sale of Pantaya. Hemisphere ended up abandoning negotiations with Viacom, a serious buyer prepared to pay $200 million for Pantaya substantially more than the $115 million plus $10 million in radio assets that TelevisaUnivision paid. Third, the Board manipulated the structure and calculation of the stockholder vote on the Searchlight Transaction by improperly including interested votes cast by Grupo MVS Capital, S. de R.L. de C.V. ("MVS")--an entity affiliated with Hemisphere director defendant Ernesto Varga Guajardo ("Vargas Guajardo")--as disinterested stockholder votes. The Board then falsely reported that a majority of Hemisphere's disinterested stockholders voted to approve the Searchlight Transaction when, in fact, after properly excluding the MVS votes from the calculation, the majority of Hemisphere's disinterested stockholders rejected the Searchlight Transaction. As a result of the Defendants' actions, Searchlight acquired Hemisphere at an unfairly low price in the Searchlight Transaction--12.5% lower than its initial offer, 7% below the value of the Company's stock at the beginning of 2022, and nearly 50% below Hemisphere's 52-week high stock price. Searchlight also prevailed upon the supine Special Committee vis-a-vis the Pantaya Transaction, selling Pantaya to Searchlight-affiliated TelevisaUnivision for a price well below both Pantaya's true value and a substantially higher bid submitted during the process. The Plaintiffs seek to recover for these breaches of fiduciary duties by Hemisphere's controlling stockholders and conflicted Board members, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were Hemisphere stockholders. The Defendant Gato is a Delaware limited partnership that controlled Hemisphere prior to the Transactions and is the parent of the various merger subsidiaries, such that Hemisphere became wholly owned by Gato upon completion of the Searchlight Transaction.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly A. Evans, Esq. Robert Erikson, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 3801 Kennett Pike, Suite C-305 Wilmington, DE 19807 Phone: (302) 499-3600 - and - Joel Fleming, Esq. Amanda R. Crawford, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 398-5600 - and - Ned Weinberger, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1340 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 573-2540 - and - David Schwartz, Esq. John Vielandi, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 907-0700 - and - Michael J. Barry, Esq. Christine M. Mackintosh, Esq. Edward M. Lilly, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A. 123 Justison Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 622-7065 - and - James S. Notis, Esq. Meagan A. Farmer, Esq. GARDY & NOTIS, LLP 150 East 52nd Street, 11th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 905-0509 - and - Lee Squitieri, Esq. SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 421-6492 SHAQUILLE O'NEAL: Harper Sues Over Sale of Unregistered Securities ------------------------------------------------------------------ DANIEL HARPER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHAQUILLE O'NEAL, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-21912 (S.D. Fla., May 23, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Virginia Securities Act, and the Virginia Consumer Protective Act. Plaintiff Harper claims that Shaquille O'Neal violated these securities laws by offering sale of Astrals NFTs, which have not been registered, and are not exempt from registration. O'Neal is a United States citizen and resides in several states, including the state of Florida, where he resides at 10941 Northstar Street, Davie, Florida. He is a founder of the Astrals Project, exercised control over the Astrals Project, and directed and/or authorized, directly or indirectly, the sale and solicitation of Astrals NFTs to the public. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq. Joseph M. Kaye, Esq. THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC 3250 Mary Street, Suite 202 Coconut Grove, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 740-1423 E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com joseph@moskowitz-law.com - and - Jose Ferrer, Esq. Michelle Genet Bernstein, Esq. MARK MIGDAL HAYDEN LLP 80 SW 8th Street, Suite 1999 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 374-0440 E-mail: jose@markmigdal.com michelle@markmigdal.com SHARK BAR: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Action Suit -------------------------------------------------- topclassactions.com reports that the operators of Shark Bar and Angels Rock Bar in Kansas City, Missouri, agreed to a class action settlement to resolve claims that they violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) with unsolicited spam texts. The settlement benefits individuals who received at least two text messages from Shark Bar and/or Angels Rock Bar within a 12-month period despite their number being on the National Do Not Call Registry. Consumers are disqualified from the settlement if they made a purchase at Shark Bar or Angels Rock Bar and did not receive at least two text messages within 18 months of their last transaction. According to two class action lawsuits, the operators of Shark Bar and Angels Rock Bar violated the TCPA by contacting consumers with unsolicited text messages. The plaintiff in the case says the bars contacted him and other consumers whose numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry. Shark Bar and Angels Rock Bar are bars in Kansas City, Missouri. The bars are owned and operated by The Cordish Cos. Inc. and Entertainment Consulting International LLC. The bar operators haven't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve the TCPA class action lawsuits. Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive either a voucher or a cash payment. Vouchers are worth $113 and can be used at various establishments in Kansas City's Power & Light District including Shark Bar, PBR Big Sky, Mosaic, McFadden's Sports Saloon, No Other Pub, Pizza Bar, Leinenkugel's Leinie Lodge & Beer Garden and Guy Fieri's Dive & Taco Joint. Cash payments will be $56.50 per claimant. The deadline for exclusion and objection is July 10, 2023. The final approval hearing for the TCPA settlement is scheduled for Aug. 15, 2023. No claim form is required to receive a voucher. Class members who wish to receive a cash payment must submit a valid claim form by July 10, 2023. Who's Eligible Individuals who received at least two text messages from Shark Bar and/or Angels Rock Bar within a 12-month period despite their number being on the National Do Not Call Registry. Consumers are disqualified from the settlement if they made a purchase at Shark Bar or Angels Rock Bar and did not receive at least two text messages within 18 months of their last transaction. Potential Award A $113 voucher or a $56.50 cash payment Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM » NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 07/10/2023 Case Name J.T. Hand v. Beach Entertainment KC LLC, et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-668-NKL, and J.T. Hand v. ARB KC LLC, et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-00108-NKL, both in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri Final Hearing 08/15/2023 Settlement Website SharkBarClassAction.com Claims Administrator J.T. Hand v. Beach Entertainment KC LLC., et. al. J.T. Hand v. ARB KC LLC., et. al. c/o Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 301132 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1132 Info@SharkBarClassAction.com 855-658-3948 Class Counsel Benjamin H Richman Eve-Lynn J Rapp Michael W Ovca EDELSON PC Bill Kenney BILL KENNEY LAW FIRM LLC Defense Counsel Lauri A Mazzuchetti Whitney M Smith KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP James Foland Jacqueline Longfellow FOLAND WICKENS ROPER HOFER & CRAWFORD PC [GN] SMART SNACKS LLC: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smart Snacks LLC. The case is styled as Yordaliza Taveras, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Smart Snacks LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04276 (S.D.N.Y., May 23, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Smart Snacks LLC -- https://smartsnacks605.com/ -- brings healthy vending to businesses, facilities, and schools.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com SMOKED MEATS CO: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cesar Palmerin Rodriguez, an individual, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, known and unknown v. SMOKED MEATS CO., an Illinois corporation d/b/a DOC WATSON'S SMOKEHOUSE, and CHRISTOPHER J. KAWA, an individual, Case No. 1:23-cv-03235 (N.D. Ill., May 23, 2023), is brought arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), for Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees, overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Based on his schedule, the Plaintiff regularly worked over 40 hours in individual workweeks from September, 2022 through April, 2023. The Defendants paid the Plaintiff on an hourly basis at the rate of $18.00 per hour. However, the Defendants imposed a dual wage payment scheme on the Plaintiff whereby Defendants paid only a portion of the Plaintiff's work hours, typically one-half of his bi-weekly hours, with a payroll check. The Defendants paid the remainder of the Plaintiff's hours with unreported cash "under the table" at his straight-time hourly rate of pay. The Defendants did not compensate the Plaintiff and other non-exempt cooks, food preparers and kitchen staff employees at one and one-half times their regular hourly rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in individual work weeks, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a cook and food preparer at the Defendants' Doc Watson's Smokehouse restaurant from September, 2022 through April, 2023. Smoked Meats Co. is engaged in selling and serving prepared food and beverages, including alcoholic beverages, to customers for consumption on and off its premises.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy M. Nolan, Esq. NOLAN LAW OFFICE 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 322-1100 Email: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com STEAK N SHAKE: Brown Conditional Certification Bid Partly OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WALTER BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STEAK N SHAKE, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-04474-SEG (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Sarah E. Geraghty entered an order granting in part the Plaintiff's request for conditional certification. The Court conditionally certifies a collective action consisting of: "all current and former tipped employees who worked for the Defendant in Georgia for at least one week during the three-year period prior to the filing of this action to the present." Excluded from this definition are any individuals who are plaintiffs in Berry, et al. v. Steak N. Shake, Inc., Case No. 1:20- cv-2932-JMSMPB (S.D. Ind.) or who worked in Ohio. The Plaintiff's motion for equitable tolling and other relief is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiff, should he still wish to request transfer of the claims of out of-state opt-in plaintiffs, is directed to file, within 14 days of this order, an amended motion seeking such transfer and identifying the requested transfer jurisdiction for each opt-in plaintiff. the Defendant shall have 14 days from the date of the amended motion to respond. The Defendant is directed to generate and provide to the Plaintiff's counsel by June 7, 2023, a list of all potential collective members and the full contact information available for such members, including email addresses. The provision of this list will facilitate counsel's practical assessment of any adjustments required in the notice plan. The Plaintiff's motion for court-approved notice is granted in part. The Court directs the parties to meet and confer as soon as practicable regarding the proposed notice, proposed consent form, and objections thereto. The parties should additionally confer on whether notice should be sent to putative class members who have signed arbitration agreements. The Court directs the parties to submit a joint, revised proposed notice and consent form by June 21, 2023. If there are minor disagreements as to notice terms and delivery method, the parties should note those disagreements in the joint notice. If significant disagreement remains after a good faith effort to negotiate notice/delivery terms, each party is directed to submit its own version of the proposed notice and proposed method of delivery to the Court by June 21, 2023. The case is a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case against the Defendant Steak 'n Shake, Inc. The Plaintiff Brown worked as a tipped server at several Steak 'n Shake restaurants in the Atlanta, Georgia area. A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MHrlUY at no extra charge.[CC] SUNRISE SENIOR: Devi Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Morine Devi, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 34-2023-00336258-CU-OE-GDC was removed from the Sacramento County Superior Court, State of California, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 23, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-at-00482. In her First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges nine causes of action against Sunrise: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime owed; failure to authorize and permit lawful rest periods; failure to timely pay wages due and payable during employment; failure to timely pay wages owed at separation; failure to reimburse necessary expenses; knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions; violation of the Unfair Competition Law; and Penalties Under Private Attorneys' General Act, Labor Code ("PAGA").[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Michele L. Maryott, Esq. Jessica M. Pearigen, Esq. Jordan E. Johnson, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 3161 Michelson Drive Irvine, CA 92612-4412 Phone: 949.451.3800 Facsimile: 949.451.4220 Email: MMaryott@gibsondunn.com JPearigen@gibsondunn.com JJohnson@gibsondunn.com SWEET HOLLOW: Torres Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Premium Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- William Torres, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SWEET HOLLOW MANAGEMENT CORP., COASTAL CONTRACTING CORP., WILLIAM KOURBAGE, and GAIL KOURBAGE, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:23-cv-03884 (E.D.N.Y., May 24, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid overtime premium pay owed to him pursuant to both the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"); and is seeking to recover unpaid prevailing wages, daily overtime and supplemental benefits which he was entitled to receive for work he performed pursuant to contracts entered into between Defendants and New York State and/or City government agencies and/or other municipal entities, which required payment of prevailing wages.. The Defendants frequently paid Plaintiff at a lower hourly rate than he was entitled for his work as a laborer and failed to pay or otherwise provide Plaintiff supplemental benefits for work that he performed on public construction sites throughout New York City and New York State. Further, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff any wages at all for a significant number of hours eworked, resulting in unpaid regular and overtime wages each week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a construction laborer who worked for Defendants on construction sites. Sweet Hollow Management Corp. and Coastal Contracting Corp. have been in the construction business, providing laborer services including construction and renovation of parks and other recreational areas, landscaping, garbage and debris removal, removal of graffiti, and similar contracting work upon public spaces, including public parks, beaches, roadways, and other public outdoor spaces.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 385-9700 Email: pelton@peltongraham.com graham@peltongraham.com Web: www.peltongraham.com TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM: Ericsson Defeats Investor Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Martina Barash at news.bloomberglaw.com reports that investors failed to adequately allege material misstatements by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson about its anti-corruption program and other issues related to alleged bribery in Iraq, a federal court ruled, rejecting their proposed class action. The investors also didn't adequately support their allegations of intent, Judge William F. Kuntz II said for the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York.[GN] THUNDER BAY, ON: Water Leaks Class Suit Application Streams Online ------------------------------------------------------------------ Staff of TBnewsWatch.com reports that when a Superior Court judge holds a hearing next month on whether to authorize a class action lawsuit against the City of Thunder Bay, interested members of the public will be able to view the proceedings online. The hearing was originally scheduled for March, was then adjourned to June 7, and has now been rescheduled to June 14 before Justice Paul Perell in Toronto. He's now overseeing the case following the death from illness this month of Justice Edward Belobaba, who was originally assigned to it. As soon as the court releases the Zoom coordinates, the law firm acting for the proposed representative plaintiff -- city resident Patsy Stadnyk -- will provide instructions on its website for people wanting to watch the hearing as it takes place. If a second day of oral arguments is required, the hearing will resume on June 15. Besides deciding whether a class action is merited, the court will determine the parameters for membership in the class. If approved, anyone falling within those parameters will automatically be included in any settlement. The proposed lawsuit seeks $350 million in compensation from the city to cover the cost of leaks in water pipes allegedly caused by the use of sodium hydroxide in the water supply starting in 2018. A lawyer working on the case has stated that the number of parties interested in the case is likely in the thousands. In a separate action in which St. Joseph's Care Group is suing the city for $350,000 for damages caused by pinhole leaks at the PR Cook apartment building at St. Joseph's Heritage, the city has denied that it was negligent in any way in its management of the water system. [GN] TIFOSI OPTICS INC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tifosi Optics, Inc. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Tifosi Optics, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04405 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Tifosi Optics -- https://tifosioptics.com/ -- is a leader in sport sunglasses for cycling, running, golf, pickleball and tennis.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com TMS HEALTH PARTNERS: Still Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TMS Health Partners, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Dannyelle Still, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. TMS Health Partners, LLC, et al, Case No. 23CV002270 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 24, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." TMS Health, LLC operates as a health care communications company.[BN] TMX FINANCE: Kolstedt Seeks to Suspend Class Certification Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAVANNAH KOLSTEDT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. TMX FINANCE CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-00076-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order suspending or tolling the deadline for filing a motion for class certification. Pursuant to Local Rule 23.2 for the Southern District of Georgia, the Plaintiff is required to file her Motion for Class Certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 no later than "90 days after the filing of a complaint in a class action." Here, the current deadline is Thursday, June 29, 2023. On April 4, 2023, the Defendant was served with the Complaint giving the Defendants through April 25, 2023, within which to file a responsive pleading. On April 20, 2023, the Defendant filed its Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint which was granted on April 26, 2023 allowing the Defendant through June 9, 2023 within which to file a response to the Complaint. The Plaintiff filed the class action complaint on March 31, 2023. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3q6AXB2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Marcio W. Valladares, Esq. Ryan D. Maxey, Esq. Ra O. Amen, Esq. Seth Diamond, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION DIVISION 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com mvalladares@ForThePeople.com rmaxey@ForThePeople.com ramen@ForThePeople.com sdiamond@forthepeople.com TORONTO-DOMINION: Arbitrage Fund Sues Over Drop in Share Price -------------------------------------------------------------- THE ARBITRAGE FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE TORONTO-DOMINION BANK; BHARAT B. MASRANI; KELVIN VI LUAN TRAN; and LEO SALOM, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02763 (D.N.J., May 22, 2023) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired securities of First Horizon Corporation ("First Horizon") between February 28, 2022 and May 3, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"), against TD Bank and certain of its officers (collectively "Defendants") seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). According to the complaint, the market began to learn the truth on March 1, 2023, when First Horizon noted in its annual filing on Form 10-K that TD Bank was unable to timely close the transaction because it could not obtain the necessary regulatory approvals. Indeed, the filing made clear that TD Bank had previously extended the outside closing date to May 27, 2023, but had recently informed First Horizon that TD Bank was unable to close the transaction even by that late date. The Form 10-K also noted that "TD cannot provide a new projected closing date at this time." In response to these revelations, the price of First Horizon shares dropped 10.6 per cent, from a close of $24.77 per share on February 28, 2023, to a close of $22.14 per share on March 1, 2023. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts, misleading statements, and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of First Horizon's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members, have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. TORONTO-DOMINION BANK, doing business as TD Bank Group, is a Canadian multinational banking and financial services corporation headquartered in Toronto, Ontario. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Kevin Cooper, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com kcooper@carellabyrne.com - and - Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq. Robert N. Cappucci, Esq. Jonathan H. Beemer, Esq. ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI, LLP 230 Park Avenue, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 894-7200 Facsimile: (212) 894-7272 Email: vcappucci@entwistle-law.com rcappucci@entwistle-law.com jbeemer@entwistle-law.com - and - Steven B. Singer, Esq. David J. Schwartz, Esq. Rachel A. Avan, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 10 Bank Street, Suite 882 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 437-8551 Facsimile: (888) 631-3611 Email: ssinger@saxenawhite.com dschwartz@saxenawhite.com ravan@saxenawhite.com TUSCANY MARBLE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cano Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ LUIS CANO; REYES WILFREDO FUNES ROMERO; KEVIN ZELAYA; and JOSE NELSON IRAHETA, individually and behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JOHN ARMATO; YVETTE ARMATO a/k/a/ YVETTE BAHAMONDE; TUSCANY MARBLE AND GRANITE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-03812 (E.D.N.Y., May 22, 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 as laborers. TUSCANY MARBLE AND GRANITE INC. is a company that operates in the building materials industry, fabricating and installing granite and stone countertops and slabs. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher Marlborough, Esq. THE MARLBOROUGH LAW FIRM, P.C 375 Sunrise Highway, Suite 3 Lynbrook, NY 11563 Telephone: (212) 991-8960 Email: chris@marlboroughlawfirm.com - and - Bruce McBrien, Esq. MCBRIEN LAW PC 140 Fell Ct. Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 406-9799 Email: bmcbrien@mcbrienlaw.com UNI PRODUCTS INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Uni Products, Inc. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Uni Products, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04310 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Uni Products Inc. operates as a metal sourcing solutions. The Company offers offers solutions to toll processors, fabricators, foundries, primary producing mills, and recycling centers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com UNITED SODAS OF AMERICA: Morgan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Sodas of America, Inc. The case is styled as Paradise Morgan, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. United Sodas of America, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04309 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. United Sodas -- https://unitedsodas.com/ -- is a new, healthier beverage with 12 premium flavors, 30 calories, organically sweetened with nothing artificial.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com UNITED STATES: HACA Residents Cannot Sue HUD Over Underfunding -------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Ritzel of Capital Gazette reports that the city of Annapolis cannot sue the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for underfunding its public housing communities, a federal judge has ruled. The decision issued earlier this month by U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake means the federal housing agency cannot be held liable in a potentially expensive class action lawsuit brought by two Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis residents. The city, however, could still be required to pay damages to roughly 1,600 people, if so ordered by a court and a jury. HACA could be liable as well. Blake's May 11 ruling states that at least for now, the city's counterclaim drawing the housing authority into the class action suit stands. "The court declines to dismiss the city's indemnification claim at this procedural state," Blake wrote. HACA's attorney Carrie Blackburn Riley had lobbied for the city to be held solely liable. "We are disappointed and find the ruling unfortunate," Blackburn Riley said in a statement. A spokesperson for HUD said the federal agency has "no comment at this time." However, in her strongly worded December court filing, U.S. Assistant Attorney Ariana Wright Arnold said the city's attempt to draw HUD into the class action was a classic, "it was him, not me" attempt to shift blame. By claiming that HUD failed to provide adequate federal subsidies for HACA, what the city had mounted was "a challenge to congressional appropriations for public housing rather than to HUD's administration of those funds." Such a challenge, Arnold wrote, is a "broad programmatic attack on the government's operations," that should be lobbied for in Washington, D.C., not in a U.S. District Court. The class action lawsuit, filed in May 2021, follows a 2020 settlement, also overseen by Blake, that awarded 52 public housing plaintiffs a combined $1.8 million in payouts from the city and HACA. In that case, brought by Annapolis attorney Joe Donahue, plaintiffs, led by resident Heaven White, argued they were discriminated against when Mayor Gavin Buckley halted city inspections and licensing procedures at nearly 800 housing authority units. "The White plaintiffs alleged that the city's decision not to enforce inspection and licensing requirements on public housing units disparately impacted African Americans," Blake wrote, summarizing the previous case in her May ruling. According to census data, Blake noted, the overwhelming majority of HACA residents are Black. Although the city began requiring rental licenses and inspections in the 1980s, HACA was not subject to those regulations until former Mayor Mike Pantelides increased oversight in 2016. "But Annapolis would soon return to neglecting public housing," Blake wrote, once Pantelidies was defeated and Buckley's "non-inspection regime" took office in 2017. Evidence in the White case revealed that Buckley and former HACA director Beverly Wilbourn mutually agreed to halt inspections, which Wilbourn said placed an "unfunded mandate" on the housing authority to improve living conditions at the properties. In the aftermath of the White case, the city and HACA signed a consent decree mandating annual inspections at all six HACA properties. The class action case will decide whether all residents who were living in authority housing after Buckley halted inspections could be entitled to damages similar to those plaintiffs received in the White case. Residents will automatically become plaintiffs in the case unless they opt out. Donahue estimates that the class action could ultimately include 1,600 residents. "This decision to dismiss HUD narrows the issues," Donahue said in a statement. "The focus is now on the city's deliberate policy of refusing to require licensing and inspection of HACA's rental properties. At the same time, every other rental property in Annapolis is required to be licensed and inspected. Although African Americans comprise about 20% of the city's residents overall, more than 90% of HACA residents are African American. In light of this substantial disparate impact, we contend that the city's policy discriminates on the basis of race. The court's recent decision gets us one step closer to obtaining a final resolution to the discrimination claims which are at the heart of the lawsuit." In its counterclaim against HUD and HACA, the city acknowledged that discrimination did occur, but Annapolis attorneys said that the federal government was doing the discriminating, not the city. Blake didn't buy that argument. And even if HUD did discriminate against HACA residents, Blake said the residents would need to sue the federal agency, not the city. [GN] UNITED STATES: Inmate Released From DOC Amid Medical Care Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Manabat of Marianas Variety reports that PRICE Shoiter, an inmate who sued the Department of Corrections and its officials in federal court for inadequate medical care, has been "removed" from the CNMI by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE on May 6, 2023, Assistant Attorney General Leslie Healer said. Healer represents Corrections officials in the lawsuit and is opposing Shoiter's motion to compel the production of documents. "Plaintiff was released from the custody of the Department of Corrections to the custody of ICE on May 6, 2023. ICE removed Shoiter from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands on the same date. Plaintiff's release from DOC custody rendered his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief moot, thereby also rendering his motion to compel moot," Healer said. Citing previous rulings, Healer added, "An inmate's release from prison while his claims are pending generally will moot any claims for injunctive relief relating to the prison's policies unless the suit has been certified as a class action." "Because Plaintiff's claims against the official capacity defendant for injunctive and declaratory relief are now moot, this Court lacks jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to these particular claims," Healer said. Healer also noted that the documents which Shoiter seeks to compel in discovery are protected for privacy reasons. "If DOC were to disclose protected health information of inmates without their consent, this could place DOC in violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and could subject the agency to suit," she said. Shoiter's request for documents pertaining to the grievances of other inmates regarding medical concerns would be prohibited for privacy reasons because the grievances likely contain confidential health information of the individual inmates, Healer added. "The documents sought by plaintiff are not relevant to the pending claims and would be unduly burdensome to produce," Healer said. "The medical records of other inmates are not relevant to a defendant's claims of deliberate indifference against a doctor at a correctional facility and a request for such records is not proportional to the needs of the case," Healer said. She has filed a motion to dismiss and, if it is successful, it would "dispose of plaintiff's claims and obviate the need for any remaining discovery requested by plaintiff. That motion will be heard on the same day as the motion to compel and the motion for a protective order." Healer asked the court to withhold consideration of Shoiter's motion pending the court's ruling on the motion to dismiss. "Defendant has sufficiently responded to plaintiff's discovery requests and any additional discovery at this stage is unwarranted. The Court should therefore deny the motion to compel," she added. A hearing has been scheduled for June 16 at 9 a.m. In February 2022, Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona of the District Court for the NMI issued an order granting Shoiter's request to set aside a previous dismissal order entered by the court in his case. Represented by attorney Michael Dotts, Shoiter, a 74-year-old Chuukese national who was sentenced in 2016 to a 10-year prison sentence for sexually abusing a 7-year-old girl, sued the Department of Corrections and its officials in federal court, alleging that he was denied adequate medical care. In February 2021, a settlement agreement was signed by all parties, but contingent on the then-governor's approval of Shoiter's application for conditional clemency. Under the settlement agreement, Shoiter, among other things, was to receive conditional clemency, heart surgery and knee surgery before a certain deadline, and payment to his counsel of a lump sum amount to cover his damages. But the then-governor denied Shoiter's application for conditional clemency. Dotts said the settlement agreement provided that, in the event that clemency was denied by the governor, the case would be put back on the trial calendar. [GN] UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against University of Pennsylvania. The case is styled as Joseph Ortiz, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. University of Pennsylvania, Case No. 1:23-cv-04420-ER (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The University of Pennsylvania -- https://www.upenn.edu/ -- often abbreviated simply as Penn or UPenn, is a private Ivy League research university in Philadelphia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO: Class Cert. Hearing Continued to June 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martinez, et al., v. University of San Diego, Case No. 3:20-cv-01946-LAB-WVG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Larry Alan Burns entered an order continuing hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification to June 6, 2023. The University of San Diego is a private Roman Catholic research university in San Diego, California. A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43bshIm at no extra charge.[CC] VOYAGE RUN CO: Morgan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Voyage Run Co. The case is styled as Paradise Morgan, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Voyage Run Co., Case No. 1:23-cv-04307 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. United Sodas -- https://unitedsodas.com/ -- is a new, healthier beverage with 12 premium flavors, 30 calories, organically sweetened with nothing artificial.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com WAKE COUNTY, NC: Sherrif Sued Over Unfair eCourt Implementation --------------------------------------------------------------- TIMIA CHAPLIN; and PAULINO CASTELLANOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WILLIE R. ROWE, in his official capacity as the Sheriff of Wake County; JOHN DOE SURETY, as surety for the Sheriff of Wake County; BRIAN ESTES, in his official capacity as the Sheriff of Lee County; JOHN DOE SURETY, as surety for the Sheriff of Lee County; TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00423 (M.D.N.C., May 23, 2023) is class action seeking to remedy past harms and prevent future violations on eCourt implementation in North Carolina's remaining counties. According to the complaint, the eCourt software implementations by the Defendant Tyler Technologies, Inc. ("Tyler Technologies") led to well-documented cases of overdetention, wrongful arrest, and the like. The Defendants were aware that the same thing could happen here. But they forged ahead without any failsafe or alternative in place. The Defendants knew or should have known that, if implemented without due care, eCourts could lead to unlawful detentions and unlawful arrests, among other violations of North Carolinians’ constitutional and other legal rights. Nonetheless, the Defendants hastily forged ahead with the eCourts roll-out—insisting that attorneys, judges, and court staff utilize the software even as defects were known and should have been known, says the suit. WAKE COUNTY is located in the northeast central region of North Carolina, where the North American Piedmont and Atlantic Coastal Plain regions meet. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gagan Gupta, Esq. Abraham Rubert-Schewel, Esq. Zachary William Ezor, Esq. TIN FULTON WALKER & OWEN PLLC 115 E. Main Street Durham, NC 27701 Telephone: (919) 307-8400 Email: ggupta@tinfulton.com schewel@tinfulton.com zezor@tinfulton.com WALT DISNEY: James and Sevesind Sue Over Invasion of Privacy ------------------------------------------------------------ AMIN JAMES and DAVID SEVESIND, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-02500-TSH (N.D. Cal., May 22,2023) arises out of the Defendant's violations of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The Defendant allegedly procured the wiretapping of electronic communications of visitors to ESPN.com by third party Oracle America, Inc. Through its Blue Kai Pixel, Oracle, as procured by Disney, secretly observed, recorded, and otherwise intercepted website visitors' electronic communications with Defendant and used that data to improve its own marketing and analytical capabilities, as well as those of Defendant. The Walt Disney Co. is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business at 500 South Buena Vista Street, Burbank, CA. The company owns and operates ESPN.com. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com WALZ CAPS INC: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walz Caps Inc. The case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Walz Caps Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04397 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Walz Caps -- https://www.walzcaps.com/ -- makes cotton, wool, and technical cycling caps.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com WEBSTER BANK: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Tuccitto Sullo at hartfordbusiness.com reports that a class action lawsuit against Stamford-based Webster Bank claims nearly 200,000 customers' personal information was exposed in a data breach, putting them at risk for harm through identity theft and fraud. The lawsuit was filed May 15 in U.S. District Court in New Haven and names Webster Financial and Webster Bank as defendants. The named plaintiffs include bank customers Justin Friar, Paul Courey, Rayna Fedorczyk and Maria Melo and all others impacted by the breach. The case has been assigned to Judge Janet C. Hall. The lawsuit alleges 191,563 bank customers were impacted, including 153,754 customers who live in Connecticut. It accuses Webster Bank of negligence and breach of contract for allegedly failing to ensure adequate security measures were in place to prevent customers' private information from being disclosed. It also asserts that the bank failed to notify customers in a timely fashion. Attorney Ian Sloss of Silver Golub & Teitell, who is representing the plaintiffs, could not be reached for comment. The law firm announced in April it was investigating a potential class action in connection with the data breach. Elaine K. Ficarra, a spokeswoman for Webster Bank, said via email, "We do not comment on pending litigation. Webster has communicated with regulators and affected Webster clients. Webster's own systems have not been compromised nor were they impacted by this incident. We apologize for the inconvenience this caused our clients." The lawsuit claims information such as customers' names, bank account numbers and Social Security numbers were compromised. It alleges Webster's data protection security program and monitoring of vendors entrusted with customer information were "all woefully inadequate." According to the lawsuit, Webster Bank retained Guardian Analytics Inc. to provide fraud detection services. The lawsuit alleges that on Jan. 26, 2023, Webster first learned that, beginning on Nov. 27, 2022, an unauthorized third party obtained customers' personal information by accessing Guardian Analytics' systems. The unauthorized access continued undetected for nearly two full months, ending around Jan. 22, 2023. The stolen customer data has already been found for sale on the dark web, according to the lawsuit. The litigation alleges that while Webster learned of the data breach in January, it didn't begin notifying customers that their personal information had been compromised until April 10, depriving them of an opportunity to take steps to protect themselves and minimize the impact of the breach. The lawsuit asserts the plaintiffs are now at increased risk of identity theft and fraud, causing them anxiety and emotional distress. It seeks damages and injunctive relief, including requiring the bank to adopt measures to safeguard customers against future breaches. Elizabeth Benton, a spokesperson for Attorney General William Tong's office, confirmed that Tong's office has been in contact with Webster Bank and is looking into the circumstances surrounding the data breach. Benton indicated it is "too soon to comment" on any potential enforcement action. A separate class action lawsuit stemming from the data breach was filed in U.S. District Court in Connecticut in early May. That action was filed by law firms Turke & Strauss LLP in Wisconsin and Attorney Kelly Fitzpatrick of Bridgeport-based firm Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder. [GN] WEBSTER FINANCIAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Baker Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- PERRY BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WEBSTER FINANCIAL CORPORATION; and WEBSTER BANK, N.A., Defendants, Case No.: 3:23-cv-00666 (D. Conn., May 22, 2023) is class action against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard the personal identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information"), including the names, Social Security numbers, and financial account numbers, of customers of Webster Bank. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that by obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of the Plaintiff and Class Members, the Defendants assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access, intrusion, and disclosure. Because of the highly sensitive and personal nature of the information the Defendants acquire and store with respect to their customers, the Defendants' duties and obligations to the Plaintiff and Class Members included, but were not limited to, keeping their Private Information private; complying with industry standards related to data security and the maintenance of their customers' Private Information; informing their customers of their legal duties relating to data security and complying with all federal and state laws protecting customers' Private Information; only using and releasing customers' Private Information for reasons that relate to the services they provide; and providing timely and adequate notice to customers if their Private Information is disclosed without authorization, says the suit. WEBSTER FINANCIAL CORPORATION is a bank holding company. The Company's banking subsidiary provides a wide range of financial services to individuals, families, and businesses throughout southern New England and eastern New York State. Webster provides business and consumer banking, mortgage lending, financial planning, trust and investment services, as well as Internet banking. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ian W. Sloss, Esq. Zachary A. Rynar, Esq. SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP One Landmark Square, Floor 15 Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (203) 325-4491 Facsimile: (203) 325-3769 Email: isloss@sgtlaw.com zrynar@sgtlaw.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq. Laura Edmondson, Esq. THE JOHNSON FIRM 610 President Clinton Ave., Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 372-1300 Email: chris@yourattorney.com tyler@yourattorney.com ledmondson@yourattorney.com - and - Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Jason P. Johnston, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. Rachel K. Tack, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com jason.johnston@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com rachel.tack@zimmreed.com WELLS FARGO: Morris Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo & Company, et al. The case is styled as Anthony Morris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo & Company, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., Case No. CGC23606682 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 23, 2023). The case type is stated as "Business Tort." Wells Fargo & Company -- http://www.wellsfargo.com/-- is an American multinational financial services company with a significant global presence.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 1 Montgomery St., Ste. 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-288-4545 Fax: 415-288-4534 Email: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com WILHELMINA INT'L: Continues to Defend Shanklin Class Suit in N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wilhelmina International 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 11, 2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Shanklin class suit in the New York State Supreme Court (New York County). On October 24, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was brought against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and others, including Louisa Raske, Carina Vretman, Grecia Palomares and Michelle Griffin Trotter (the "Shanklin Litigation"), in New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same lead counsel who represented plaintiffs in a prior, now-dismissed action brought by Louisa Raske (the "Raske Litigation"). The claims in the Shanklin Litigation initially included breach of contract and unjust enrichment allegations arising out of matters similar to the Raske Litigation, such as the handling and reporting of funds on behalf of models and the use of model images. Other parties named as defendants in the Shanklin Litigation included other model management companies, advertising firms, and certain advertisers. On January 6, 2014, the Company moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and other grounds, and other defendants also filed motions to dismiss. On August 11, 2014, the court denied the motion to dismiss as to Wilhelmina and other of the model management defendants. Separately, on March 3, 2014, the judge assigned to the Shanklin Litigation wrote the Office of the New York Attorney General bringing the case to its attention, generally describing the claims asserted therein against the model management defendants, and stating that the case "may involve matters in the public interest." The judge's letter also enclosed a copy of his decision in the Raske Litigation, which dismissed that case. Plaintiffs retained substitute counsel, who filed a Second and then Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint asserts causes of action for alleged breaches of the plaintiffs' management contracts with the defendants, conversion, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. The Third Amended Complaint also alleges that the plaintiff models were at all relevant times employees, and not independent contractors, of the model management defendants, and that defendants violated the New York Labor Law in several respects, including, among other things, by allegedly failing to pay the models the minimum wages and overtime pay required thereunder, not maintaining accurate payroll records, and not providing plaintiffs with full explanations of how their wages and deductions therefrom were computed. The Third Amended Complaint seeks certification of the action as a class action, damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court deems proper. On October 6, 2015, Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss as to most of the plaintiffs' claims. The Court entered a decision granting in part and denying in part Wilhelmina's motion to dismiss on May 26, 2017. The Court (i) dismissed three of the five New York Labor Law causes of action, along with the conversion, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment causes of action, in their entirety, and (ii) permitted only the breach of contract causes of action, and some plaintiffs' remaining two New York Labor Law causes of action to continue, within a limited time frame. The plaintiffs and Wilhelmina each appealed, and the decision was affirmed on May 24, 2018. On August 16, 2017, Wilhelmina timely filed its Answer to the Third Amended Complaint. On June 6, 2016, another putative class action lawsuit was brought against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Shawn Pressley and others, including Roberta Little (the "Pressley Litigation"), in New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same counsel representing the plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation, and asserting identical, although more recent, claims as those in the Shanklin Litigation. The Amended Complaint, asserting essentially the same types of claims as in the Shanklin action, was filed on August 16, 2017. Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on September 29, 2017, which was granted in part and denied in part on May 10, 2018. Some New York Labor Law and contract claims remain in the case. Pressley has withdrawn from the case, leaving Roberta Little as the sole remaining named plaintiff in the Pressley Litigation. On July 12, 2019, the Company filed its Answer and Counterclaim against Little. On May 1, 2019, the Plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation (except Raske) and the Pressley Litigation filed motions for class certification on their contract claims and the remaining New York Labor Law Claims. On July 12, 2019, Wilhelmina filed its opposition to the motions for class certification and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment against Shanklin, Vretman, Palomares, Trotter and Little, and a motion for summary judgment against Raske. By Order dated May 8, 2020 (the "Class Certification Order"), the Court denied class certification in the Pressley case, denied class certification with respect to the breach of contract and alleged unpaid usage claims, granted class certification as to the New York Labor Law causes of action asserted by Vretman, Palomares and Trotter, and declined to rule on Wilhelmina's motions for summary judgment, denying them without prejudice to be re-filed at a later date. Currently the parties are engaging in merits discovery. The Company believes the claims asserted in the Shanklin Litigation and Pressley Litigation are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend the actions. Wilhelmina International, Inc. primarily engages in the fashion model management business. It specializes in the representation and management of models, entertainers, artists, athletes, and other talent to various clients, including retailers, designers, advertising agencies, print and electronic media and catalog companies. Wilhelmina International, Inc. was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Conneran Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Marilyn Conneran, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC., Case No. CACE-23-012282 was removed from the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Broward County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on May 25, 2023, and assigned Case No. 0:23-cv-60986-XXXX. The Plaintiff's single-count Complaint seeks relief from Defendant, on behalf of herself and a putative class of similarly-situated persons, for allegedly making or causing to be made multiple unlawful "telephonic sales calls" without the "prior express written consent" of Plaintiff and the putative class members, purportedly violating the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA").[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Josh A. Migdal, Esq. Yaniv Adar, Esq. MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN 80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 1999 Miami, FL 33130 Phone: (305) 374-0440 Email: josh@markmigdal.com yaniv@markmigdal.com eservice@markmigdal.com [*] Vallecitos School District Joins Suit Against Social Media Cos. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Naiman at Village News Reporter reports that the Vallecitos School District joined a class action lawsuit against social media companies. The Vallecitos board voted 4-0 May 9, with one vacancy, to approve a legal services agreement with Frantz Law Group for the purpose of the litigation with the social media companies. The agreement designates Vallecitos School District superintendent Meliton Sanchez or his designee as the school district representative to work with the Frantz Law Group attorneys. [GN] ********* 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 ***