/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230620.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, June 20, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 123 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Broy Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Burks Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams 3M COMPANY: Hastings Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Sayer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Smith Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Tow Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 800-FLOWERS INC: Tate Suit Removed to C.D. California ACCESSORIES INTERNATIONAL: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ALBANY ENT: Kovalsky Files Suit in N.D. New York ALBANY ENT: Nelson Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI ALTO PHARMACY: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York AMENTUM SERVICES: Lafon Suit Removed to S.D. California AMERICAN AIRLINES: Spence Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties AMERICOR FUNDING: Scott Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia AMTEL LLC: Gray Files Suit in N.D. Texas AMTEL LLC: Sears Files Suit in N.D. Texas AMTEL LLC: Tighe Files Suit in N.D. Texas APOLLO DESIGN: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York APPLE INC: Class Action Settlement in MacBook Suit Gets Final Nod BALDWIN RISK PARTNERS: Harris Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Alabama BECKETT & ROBB: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BODY & POLE: Class & Collective Action Settlement Gets Final Nod BOHEMIAN CLUB: Gregg Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensations BRANDSAFWAY SERVICES: Moore Suit Removed to C.D. California BRODER BROS: Ung Suit Removed to E.D. California BUDDI US: Filing for Class Certification Bid Continued to Sept. 11 BUSINESS & PLEASURE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CAPITAL ONE: Davis Seeks to File Class Cert Documents Under Seal CARGUARD ADMINISTRATION: Workman Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona CARNIVAL CORP: Hernandez Suit Transferred to S.D. California COLETTE PETERS: Cicchiello Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia COLETTE PETERS: Fetterman Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia COLETTE PETERS: Hawkins Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia COLETTE PETERS: Macedo-Flores Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia COLETTE PETERS: Phillips Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia COLETTE PETERS: Pittman Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS: Underwood Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee DESERT HAVEN: Franklin Suit Removed to E.D. California DISH NETWORK: Jenkins Files Suit in D. Colorado DLP CONEMAUGH: Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania EL BANDIDO: Acevedo Conditional Class Cert Bid Tossed EXCELA HEALTH: Galley-Keller Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania FAIRFIELD, OH: Court Certifies Class of Arrestees in Caddell Suit FCA US: Paolucci Files Suit in D. New Jersey FIRST ADVANTAGE: Grijalva Wins Leave to Amend Complaint Under FCRA FONTAINEBLEAU RESORTS: McDowell Files Suit in S.D. Florida FORD MOTOR: Caricofe Files ADA Suit in S.D. California FRANK STRADA: Hart Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners FUNKO INC: Studen Sues Over False and Misleading Statements GAMESTOP INC: Coulter Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GEICO INDEMNITY: Bid to Clarify May 9 Order Granted in Malcom Suit GEORGIA: Mignott Racial Discrimination Suit Seeks to Certify Class GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Morris Suit Moved to District of New Jersey GOOGLE INC: July 14 Extension for Class Cert Filing Sought GOTHAM PODIATRY: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York HAT WORLD: Palma Suit Removed to C.D. California HEAT WAVE VISUAL: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HIGGINS CRAB: Ward Seeks Conditional Cert. of Tipped Workers Class HIGHWAY AUTOMOTIVE: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due Nov. 20 HYATT CORPORATION: Granados Suit Removed to S.D. California IFIT INC: Douglass Files ADA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania J. B. PRITZKER: Ramirez Files Suit in S.D. Illinois JOHNS MANVILLE: Martinez Suit Removed to E.D. California KIMBERLY-CLARK: Cooper Suit Removed to C.D. California KSF ACQUISITION: McCracken "SlimFast" Suit Seeks to Certify Class LEATHERWORKS INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LIMLEARTVATE: Court Denies Conditional Certification in Banjong LISA PAIGE LLC: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LVNV FUNDING: Ct. Tosses Bid to Vacate Jan 9 Order in McCorker Suit M2 INGREDIENTS: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MANHATTAN CARDIOLOGY: Saveth Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York MATRIX ABSENCE: Bid for Summary Judgment Partly Granted in Weeks MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Villanueva Sues Over Wage and Hour Violations MCGEE AIR SERVICES: Price Suit Removed to N.D. California MDL 2936: Court Enters Class Certification Deadlines in Smitty's METAIRIE TOWERS: AVMI LLC Suit Removed to E.D. Louisiana MHM HEALTH: Completion of Class Discovery in Lewis Set for July 31 MICHAEL PRIES: McCollum Class Cert Bid Nixed w/o Prejudice MINNESOTA 3PL LLC: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Poe Bid to File Class Cert Under Seal OK'd OHIO SECURITY: LVB Partial Summary Judgment Bid Tossed PAUL MOSS INSURANCE: Discovery on Individual Pavelka Claims Cont'd QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Perez Suit Removed to C.D. California RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Borozny's Bid to Review Footnote Six Denied REPUBLIC SERVICES: Buffalo's Bid to Amend Complaint Granted in Part SENEX LAW: Court Grants Lord's Bid for Partial Summary Judgment SOLARJUICE AMERICAN: Leach Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. STAKE CENTER LOCATING: Wolfe Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania STITCH FIX INC: Morrow Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TEMPO CANTINA: Trujillo Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation UNION SECURITY: Completion of Discovery Depositions Due August 11 UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan ********* 3M COMPANY: Broy Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Kari Broy, Mye Elliott, Scotty Ponce, Christy Ehli, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 3M Company, Decra Roofing Systems, Inc., Doe Defendants 1-100, inclusive Case No. 5:23-cv-00194 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on June 6, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02494-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Tort Product Liability. 3M -- https://www.3m.com/ -- (originally the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company) is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard D. McCune, Esq. David C. Wrightm Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP 3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100 Ontario, CA 91761 Phone: (909) 557-1250 Fax: (909) 557-1275 Email: rdm@mccunewright.com dcw@mccunewright.com The Defendants are represented by: Daniel David Queen, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 350 South Grand Avenue 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 229-9500 Fax: (213) 625-0248 Email: dqueen@mayerbrown.com - and - Daniel R. Campbell, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL AND EMERY LLP 444 West Lake Street Suite 4000 Chicago, IL 60606-0029 Phone: (312) 984-2167 Fax: (312) 276-9691 Email: dcampbell@mwe.com - and - Tala Toufanian Jayadevan, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL AND EMERY 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3800 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 284-6148 Fax: (310) 317-7398 Email: tjayadevan@mwe.com 3M COMPANY: Burks Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams --------------------------------------------------- Vernon Burks and Lynda Burks, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA US, INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHE-MDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHE-MGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS, INC., f/k/a DowDuPont, Inc.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DV PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C., INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC., a/Wa Chubb National Foam; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UNITED CORPORATION; UTC FIRE AMERICAS CORPORATION, Interlogix, Inc., TECHNOLOGIES & SECURITIES INC., f/n/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-02465-RMG (D.S.C., June 5, 2023), is brought for personal injury damages 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 PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, 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 Vernon Burks in their intended manner, without significant change in the products’ condition. Plaintiff Vernon Burks 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 Vernon Burks’ 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, Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants’ AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff Vernon Burks’ training and firefighting activities. Plaintiffs further seek 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 active fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants’ AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF or underlying PFAS containing PFOA or PFOS chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles R. Houssiere, III, Esq. Michael R. Null, Esq. HOUSSIERE, DURANT & HOUSSIERE, LLP 1990 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 800 Houston, TX 77056-3812 Phone: 713-626-3700 Facsimile: 713-626-3709 Email: choussiere@hdhtex.com mnull@hdhtex.com 3M COMPANY: Hastings Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------- Susan Hastings, as Personal Representative/Administrator/Executor of the Estate of ROBIN ALONZO HASTINGS II, deceased, 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.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGCARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DC PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; 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; CTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-02506-RMG (D.S.C. June 6, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury and death resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (“AFFF”) and firefighter turnout gear (“TOG”) 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. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. 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 or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, 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 or TOG 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 or TOG products were used by the Decedent in their intended manner, without significant change in the products’ condition. Decedent was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants’ AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants’ instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Decedent’s consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant’s AFFF or TOG products caused Decedent to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants’ AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of Decedent’s training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Susan Hastings is the duly-appointed personal representative/administrator/executor of the Estate of Robin Alonzo Hastings II who 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 kidney cancer and bladder cancer 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: 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: Sayer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Douglas Sayer, 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-02358-RMG (D.S.C., May 31, 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 erectile dysfunction 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 Chemicals & Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Vain Smith and Patricia Smith, 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-02355-RMG (D.S.C., May 31, 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 Vain Smith regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career, and was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma 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: Tow Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams -------------------------------------------------------------- Ronald Tow, 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-02360-RMG (D.S.C., May 31, 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 COPD 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 800-FLOWERS INC: Tate Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Damon Tate, Alba Vargas, Natasha Paracha, Brittany Mansfield, Ian Chen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 800-Flowers, Inc. doing business as: 1-800-Flowers.com, Case No. 23STCV08774 was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 2, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04340-AB-PVC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. 800-Flowers, Inc. doing business as c1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. -- http://www.1800flowers.com/-- is a floral and foods gift retailer and distribution company in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. Armen Zohrabian, Esq. David William Hall, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 203-4573 Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com azohrabian@hedinhall.com dhall@hedinhall.com The Defendants is represented by: Ari N. Rothman, Esq. Allison C. Nelson, Esq. VENABLE LLP 2049 Century Park East Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 229-9900 Fax: (310) 229-9901 Email: ANRothman@venable.com acnelson@venable.com ACCESSORIES INTERNATIONAL: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Accessories International, Inc. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Accessories International, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04799 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Accessories International, Inc. -- https://www.accessoryinternational.com/ -- has been selling motorcycle parts and accessories online since 1998.[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 ALBANY ENT: Kovalsky Files Suit in N.D. New York ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Albany ENT & Allergy Services P.C. The case is styled as Christina Kovalsky, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Albany ENT & Allergy Services P.C., Case No. 1:23-cv-00669-BKS-CFH (N.D.N.Y., June 5, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Personal Injury. Albany ENT and Allergy Services, PC -- https://albanyentandallergy.com/ -- is a medical group practice located in Albany, New York that specializes in Orthopedic Surgery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph D. Monaco, III, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH MONACO 800 Kinderkamack Road-Suite 202 South Oradell, NJ 07649 Phone: (212) 486-4244 Fax: (212) 486-4244 Email: jmonaco@monaco-law.com ALBANY ENT: Nelson Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI -------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Nelson, on behalf of herself and her minor son, E.N-H., and all others similarly situated v. ALBANY ENT & ALLERGY SERVICES, PC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00680-BKS-CFH (N.D.N.Y., June 7, 2023), is brought against AENT for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former AENT patients' and employees', including minors' (collectively defined herein as the "Class" or "Class Members"), personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI"), including names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, medical histories and treatments (collectively, the "Private Information") from multiple criminal ransomware gangs. On May 25, 2023, AENT filed official notice of what it referred to as a "data event" with the Maine Attorney General's Office. It was around this same time when AENT also sent out data breach notice letters (the "Notice") to individuals whose Private Information was compromised as a result of the event. Based on Defendant's Notice, it became aware of suspicious activity on its computer network on or around March 27, 2023. In response, Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the suspicious activity. AENT's investigation revealed that an unauthorized party had access to certain files that contained sensitive patient and employee personal and health information, and that such access took place between March 23, 2023 and April 4, 2023 (the "Data Breach"). As a result of Defendant's Data Breach, and in light of their Private Information now being in the hands of cybercriminals, Plaintiff and Class Members were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. This substantial and imminent risk will remain for their respective lifetimes. AENT failed to properly monitor and implement adequate data security practices with regard to its computer network and systems that housed Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. Had AENT properly monitored its networks and implemented adequate data security practices, it could have prevented the Data Breach or, at the very least, discovered the Data Breach sooner. Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of AENT's negligent conduct, which led to the Private Information that it collected and maintained falling into the hands of data thieves and other unauthorized third parties. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself, her minor son, and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed and exfiltrated during the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Nelson and her son are individual citizens of the State of New York. AENT, based in Albany, New York, is a medical practice focusing on ear, nose, throat, and neck disorders, as well as allergy testing and immunotherapy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mason A. Barney, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (212) 532-1091 Email: mbarney@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com ALTO PHARMACY: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alto Pharmacy LLC. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Alto Pharmacy LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04103-BMC (E.D.N.Y., June 2, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Alto -- https://alto.com/ -- is America's leading digital pharmacy with free hand-delivery, easy-to-reach pharmacists, and automatic savings investigations.[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 AMENTUM SERVICES: Lafon Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Marco Lafon, and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AMENTUM SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 37-2023-00016985-CU-OE-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on June 2, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01037-DMS-JLB. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges thirteen causes of action for: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Pay all Wages and Minimum Wages in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Provide Meal Periods in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Comply with Cal. Labor Code; Failure to Timely Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment in Violation of Labor Code; Waiting Time Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Provide Sick Pay in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Provide Fresh Drinking Water pursuant to Labor Code; Failure to Provide Suitable Seating in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Adopt Standards that Minimize Excessive Indoor Heat in Violation of California Labor Code; and Violation of Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Guillermo A. Escobedo, Esq. Lara P. Besser, Esq. William A. Llamas, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 225 Broadway, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 573-4900 Facsimile: (619) 573-4901 Email: Guillermo.escobedo@jacksonlewis.com Lara.besser@jacksonlewis.com William.llamas@jacksonlewis.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Spence Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties -------------------------------------------------------------- Bryan P. Spence, individually and as a representative of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. 401(K) PLAN and the AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. 401(K) PLAN FOR PILOTS v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., the AMERICAN AIRLINES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE, FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL, and FINANCIAL E, Case No. 4:23-cv-00552-O (N.D. Tex., June 2, 2023), is brought against the Defendants breach of fiduciary duties. The Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA by investing millions of dollars of American Airlines employees' retirement savings with investment managers and investment funds that pursue leftist political agendas through environmental, social and governance ("ESG") strategies, proxy voting, and shareholder activism activities which fail to satisfy these fiduciaries' statutory duties to maximize financial benefits in the sole interest of the Plan participants. The unlawful decision to pursue unrelated policy goals over the financial health of the Plan is not only flatly inconsistent with Defendants' fiduciary responsibilities, it jeopardizes the retirement security of hundreds of thousands of American Airlines employees. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit to remedy Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties and for injunctive relief to prevent further violations and mismanagement of the Plan, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Bryan P. Spence is an American Airlines pilot. American Airlines, Inc. is the "plan sponsor."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew B. Stephens, Esq. Heather G. Hacker, Esq. HACKER STEPHENS LLP 108 Wild Basin Rd. South, Suite 250 Austin, Texas 78746 Phone: (512) 399-3022 Email: andrew@hackerstephens.com heather@hackerstephens.com - and - Rex A. Sharp, Esq. SHARP LAW LLP 4280 West 75th St. Prairie Village, KN 66208 Phone: (913) 901-0505 Email: rsharp@midwest-law.com AMERICOR FUNDING: Scott Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Americor Funding, LLC. The case is styled as Kivon Scott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Americor Funding, LLC doing business as: Americor Financial, Case No. 1:23-cv-02457-VMC (N.D. Ga., June 1, 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: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 26 Grand Georgian Ct Cartersville, GA 30121 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com AMTEL LLC: Gray Files Suit in N.D. Texas ---------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amtel, LLC. The case is styled as Samantha Gray, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amtel, LLC, Connectivity Source LLC doing business as: Connectivity Source, Case No. 4:23-cv-00546-P (N.D. Tex., June 1, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Dispute. Amtel is one of the largest and fastest growing T-Mobile retailers in the United States, headquartered in the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC - DALLAS 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450 Dallas, TX 75219 Phone: (214) 744-3000 Fax: (214) 744-3015 Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and – David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN 5335 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Fax: (202) 686-2877 Email: dlietz@milberg.com - and – Gary M Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W Monroe St., Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com AMTEL LLC: Sears Files Suit in N.D. Texas ----------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amtel, LLC. The case is styled as A. Sears, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amtel, LLC, Connectivity Source LLC doing business as: Connectivity Source, Case No. 4:23-cv-00568-P (N.D. Tex., June 6, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Dispute. Amtel is one of the largest and fastest growing T-Mobile retailers in the United States, headquartered in the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC - DALLAS 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450 Dallas, TX 75219 Phone: (214) 744-3000 Fax: (214) 744-3015 Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com AMTEL LLC: Tighe Files Suit in N.D. Texas ----------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amtel, LLC. The case is styled as John Tighe, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Amtel, LLC, Connectivity Source LLC doing business as: Connectivity Source, Case No. 4:23-cv-00537-O (N.D. Tex., May 31, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Dispute. Amtel is one of the largest and fastest growing T-Mobile retailers in the United States, headquartered in the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC - DALLAS 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450 Dallas, TX 75219 Phone: (214) 744-3000 Fax: (214) 744-3015 Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Phone: (608) 237-1775 Fax: (608) 509-4423 Email: raina@turkestrauss.com APOLLO DESIGN: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apollo Design & Tech Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Apollo Design & Tech Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04686-PAE-SDA (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Apollo Design Technology, Inc. -- https://apollodesign.net/ -- has been one of the world's leading innovators, manufacturers and distributors of gobos, color filters.[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 APPLE INC: Class Action Settlement in MacBook Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit Re: MacBook Keyboard Litigation, Case No. 5:18-cv-02813-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila entered an order granting motion for final approval of proposed class action settlement, and granting motion for attorneys' fees and expenses, and service awards: -- Class Counsel is awarded $1,559,090.75 in litigation costs. -- The eleven Class Representatives and the Huey the Plaintiff are granted service awards of $5,000 each. -- Class Counsel is awarded $15,000,000 as attorneys' fees. Without affecting the finality of this order in any way, the Court retains jurisdiction of all matters relating to the interpretation, administration, implementation, effectuation and enforcement of this order and the Settlement, including the designation of a cy pres recipient should the need arise. The Plaintiffs request a $5,000 service award per Class Representative: (1) Zixuan Rao; (2) Joseph Baruch; (3) Bo Laurent; (4) Ashley Marin; (5) Kyle Barbaro; (6) Steve Eakin; (7) Michael Hopkins; (8) Adam Lee; (9) Kevin Melkowski; (10) Lorenzo Ferguson; (11) Benjamin Gulker. Each Class Representative responded to nineteen document requests, eight interrogatories, and requests for inspection of their Class Computers, and produced documents. The Court previously granted the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement on December 2, 2022. On January 6, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed motions for final approval of proposed class action settlement. On October 11, 2018, the Plaintiffs -- initially ten consumers from California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Washington -- filed a consolidated putative class action complaint against Apple. The Plaintiffs alleged a number of consumer protection and warranty claims stemming from an alleged defect in certain MacBook "butterfly" keyboards ("Class Computers"), purporting to represent a nationwide class and state-specific subclasses. The Plaintiffs alleged that their keyboards failed within a year and Apple failed to provide effective troubleshooting or repairs. The Class Settlement Agreement and Release defines the class as follows: "All persons and entities in the United States who purchased, other than for resale, one or more of the following Class Computers: MacBook (Retina, 12-inch, Early 2015), MacBook (Retina, 12-inch, Early 2016), MacBook (Retina, 12-inch, 2017), MacBook Air (Retina, 13-inch, 2018), MacBook Air (Retina, 13-inch, 2019), MacBook Pro (13-inch, 2016, Two Thunderbolt 3 Ports), MacBook Pro (13-inch, 2017, Two Thunderbolt 3 Ports), MacBook Pro (13-inch, 2019, Two Thunderbolt 3 Ports), MacBook Pro (13-inch, 2016, Four Thunderbolt 3 Ports), MacBook Pro (13-inch, 2017, Four Thunderbolt 3 Ports), MacBook Pro (15-inch, 2016), MacBook Pro (15-inch, 2017), MacBook Pro (13-inch, 2018, Four Thunderbolt 3 Ports), MacBook Pro (15- inch, 2018), MacBook Pro (13-inch, 2019, Four Thunderbolt 3 Ports), and MacBook Pro (15-inch, 2019)." A copy of the Court's order dated May 25, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N040y6 at no extra charge.[CC] BALDWIN RISK PARTNERS: Harris Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Alabama ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Baldwin Risk Partners LLC, et al. The case is styled as Tiffany Harris, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Baldwin Risk Partners LLC, The Lead Company Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00702-JHE (N.D. Ala., June 1, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Baldwin Risk Partners -- https://baldwinriskpartners.com/ -- is one of the fastest growing independent insurance brokerage firms in the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Matthew Stephens, Esq. METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C. 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 939-0199 Fax: (205) 939-0399 Email: mstephens@mtattorneys.com BECKETT & ROBB: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beckett & Robb, LLC. The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Beckett & Robb, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04625-ER (S.D.N.Y., June 1, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Beckett & Robb -- https://www.beckettrobb.com/ -- is a maker and merchant of fine menswear.[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 BODY & POLE: Class & Collective Action Settlement Gets Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGHAN PIPER JOHNSON, REBECCA PARDUE and RODENELLIE PLUVIOSE, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, v. BODY & POLE, INC. and KYRA JOHANNESEN, Case No. 1:22-cv-00857-LTS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered an order: 1. Granting final approval to proposed class and collective action settlement; 2. certifying the settlement class and collective action; and 3. approving request for attorney's fees. The Court certifies the following class for settlement purposes pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e): "All individuals who were Work-Studies at Defendant Body & Pole, Inc., at any time from Feb. 1, 2016, through Feb. 7, 2023 (the date of the Court's Order granting Preliminary Approval of the Settlement). The Court certifies the Collective Action under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act: "All individuals who were Work-Studies at Defendant Body & Pole, Inc., at any time from Feb. 1, 2016, through Feb. 7, 2023." Approval of the Service Awards: The Settlement provides for Service Awards of $1,000 each of the three Named Plaintiffs. The Court approves those service awards and finds that those awards are fair and reasonable under the circumstances. Approval of the Requested Attorney's Fees: The Court grants the request for Attorney's Fees and costs and awards Granovsky & Sundaresh PLLC $36,000 in attorney fees. Body & Pole offers in-studio and online classes for dance. They provide classes for pole dance, hoop dance, silk dance, flex dance, and core dance. A copy of the Court's order dated May 25, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43UAekX at no extra charge.[CC] BOHEMIAN CLUB: Gregg Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensations ----------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Gregg, Shawn Claiborne, and Wallid Saad, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BOHEMIAN CLUB, a California non-profit corporation, POMELLA LLC, a California corporation, and MONASTERY CAMP, and DOES 1-10, Case No. 4:23-cv-02760-DMR (N.D. Cal., June 5, 2023), is brought against the Defendants' violation of the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), California's Labor Code, and California Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Order No. 5-2001, as amended ("Wage Order No. 5") by failing to pay proper compensations. The Defendants violated the FLSA, California's Labor Code, and IWC Wage Order No. 5-2001, as amended Wage Order No. 5 which includes: failing to pay its employees minimum wage as required by federal and California Law for every hour worked; failing to pay its employees proper overtime wages as required by federal and California Law for every hour worked; failing to pay its employees premium wages for missed meal periods; failing to pay its employees premium wages for missed rest periods; failing to maintain accurate employment records for its employees in California; and failing to pay its employees amounts owed at the end of employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants in Northern California as "Valets" and provided Defendants' members and guests with food, drinks, and hospitality services. BOHEMIAN CLUB operates the "Bohemian Grove" in Monte Rio, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Nunes, Esq. NUNES LAW GROUP, APC 15260 Ventura Blvd, Suite 1200 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Phone: (855) 422-5529 Fax: 424-252-4301 Email: tony@nunesworkerrightslaw.com BRANDSAFWAY SERVICES: Moore Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Matthew Moore II, as an individual and on behalf all others similarly situated v. BRANDSAFWAY SERVICES LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; BRANDSAFWAY INDUSTRIES LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; BRANDSAFWAY LDAR LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; BRAND INDUSTRIAL SERVICES INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV09620 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 June 1, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04287. Here, Plaintiff's Complaint is based on allegations that "Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and Class Members for all hours worked, resulting in the underpayment of minimum and overtime wages, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and Class Members for all hours worked by virtue of, Defendants' automatic deduction and time rounding policies, and failure to relieve employees of all duties/employer control during unpaid meal periods."[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Brian P. Long, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793 Phone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 Email: bplong@seyfarth.com BRODER BROS: Ung Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Pina Ung, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former employees v. BRODER BROS. CO., dba ALPHABRODER, a corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 23CECG01529 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Fresno, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 1, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-at-00476. The Plaintiff's Complaint raises seven causes of action for failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest breaks, failure to pay minimum and straight time wages, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to timely pay final wages at termination, unfair business practices, and civil penalties under California's Private Attorney's General Act ("PAGA").[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jason H. Borchers, Esq. Andrew H. Woo, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 5200 North Palm Avenue, Suite 302 Fresno, CA 93704.2225 Phone: 559.244.7500 Fax: 559.244.7525 Email: jborchers@littler.com awoo@littler.com BUDDI US: Filing for Class Certification Bid Continued to Sept. 11 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as S.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BUDDI US LLC, BUDDI LTD., MONITORING PARTNERS LIMITED, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 8:20-cv-01370-CJC-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered an order granting stipulation to continue deadline for hearing Plaintiff's motion for class certification: -- The Plaintiff's motion for class Sept. 11, 2023 Certification: -- The Defendants' Opposition Brief: Sept. 25, 2023 -- The Plaintiff's Reply Brief: Oct. 9,2023 -- Hearing: Oct. 23, 2023 Buddi is a software company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 25, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43MU5Tc at no extra charge.[CC] BUSINESS & PLEASURE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Business & Pleasure Co., LLC. The case is styled as Leshawn Young, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Business & Pleasure Co., LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04582 (S.D.N.Y., May 31, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Business & Pleasure Co. -- https://businessandpleasureco.com/ -- is a renowned lifestyle brand that captures the nostalgia and charm of vintage aesthetics through outdoor products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com CAPITAL ONE: Davis Seeks to File Class Cert Documents Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLARENCE DAVIS, v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A., Case No. 1:22-cv-00903-AJT-IDD (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff moves the Court pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5(C) to file documents designated as "Confidential" by the Defendant, Capital One, N.A. under seal, in connection with the Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Counsel. A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oRZqKn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terry C. Frank, Esq. TERRY FRANK LAW 6722 Patterson Avenue, Suite B Richmond, VA 23226 Telephone: (804) 899-8089 Facsimile: (804) 899-8229 E-mail: terry@terryfranklaw.com - and - James S. Wertheim, Esq. Michael C. Hartmere, Esq Thomas Alvord, Esq. LAW HQ, PC 299 S. Main Street, #1300 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 E-mail: jim@lawhq.com Michael.Hartmere@lawhq.com thomas@lawhq.com The Defendant is represented by: Jon S. Hubbard, Esq. Robert A. Angle, Esq. Andrew B. Buxbaum, Esq. Brooke K. Conkle, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 1001 Haxall Point Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 697-1200 Facsimile: (804) 697-1339 E-mail: jon.hubbard@troutman.com robert.angle@troutman.com andrew.buxbaum@troutman.com brooke.conkle@troutman.com - and - Daniel JT McKenna, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 665-8500 Facsimile: (215) 864-8999 E-mail: mckennad@ballardspahr.com CARGUARD ADMINISTRATION: Workman Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CarGuard Administration Incorporated. The case is styled as Candy Workman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CarGuard Administration Incorporated, Case No. 2:23-cv-00961-DLR (D. Ariz., May 31, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Penny L Koepke, Esq. MAXWELL & MORGAN PC Pierpont Commerce Center 4854 E Baseline Rd., Ste. 104 Mesa, AZ 85206 Phone: (480) 833-1001 Fax: (480) 969-8267 Email: pkoepke@hoalaw.biz CARNIVAL CORP: Hernandez Suit Transferred to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Marilyn Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Carnival Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-00520-ELH was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on June 1, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01034-GPC-MSB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Carnival Corporation -- http://www.carnivalcorp.com/-- is a British-American cruise operator with a combined fleet of over ninety vessels across nine cruise line brands and one joint venture with China State Shipbuilding Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. Amanda Boltax, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th Street, NW, Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: (202) 540-7200 Fax: (202) 540-7201 - and - Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq. 923 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (610) 234-6487 Email: jjagher@fklmlaw.com - and - Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall St., 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (646) 357-1100 Email: snathan@hausfeld.com The Defendants are represented by: Jacob Marcus Heath, Esq. Jacob M. Heath, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 1000 Marsh Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 Phone: (650) 614-7400 Fax: (650) 614-7401 Email: jheath@orrick.com jjoel@kcozlaw.com - and - Aravind Swaminathan, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5600 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 839-4300 Email: aswaminathan@orrick.com - and - Jonathan Adler Direnfeld, Esq. ORRICK HERRINGTON AND SUTCLIFFE LLP 1152 15th St NW Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 339-8614 Fax: (202) 339-8500 - and - Rebecca Harlow, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 773-5700 COLETTE PETERS: Cicchiello Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Colette Peters, et al. The case is styled as Joan Cicchiello, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Colette Peters, Director of Bureau of Prisons in her Official Capacity; Warden Lovett, Individual Capacity Hazelton Correctional Complex; All staff employees in their individual capacities working in receiving and distribution mailroom (R&D) on the Correctional Complex; Case No. 3:23-cv-00145-GMG-RWT (N.D.W. Va., June 1, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. Colette S. Peters is the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. COLETTE PETERS: Fetterman Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Colette Peters, et al. The case is styled as Terra Fetterman, inidividually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Colette Peters, Director of Bureau of Prisons in her Official Capacity; Warden Lovett, Individual Capacity Hazelton Correctional Complex; All staff employees in their individual capacities working in receiving and distribution mailroom (R&D) on the Correctional Complex; Case No. 5:23-cv-00222-JPB-JPM (N.D.W. Va., June 7, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Habeas Corpus (General) for Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal). Colette S. Peters is the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. COLETTE PETERS: Hawkins Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Colette Peters, et al. The case is styled as Demenia Hawkins, Individually and on behalf of all other Persons similarly situated v. Colette Peters, Director of Bureau of Prisons in her Official Capacity; Warden Lovett, Individual Capacity Hazelton Correctional Complex; All staff employees in their individual capacities working in receiving and distribution mailroom (R&D) on the Correctional Complex; Case No. 3:23-cv-00147-GMG-RWT (N.D.W. Va., June 1, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. Colette S. Peters is the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. COLETTE PETERS: Macedo-Flores Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Colette Peters, et al. The case is styled as Austreberta Macedo-Flores, Individually and on behalf of all other Persons similarly situated v. Colette Peters, Director of Bureau of Prisons in her Official Capacity; Warden Lovett, Individual Capacity Hazelton Correctional Complex; All staff employees in their individual capacities working in receiving and distribution mailroom (R&D) on the Correctional Complex; Case No. 3:23-cv-00151-GMG-RWT (N.D.W. Va., June 1, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. Colette S. Peters is the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. COLETTE PETERS: Phillips Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Colette Peters, et al. The case is styled as Andrew C. Phillips, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Colette Peters, Director of Bureau of Prisons in her Official Capacity; Warden Lovett, Individual Capacity Hazelton Correctional Complex; All staff employees in their individual capacities working in receiving and distribution mailroom (R&D) on the Correctional Complex; Case No. 3:23-cv-00149-GMG-RWT (N.D.W. Va., June 1, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. Colette S. Peters is the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. COLETTE PETERS: Pittman Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Colette Peters, et al. The case is styled as Nichole Pittman, inidividually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Colette Peters, Director of Bureau of Prisons in her Official Capacity; Warden Lovett, Individual Capacity Hazelton Correctional Complex; All staff employees in their individual capacities working in receiving and distribution mailroom (R&D) on the Correctional Complex; Case No. 5:23-cv-00219-JPB-JPM (N.D.W. Va., June 7, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Habeas Corpus (General) for Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal). Colette S. Peters is the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS: Underwood 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 Branton Underwood, K.U., (minor) through Branton Underwood, next friend; O.B., (minor) through Zariah Brown, next friend; O.E.B., (minor) through Zariah Brown, next friend; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Community Health Systems, Inc., CHSPSC, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00565 (M.D. Tenn., June 2, 2023). The nature suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Community Health Systems -- http://www.chs.net/-- is a Fortune 500 company based in Franklin, Tennessee. It was the largest provider of general hospital healthcare services in the United States in terms of number of acute care facilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP - TAMPA, FL 201 N Franklin St., 7th Fl. Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 223-0931 Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com - and - Robert B. Keaty, II, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN (NASHVILLE OFFICE) 810 Broadway, Suite 105 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 928-9901 Email: bkeaty@forthepeople.com DESERT HAVEN: Franklin Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Mark Franklin, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. DESERT HAVEN ENTERPRISES; and DOES 1-100, Case No. BCV-23-101153 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Kern, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 2, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00849-CDB. The Plaintiff alleges causes of action pursuant to the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Richard C. Giller, Esq. Brian E. Koegle, Esq. Marie L. Wrighten, Esq. Ransom D. Boynton, Esq. GREENSPOON MARDER LLP 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (323) 880-4520 Facsimile: (954) 771-9264 Email: richard.giller@gmlaw.com brian.koegle@gmlaw.com marie.wrighten@gmlaw.com ransom.boynton@gmlaw.com DISH NETWORK: Jenkins Files Suit in D. Colorado ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DISH Network, LLC. The case is styled as Laina Jenkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DISH Network, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01387-MEH (D. Colo., June 1, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 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. Additionally, Dish offers mobile wireless service, Dish Wireless.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rick D. Bailey, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RICK D. BAILEY 1801 Broadway, Suite 528 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (720) 676-6023 Email: rick@rickbaileylaw.com DLP CONEMAUGH: Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DLP CONEMAUGH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, LLC D/B/A CONEMAUGH HEALTH SYSTEM D/B/A CONEMAUGH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER AND DLP CONEMAUGH PHYSICIAN PRACTICES, LLC D/B/A CONEMAUGH PHYSICIAN GROUP – OBGYN, Case No. 2023-1430 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas, Cambria County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on June 1, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00110-SLH. On April 17, 2023, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and others purported to be similarly situated, filed a Complaint in the Court of Common Pleas, Cambria County, Pennsylvania alleging invasion of privacy; breach of implied contract; unjust enrichment; breach of fiduciary duty; violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law; and violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Mark S. Melodia, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 31 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10018 Phone: 212.513.3583 Fax: 212.385.9010 EL BANDIDO: Acevedo Conditional Class Cert Bid Tossed ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR ACEVEDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EL BANDIDO RESTAURANT INC. a/k/a EL BANDIDO SPRING VALLEY a/k/a EL BANDIDO MIDDLETOWN; TONITUAH TELLO; and ANGELICA TELLO, Case No. 7:22-cv-08180-PMH (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Philip M. Halpern entered an order denying without prejudice bid for conditional class certification, court-authorized notice pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and expedited discovery, to renewal in accordance with the Court's Individual Practices Rule 2. A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oTyBW2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eliseo Cabrera, Esq. KATZ MELINGER PLLC 370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 460-0047 Facsimile: (212) 428-6811 E-mail: EDCabrera@katzmelinger.com EXCELA HEALTH: Galley-Keller Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Monica Galley-Keller and Colleen Zufall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EXCELA HEALTH, Case No. 23CI01493 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on June 1, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00942-RJC. The Plaintiffs allege that Excela engaged in unlawful wiretapping and invaded their privacy by installing third-party source code for the Meta Pixel on Excela's public website.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Edward J. McAndrew, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1735 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7501 Phone: 215.568.3100 Facsimile: 215.568.3439 Email: emcandrew@bakerlaw.com FAIRFIELD, OH: Court Certifies Class of Arrestees in Caddell Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANSELM CADDELL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. JOYCE A. CAMPBELL, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-91 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Douglas R. Cole of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Class Certification. Law enforcement officers from the City of Fairfield (a Defendant) arrested Plaintiffs Anselm Caddell and Caleb Lawson. Neither arrest occurred pursuant to a warrant. Caddell and Lawson then waited more than 48 hours in Defendant Sheriff Richard Jones' Butler County Jail before receiving their initial appearances. The pair then appeared before the Fairfield Municipal Court, over which Defendant Joyce A. Campbell presides. In this Section 1983 action, Caddell and Lawson claim this pre-arraignment detention violated their constitutional rights. They also contend that Campbell and the City have a policy or custom of detaining warrantless arrestees in the Butler County Jail for longer than 48 hours before their initial appearance. Beyond seeking to vindicate their own rights, Caddell and Lawson sued on behalf of a putative class of arrestees whose rights they believe the Defendants violated in the same manner. After conferring, the parties agreed to certain class stipulations. The Plaintiffs also submitted an Unopposed Motion for Class Certification. Judge Cole explains that a class action represents an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only. To justify departure from the typical named-parties-only rule, a putative class representative must make certain showings. First, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), the named plaintiff(s) must show that: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable (numerosity); (2) legal or factual questions are common to the class (commonality); (3) the representative parties possess claims or defenses typical of the class's claims or defenses (typicality); and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the class's interests (adequacy). Beyond satisfying the four factors Rule 23(a) identifies, though, a putative class also must meet one provision of Rule 23(b). In this case, the parties rely on Rule 23(b)(3). That provision requires the Court to consider two issues -- predominance and superiority. Everyone has agreed to stipulations addressing class issues. They stipulate that numerosity is met and that the proposed class counsel is adequate, as well as to a proposed amended class definition: "Plaintiffs and those individuals subject to a warrantless arrest by City of Fairfield Police Officers from Feb. 1, 2017 until Feb. 28, 2019, and who were held by the Butler County Sheriff's office for more than 48 hours on charges pending in the Fairfield Municipal Court, if held without a post-arrest probable cause determination by a judicial officer and not otherwise subject to lawful detention for reasons unrelated to the warrantless arrest." The Defendants likewise have not opposed the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Stipulations notwithstanding, though, class actions implicate parties not before the Court. So, the Court has an independent duty to ensure the proposed class meets Rule 23's rigors. Judge Cole finds that (i) a class containing 500 potential members meets numerosity; (ii) the putative class members share commonalities; (iii) the named Plaintiffs are typical of the class; (iv) there are no known conflicts between Caddell, Lawson, and the putative class; (v) absent evidence, individualized determinations will overwhelm common questions; and (vi) a class action is the superior method to litigate these claims for all involved. For these reasons, the case is well-suited for class treatment. Judge Cole thus certifies the class as described. And he appoints Anselm Caddell and Caleb Lawson as the class representatives. After certifying a class action, a Court must appoint class counsel under Rule 23(g). The parties stipulate that Paul M. Laufman and Gregory A. Napolitano are appropriate class counsel. In support, the attorneys have attached declarations attesting to their professional diligence, experience litigating complex civil rights cases, and extended representation of the named Plaintiffs. On review of these materials and the Rule 26(g), factors, Judge Cole agrees that the proposed counsel is capable and adequate. They have the experience and diligence necessary to vigorously litigate for the class' benefit and they have capably represented Caddell and Lawson until now. Judge Cole appoints them to represent the class. Based on the foregoing, Judge Cole grants the Motion to Certify and certifies the class as defined in the parties' Amended Stipulation. He appoints Caddell and Lawson as the class representatives, and Paul M. Laufman and Gregory A. Napolitano as the class counsel. Judge Cole orders the counsel for the parties to meet and confer and submit a proposed agreed class notice to the Court within 14 days of his Opinion's issuance. If the counsel cannot reach an agreement, the Plaintiffs will file their proposed notice by the same deadline, and the Defendants will file their specific objections to the proposed notice within 14 days after the Plaintiffs file. If desired, the Plaintiffs may respond to the Defendants' objections within five days after the Defendants object. A full-text copy of the Court's May 30, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4dza6a6h from Leagle.com. FCA US: Paolucci Files Suit in D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FCA US, LLC. The case is styled as Daniel Paolucci, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FCA US, LLC doing business as: Dodge, Case No. 3:23-cv-02982-ZNQ-TJB (D.N.J., May 31, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Prod. Liability for Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. The Company offers passenger cars, utility vehicles, mini-vans, trucks and commercial vans, as well as distributes automotive service parts and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elaine Kusel, Esq. MCCUNE LAW GROUP, MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO VERCOSKI KUSEL WECK One Gateway Center, Suite 1500 Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: (973) 888-1203 Email: esk@mccunewright.com FIRST ADVANTAGE: Grijalva Wins Leave to Amend Complaint Under FCRA ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, Tracie Ann Grijalva, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. First Advantage Background Services, Corp., et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-22-02068-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz.), Judge David G. Campbell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona grants the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her complaint. The Plaintiff filed her original complaint on Dec. 7, 2022. She asserts claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) on behalf of herself and similarly situated individuals. First Advantage is a consumer reporting agency and conducts background checks. The original complaint alleges that the Plaintiff worked at The Results Company as a full-time employee. She earned $14 per hour and received insurance benefits. On April 30, 2020, The Results Co. ordered a background check on the Plaintiff from the Defendant. The Defendant's report disclosed that the Plaintiff's nurse's aide license had been revoked or suspended on July 20, 2011. Upon learning this, The Results Co. fired her. The Defendant filed an answer on Jan. 31, 2023. On March 11, 2023, the Plaintiff moved to amend her complaint. Her proposed amended complaint seeks to replace the facts described with the following: 9. Within two years prior to the filing of this Class Action Complaint, FADV [Defendant] prepared and sold an employment purposed consumer report about. . . Ms. Grijalva to a third party, the Plaintiff's prospective employer (Company). * * * 11. Ms. Grijalva applied to work as a customer service representative for Company and would in no way be performing nursing/nurse's aide duties nor did she require any kind of license for the position, let alone a nursing license. 12. After assembling and evaluating information regarding Ms. Grijalva, FADV reported to Company a hit from its governmental registries search that Ms. Grijalva's nurses/nurse's aide license was revoked or suspended on July 20, 2011, pursuant to section 1128(B)(4) of the Social Security Act. As a result, Company terminated Ms. Grijalva. A copy of the background report is attached to the proposed amended complaint and shows that it was ordered by Iqor Tempe on Dec. 9, 2020. Although the last sentence in proposed paragraph 12 (which was not changed from the original complaint) states that the Plaintiff was terminated, paragraph 9 describes the "Company" that ordered the background report as Plaintiff's "prospective employer" and paragraph 11 says she applied to work for the Company. Her motion to amend likewise states that the Defendant's report resulted in her not being hired. The Court, therefore, assumes that the Plaintiff intends to assert that the Defendant's actions led to her not being hired. The Defendant argues that the claim alleged in the proposed amended complaint is futile and should not be allowed because it is time barred and does not relate back to the filing of the original complaint. Judge Campbell must decide the following. Will the Plaintiff's proposed amendment, if allowed, relate back to the date of her original complaint? If yes, then the amended complaint is not time barred, is not futile, and should be permitted. If the amended complaint does not relate back, can the Court conclude on the present record that it would be time barred? This requires inquiry into whether a reasonably prudent plaintiff would have discovered the facts constituting the FCRA violation more than two years before March 11, 2023. If Judge Campbell Court cannot make this determination -- if additional factual development is needed -- then he cannot find the proposed amendment futile, and the amendment should be allowed. But if he can determine on the present record that the amended complaint would be time barred, the Plaintiff's motion should be denied. Judge Campbell cannot conclude that the Plaintiff's original and amended complaint arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence. He says the alleged wrong may be the same -- violation of the FCRA by disclosing the Plaintiff's nursing license revocation -- but the events are distinct in time, employer, employment status, and employment type. Hence, the Plaintiff's proposed amended claim does not relate back to her original complaint. Moreover, the parties' arguments regarding the statute of limitations are factual. The Defendant relies on an employee affidavit to set forth several paragraphs of facts that are not included in the proposed amended complaint and from which it argues that the Plaintiff knew of her FCRA claim more than two years before March 11, 2023. The Plaintiff disputes the Defendant's factual assertions, arguing that the date on which she discovered the alleged FCRA violation "is not susceptible to such an obvious date. Because the running of the statute of limitations is not apparent on the face of the Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint, Judge Campbell cannot find the complaint time-barred under a motion-to-dismiss standard. The Defendant may raise its statute of limitations defense in a motion for summary judgment. In view of his analysis, Judge Campbell grants the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her complaint. The amended complaint does not relate back to the filing of the Plaintiff's original complaint under Rule 15(c). The Plaintiff will file the amended complaint attached as Exhibit 1 to her motion to amend. The Court's Phase One Case Management Order will govern the case, except that the discovery and motion for summary judgment covered by the order may include the statute of limitations issue. A full-text copy of the Court's May 30, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/93xuvxtv from Leagle.com. FONTAINEBLEAU RESORTS: McDowell Files Suit in S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fontainebleau Resorts, LLC. The case is styled as Cara McDowell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fontainebleau Resorts, LLC doing business as: Fontainebleau Miami Beach, Case No. 1:23-cv-22042-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 1, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Fontainebleau Miami Beach -- https://www.fontainebleau.com/ -- is an iconic luxury hotel ideally located on Miami Beach, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica Ann Wallace, Esq. SIRI GLIMSTAD LLP 20200 West Dixie Highway, Suite 902 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (786) 244-5660 Fax: (646) 417-5967 Email: jwallace@sirillp.com FORD MOTOR: Caricofe Files ADA Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ford Motor Company. The case is styled as Bradley Caricofe, Shawn Thibodeaux, Julie Thibodeaux, Kenneth Hunnel, Leanne Hunnel, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 3:23-cv-01012-TWR-AHG (S.D. Cal., June 1, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Contract Dispute. Ford Motor Company -- http://www.ford.com/-- is an American multinational automobile manufacturer headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cody R. Padgett, Esq. Laura Ellen Goolsby, Esq. Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 556-4811 Fax: (310) 943-0396 Email: cody.padgett@capstonelawyers.com laura.Goolsby@capstonelawyers.com tarek.zohdy@capstonelawyers.com FRANK STRADA: Hart Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CURTIS DANIEL HART v. FRANK STRADA, Case No. 1:23-cv-00009 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying case as class action pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2): "All current and future prisoners who are or will be confined in the TDOC who are or will be eligible to receive electronics tablets but are unable to do so due to the TDOC's discriminatory policies, practices, procedures, and patterns." The class period commences from the time of the policies, practices, procedures, and patterns. The Plaintiff Hurt request that the Court designate him as the class representative. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 26, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qE3xKs at no extra charge. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC] FUNKO INC: Studen Sues Over False and Misleading Statements ----------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Studen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FUNKO, INC., ANDREW PERLMUTTER, and JENNIFER FALL JUNG, Case No. 2:23-cv-00824 (W.D. Wash., June 2, 2023), is brought against Funko and certain of its officers and directors (collectively "Defendants") for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a "Class" of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Funko common stock on a U.S. open market during the class period May 6, 2022 through March 1, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period") as a result of the Defendants' materially false and misleading statements. The Defendants promoted both the planned move of Funko's distribution center from Everett, Washington to Buckeye, Arizona as well as the planned upgrade of the Company's enterprise resource planning (ERP) software system. Defendants repeatedly spoke of the necessity for these upgrades to serve current and future business needs. However, these statements were materially false and misleading, or failed to disclose material information necessary to make these statements not misleading, in violation of the Exchange Act. The successful implementation of these two initiatives, involving complex systems and processes, was critical to Funko's ability to accurately forecast consumer demand for its products and to efficiently operate Funko's distribution center. As Defendants have now admitted, the move to Funko's distribution center, accompanied by the delay in implementation of the ERP rollout, was disastrous, resulting in substantially increased selling, general, and administrative expenses ("SG&A") and dramatically lower profit margins. On November 3, 2022, after the market closed, Funko announced its 3Q 2022 results in which Funko's earnings per diluted share was $0.28 per share, more than 42% below Street estimates of $0.49 per share. That same day, Funko also dramatically lowered its FY 2022 guidance. Funko lowered its Net Sales from $1.30 billion - $1.35 billion to $1.29 billion - $1.33 billion, its Adjusted Net Income from $101.8 million - $107.3 million to $47 million - $49 million, and its Adjusted Earnings per Diluted Share from $1.88 - $1.99 per share to $0.85 - $0.95 per share. Funko also cut its projected FY 2022 Adjusted EBITDA margin to high single digits, compared to prior estimates of 14.6%. In response to this news, on November 4, 2022, Funko's stock price fell $11.58 per share to $7.92 or a 59.4% drop on very heavy volume. On March 1, 2023, after the market closed, Funko announced its FY 2022 results and guidance for FY 2023. While Funko did manage to hit the low end of its Net Sales guidance, the Company saw Net Income for FY 2022 decrease to a $5.2 million loss, its Adjusted EBITDA margin decreased to 7.4% and its Adjusted Earnings per Diluted Share came in well below prior estimates at $0.57 per share. In response to this news, in after-hours trading on March 1, 2023, Funko's stock price fell $3.17 per share from closing at $10.70 per share to $7.53 per share or a 29.6% drop. Funko's stock recovered somewhat during intra day trading, but still closed down at $9.94 per share on very heavy volume. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the decline in the market value of the Company's common stock when the truth was disclosed, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Funko common stock during the Class Period. Funko is a pop culture consumer products company that creates vinyl figures, action toys, plush, accessories, apparel, and homewares relating to movies, TV shows, video games, musicians, and sports teams.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Duncan C. Turner, Esq. BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC 19929 Ballinger Way NE, Ste. 200 Seattle, WA 98155 Phone: (206) 621-6566 Email: dturner@badgleymullins.com - and - Robert C. Finkel, Esq. Adam Savett, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 759-4600 Email: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com asavett@wolfpopper.com GAMESTOP INC: Coulter Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gamestop Inc., et al. The case is styled as Alyssa Coulter, all others similarly situated v. Gamestop Inc., Does 1-50, Case No. 23CV002568 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 31, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." GameStop Corp. -- http://www.gamestop.com/-- is an American video game, consumer electronics, and gaming merchandise retailer.[BN] GEICO INDEMNITY: Bid to Clarify May 9 Order Granted in Malcom Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KOSMOE MALCOM, et al., v. GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-00165-MTT (M.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Marc T. Treadwell entered an order granting GEICO motion for clarification of the Court's May 9, 2023, Order denying the plaintiffs' motion to amend. GEICO seeks clarification on whether the data contained in the "DRIVES system that was exported into excel data files for the Plaintiffs" or the PDF motor vehicle ad valorem assessment manual constitute "the 'motor vehicle ad valorem assessment manual' referenced in the Plaintiffs' class definition." In seeking clarification, GEICO contends that the Court issued "previous rulings" concluding that the data in DRIVES constitutes "the motor vehicle ad valorem assessment manual. " Further, GEICO argues these "rulings" somehow affect "liability" and other issues in the case. The Court only addressed the issue in the context of class certification proceedings and only then in response to specific questions posed by the parties. The Court clarifies that the PDF motor vehicle ad valorem assessment manual constitutes the "motor vehicle ad valorem assessment manual" referenced in the class definition. The parties shall use the PDF motor vehicle ad valorem assessment manuals to identify the class and send out class notice as soon as possible. GEICO Indemnity Company operates as an insurance company. The Company provides vehicle, property, business, and life insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 25, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42xU9oQ at no extra charge.[CC] GEORGIA: Mignott Racial Discrimination Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARSHA W. MIGNOTT, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STATE BAR OF GEORGIA FOUNDATION, INC., STATE BAR OF GEORGIA OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL WILLIAM VAN HEARNBURG JR., In his Official Capacity, Case No. 1:23-cv-01834-ELR (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the following Class: "All persons who have been subjected to damages as a result of the Defendants' racial discrimination against African American attorneys and or attorneys of color who are members of the State Bar of Georgia, such as the Plaintiff." The Plaintiffs representing the Class are: Amber Saunders, Cynthia Lain, Grady Roberts, Tamorra Boyd, and Willie Davis. The case is about the Defendants unlawful scheme involving violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. section 1981 by engaging in racial discrimination against African American attorneys and or attorneys of color who are members of the State Bar of Georgia, such as the Plaintiff. On behalf of the many other attorneys subjected to the Defendants' scheme, the named the Plaintiffs challenge in this action the Defendants' unconstitutional and unlawful policies and practices regarding their discriminatory conduct towards African American attorneys and or attorneys of color. Mignott brings her claims of race discrimination against SBGF, OGC, and their Assistant General Counsel, the Defendant Hearnburg, and seeks damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 26, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3J4LTWw at no extra charge.[CC] GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Morris Suit Moved to District of New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MORRIS & DICKSON CO., LLC, Plaintiff v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC, formerly known as "SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION," and doing business as "GLAXOSMITHKLINE," TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., and TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendants, Civil Action No. 23-480 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Kelley B. Hodge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants the Defendants' Motion to Transfer and denies their Motion to Stay as moot. The Plaintiff filed suit before the Court on Feb. 7, 2023, against Defendants GlaxoSmithKline LLC ("GSK"), Teva Pharmaceutical Industries LTD., and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (jointly "Teva") alleging that they violated antitrust laws through their settlement agreement to end a patent suit over GSK's brand-name drug Lamictal and Teva's generic form, lamotrigine. Presently before the Court is the Defendants' Motion to Transfer requesting that pursuant to Section 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) and the "first-to-file" doctrine the matter be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey where a similar case, In re: Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig., No. 2:12-cv-00995 (D.N.J.), has been ongoing since Feb. 17, 2012. Contemporaneously, the Defendants also filed a Motion to Stay the case pending the outcome of their Motion to Transfer. The basis of the litigation stems from the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984 that allows drug manufacturers to bring generics to market for a 180-day exclusivity period by piggybacking off a brand-name drug's safety and efficacy studies and Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approval, through what is known as an Abbreviated New Drug Application ("ANDA"). To do so, the generic manufacturer certifies in its ANDA that the brand-name drug's patent is invalid, but if the brand-name manufacturer challenges that designation, FDA approval for the generic is enjoined for a certain time period. And that is exactly what occurred: GSK challenged Teva in patent litigation which delayed Teva's generic version of lamotrigine from getting FDA approval and coming to market. Yet at that time, GSK, under the relevant regulatory framework, could have launched or licensed its own generic form of Lamictal, known as an "Authorized Generic (AG)." Though Teva was successful at the patent litigation bench trial as to one infringement claim, the judge informed the parties that he would subsequently deliberate as to the remaining claims whereupon GSK and Teva decided, instead, to settle. As part of the settlement, GSK agreed not to launch an AG in exchange for Teva selling generic lamotrigine later than it otherwise would have been able to. The Plaintiff, a purchaser of the Defendants' drugs, now claim that the settlement agreement amounts to an antitrust violation as it caused them to pay more than they otherwise would have, had market competition not been delayed. On Feb. 17, 2012, a putative class action was filed in the District of New Jersey that, similar to the present matter, alleged antitrust violations as a result of the same settlement agreement that resolved patent litigation between the same Defendants in the New Jersey Action. That litigation has resulted in a lengthy and complicated history with numerous appeals and stays issued by the court. In the New Jersey Action, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit determined that a plausible antitrust theory exists under the Supreme Court's precedent in FTC v. Actavis, 133 S.Ct. 2223 (2013). However, class certification and attempts to certify smaller subclasses were denied after a decade's worth of protracted litigation where each party vigorously argued their respective positions on behalf of their clients. The most recent denial of class certification occurred on Feb. 1, 2023. Following this denial of class certification, purchasers not named as plaintiffs in the New Jersey Action brought suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, based on the same claims and allegations but styled as individual rather than putative class actions. These cases include the present matter, MLI RX, LLC, et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, et al., 23-cv-429 (E.D. Pa.) filed on Feb. 2, 2023, and FWK Holdings, LLC. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, et al., 23-cv-757 (E.D. Pa.) filed on Feb. 27, 2023. In all three actions before the Court, the Defendants have moved to transfer the cases to the District of New Jersey pursuant to the "first-to-file" doctrine and the federal transfer statute in 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) where the New Jersey Action has been ongoing for a decade. They have also requested a stay pending the Court's determination. On May 30, 2023, this Court found in MLI RX, LLC that the first-to-file doctrine and 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) supported a transfer to the District of New Jersey. The parties recycle the arguments made in MLI RX, LLC -- a nearly identical case involving the same defendants, but different plaintiffs represented by the same counsel -- as to the grounds for and against a venue transfer under the first-to-file doctrine and Section 1404(a). The difference, in this case, is that the Plaintiff does not contend that Pennsylvania is its home forum. Instead, the Plaintiff points to one Defendant (GSK) and non-parties to this action, three of the sixteen plaintiffs (AmerisourceBergen Co., AmerisourceBergen Drug Co., Value Drug Co) in MLI RX, LLC, who are located in Pennsylvania. Similar to the decision in MLI RX, LLC, Judge Hodge agrees that the first-to-file doctrine and Section 1404(a) support a transfer of the case to the District of New Jersey. Considering the substantial overlap, which even the Plaintiff concedes, she finds that the New Jersey Action and this case are sufficiently parallel. She also finds that the Plaintiff fails to set forth sufficient circumstances warranting departure from the first-to-file doctrine. Splitting this litigation between two venues, where the first-filed action is advanced and this case is in its infancy, would not lead to judicial acceleration, but rather, inefficient duplication along with potentially conflicting rulings. Similar to MLI RX, LLC, the Plaintiff has presented no evidence that resolution of this dispute on the merits has been subverted or that a recognized exception is applicable. The Court's reasoning in MLI RX, LLC applies. Accordingly, Judge Hodge finds that under the first-to-file doctrine a transfer to the District of New Jersey is appropriate. Since the parties do not dispute that the action could have been brought in the District of New Jersey, Judge Hodge applies several public and private factors to determine which forum is most appropriate to consider the case. The private factors include the plaintiff's forum preference; the defendant's forum preference; whether the claim arose elsewhere; the convenience of the parties as indicated by their relative physical and financial condition; the convenience of the witnesses; and the location of books and records. The public factors include: the practical considerations that could make the trial easy, expeditious, or inexpensive; the relative administrative difficulty in the two fora resulting from court congestion; the local interest in deciding local controversies at home; the public polices of the fora; and the familiarity of the trial judge with the applicable state law in diversity cases. Judge Hodge says the relevant public and private factors strongly weigh in favor of a Section 1404(a) venue transfer. Having determined that a venue transfer is appropriate, Judge Hodge grants the Defendants' Motion to Transfer and denies their Motion to Stay. An appropriate Order will follow. A full-text copy of the Court's May 30, 2023 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/mrr3k8jd from Leagle.com. GOOGLE INC: July 14 Extension for Class Cert Filing Sought ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re: Google RTB Consumer Privacy Litigation, Case No. 4:21-cv-02155-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order regarding class certification motion and case schedule as follows: Event Vacated Case New Case Schedule Schedule Class Certification Motion: May 23, 2023 July 14, 2023 Opposition: July 25, 2023 Sept. 29, 2023 Reply: Sept. 5, 2023 Nov. 17, 2023 Hearing: To be reset To be reset later later Fact Discovery Cut-Off Nov. 10, 2023 Jan. 19, 2024 Opening Expert Reports Dec. 8, 2023 Feb. 9, 2024 Rebuttal Expert Reports Jan. 12, 2024 Mar. 15, 2024 Close of Expert Discovery Feb. 9, 2024 Apr. 12, 2024 Dispositive/Daubert Mar. 12, 2024 May 17, 2024 motions: On April 26, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to revise the pretrial case schedule so that the Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification would be due seven weeks after Google completed its production of named plaintiff data, with all subsequent case deadlines also moving accordingly and without any limitation on the use of newlyserved discovery. On May 1, 2023, Google filed a response to the administrative motion in which it agreed to the proposed revised pretrial case schedule, but requested that if the new schedule was adopted, the Plaintiffs not be permitted to use, in support of their motion for class certification, any new discovery served after filing the administrative motion. On May 18, 2023, while the administrative motion was pending, the parties stipulated to vacate the class certification deadline and submit a new pretrial schedule for the Court's consideration by May 25, 2023. A copy of the Parties motion dated May 25, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p0vGL6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq. Jonathan K. Levine, Esq. Bethany Caracuzzo, Esq. PRITZKER LEVINE LLP 1900 Powell Street, Suite 450 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 692-0772 Facsimile: (415) 366-6110 E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com jkl@pritzkerlevine.com bc@pritzkerlevine.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael G. Rhodes, Esq. Whitty Somvichian, Esq. Aarti G. Reddy, Esq. Robby L.R. Saldana, Esq. Kelsey R. Spector, Esq. Reece Trevor, Esq. Anupam Dhillon, Esq. Khary J. Anderson, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Fl. San Francisco, CA 94111-4004 Telephone: (415) 693-2000 Facsimile: (415) 693-2222 E-mail: rhodesmg@cooley.com wsomvichian@cooley.com areddy@cooley.com rsaldana@cooley.com kspector@cooley.com rtrevor@cooley.com adhillon@cooley.com kjanderson@cooley.com GOTHAM PODIATRY: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gotham Podiatry P.C. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Gotham Podiatry P.C., Case No. 1:23-cv-04074 (E.D.N.Y., June 1, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Gotham Footcare -- https://www.gothamfootcare.com/ -- is a top rated podiatry providing state-of-the-art medical & surgical foot care treatments in Midtown & Downtown, NY.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com HAT WORLD: Palma Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Leea Stevie Palma, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HAT WORLD, INC., a Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2226674 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 1, 2023, and assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-01013. The Complaint asserts the following cause of action: Violation of California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512; Violation of California Labor Code section 226.7; Violation of California Labor Code section 226; and Violation of Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Cheryl A. Sabnis, Esq. VEDDER PRICE (CA), LLP 1 Post Street, Suite 2400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: +1 (415) 749 9500 Fax: +1 (415) 749 9502 - and - Ashley D. Stein, Esq. VEDDER PRICE (CA), LLP astein@vedderprice.com 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: +1 424 204 7700 Fax: +1 424 204 7702 HEAT WAVE VISUAL: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Heat Wave Visual, Inc. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Heat Wave Visual, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04653 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Heat Wave Visual -- https://heatwavevisual.com/ -- is a California based independent eyewear brand focused on developing original, innovative eyewear.[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 HIGGINS CRAB: Ward Seeks Conditional Cert. of Tipped Workers Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cassidy Ward, et al. On behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. Higgins Crab Company, LLC et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00207-MJM (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their unopposed motion to conditionally certify a collective action and for approval of and facilitation of notice to potential class members. The parties have agreed on a 60-day period in which potential the Plaintiffs may opt-in to this case, from the date of the U.S. mailing. The Plaintiffs, Cassidy Ward, Avery Dawson, Taylor Hyde, Benjamin Lust, and Melanie Mason move for the conditional certification of a collective action pursuant to the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case was initially filed as a collective action under the FLSA, by the Plaintiffs who worked at the Defendants' "Higgins Crab House" restaurants in Ocean City, Maryland in 2021 and 2022. The Plaintiffs allege that they are part of a group of similarly situated tipped workers who were not properly paid the minimum wage for all hours worked. The Plaintiffs further allege that they are part of a group of similarly situated tipped workers who were not properly paid overtime wages when they and others worked in excess of 40 hours per statutory work week in tipped occupations. Finally, the Plaintiffs allege that they are part of a group of similarly situated tipped workers who were not properly permitted to retain all their tips. The Plaintiffs seek to conditionally certify all tipped workers who worked for Higgins Crab Company, LLC (at both the Higgins Crab House North and Higgins Crab House South locations) for the three year "look back period" from the date of this Court's Order granting conditional certification. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 26, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NoMzIQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Howard B. Hoffman, Esq. Jordan S. Liew, Esq. HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAW, LLC 600 Jefferson Plaza, Suite 204 Rockville, MD 20852 Telephone: (301) 251-3752 Facsimile: (301) 251-3753 E-mail: hhoffman@hoholaw.com jliew@hoholaw.com HIGHWAY AUTOMOTIVE: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due Nov. 20 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT CLOUGH, II, v. HIGHWAY AUTOMOTIVE PROS LLC, et al. Case No. 8:23-cv-00107-CJC-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. All discovery, including discovery April 18, 2024 motions, shall be completed by: 2. The parties shall have until June 17, 2024 to file and have heard all other motions, including motions to join or amend the pleadings: 3. A pretrial conference will be held Aug. 19, 2024 on: 4. The case is set for a jury trial: Aug. 27, 2024 5. The parties shall have until May 2, 2024 to conduct settlement proceedings: 6. The Plaintiff shall have until Nov. 20, 2023 to file and have heard any class certification motion: Highway Automotive is in the Miscellaneous Automotive Repair Services business. A copy of the Court's order dated May 25, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42xCcH4 at no extra charge.[CC] HYATT CORPORATION: Granados Suit Removed to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Carlos Calderon Granados, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Hyatt Corporation doing business as: Alila Marea Beach Resort Encinitas, Does 1-50 inclusive, Case No. 37-02022-00032206-CU-OE-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on May 31, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01001-H-WVG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights for Employment Discrimination. Hyatt Hotels Corporation -- http://www.hyatt.com/-- commonly known as Hyatt Hotels & Resorts, is an American multinational hospitality company headquartered in the Riverside Plaza area of Chicago that manages and franchises luxury and business hotels, resorts, and vacation properties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina Marie Lucio, Esq. FARNAES & LUCIO, APC 2235 Encinitas Blvd., Ste. 210 Encinitas, CA 92024-4357 Phone: 760-942-9433 Fax: 760-452-4421 Email: clucio@farnaeslaw.com - and - James R. Hawkins, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92318 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com The Defendants is represented by: Brian Patrick Long, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAWLL LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 270-9600 Fax: (213) 270-9601 Email: bplong@seyfarth.com - and - Michael Afar, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9301 Fax: (310) 551-8313 Email: mafar@seyfarth.com - and - Phillip James Ebsworth, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350 Sacremento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 448-0159 Fax: (916) 558-4839 Email: pebsworth@seyfarth.com IFIT INC: Douglass Files ADA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against iFit Inc. The case is styled as Blair Douglass, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals v. iFit Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00917-MJH (M.D. Pa., May 31, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. iFIT -- http://www.ifit.com/-- is a global health and fitness subscription technology company that provides unmatched fitness experiences and solutions to its growing community of six million engaged members across 120 countries.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin W. Tucker, Esq. Stephanie Moore, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Phone: (412) 877-5220 Email: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com J. B. PRITZKER: Ramirez Files Suit in S.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against J. B. Pritzker, et al. The case is styled as Andres Ramirez, Ricky Hernandez, and all those whom are similarly situated at Pinckneyville CC v. J. B. Pritzker, Governor; Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections; David Mitchell, Warden of Pinckneyville CC, Case No. 3:23-cv-01850-SPM (S.D. Ill., May 31, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. Jay Robert "J.B." Pritzker is an American billionaire businessman, philanthropist, and politician serving as the 43rd governor of Illinois since 2019.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. JOHNS MANVILLE: Martinez Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Fabian Martinez, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. JOHNS MANVILLE, a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23CV03097 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Glenn, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 2, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01042-DB. The Complaint generally alleges, on behalf of Plaintiff and all putative California Labor Sub-Class members, that JM failed to provide overtime wages, minimum wages, accurate itemized wage statements, duty-free meal and rest periods, all wages due on termination, and reimbursements due for necessary expenses incurred in the discharge of their job duties.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Malcolm A. Heinicke, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-3089 Phone: (415) 512-4000 Facsimile: (415) 512-4077 Email: Malcolm.Heinicke@mto.com - and - Katherine M Forster, Esq. Minkee K Sohn, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 683-9100 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 Email: Katherine.Forster@mto.com Minkee.Sohn@mto.com KIMBERLY-CLARK: Cooper Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Shelby Cooper, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION, a corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2302262 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 2, 2023, and assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-01025. The Plaintiff's Complaint brings five claims against Defendant: violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act; violation of California's False Advertising Law; violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; breach of express warranty; and (5) intentional misrepresentation.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Timothy W. Loose, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Phone: 213.229.7000 Facsimile: 213.229.7520 Email: TLoose@gibsondunn.com - and - Andrew M. Kasabian, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 3161 Michelson Drive Irvine, CA 92612-4412 Phone: 949.451.3800 Facsimile: 949.451.4220 Email: AKasabian@gibsondunn.com KSF ACQUISITION: McCracken "SlimFast" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH MCCRACKEN individually and on behalf of all others situated; v. KSF ACQUISITION CORPORATION, Case No. 5:22-cv-01666-SB-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 23. The Plaintiff move the Court for an order certifying the following Class for purposes of her cause of action under California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 23(b)(3): -- Class: "All persons who purchased the following SlimFast Products featuring the Clinically Proven Claim in the State of California between September 2019 and September 2022 for personal, family, or household purposes: SlimFast Original Meal Replacement Shake Mix; SlimFast Original Shakes; SlimFast Keto Fat Bomb Meal Bars; and SlimFast Fat Bomb Keto Snack Cups." Excluded from the proposed class are governmental entities, the Defendant, any entity in which the Defendant has a controlling interest, and the Defendant’s officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, employees, coconspirators, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns. Also excluded from the Class are any judges, justices, or judicial officers presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff. The Plaintiff also seeks appointment of Amber L. Schubert of Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe as Class Counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42yeB9i at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert C. Schubert, Esq. Amber L. Schubert, Esq. Samhita Collur, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St Ste 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 E-mail: rschubert@sjk.law aschubert@sjk.law scollur@sjk.law LEATHERWORKS INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Leatherworks, Inc. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Leatherworks, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04629 (S.D.N.Y., June 1, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Leatherworks Inc. -- https://leatherworksinc.com/ -- produces American made leather motorcycle saddlebags of the highest quality.[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 LIMLEARTVATE: Court Denies Conditional Certification in Banjong --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BANJONG, ET AL., V. LIMLEARTVATE, ET AL., Case No. 1:22-cv-04849-RER (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr., entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion without prejudice to renewal upon submission of affidavits by the Plaintiffs and/or others describing why conditional certification of the collective action is appropriate. The Plaintiffs must renew within 30 days. The Defendants are granted 14 days after renewal to submit any further objections not yet raised. The Court finds it appropriate that notices be sent to individuals who worked for Sea Thai at any point during the six-year period preceding the date of the filing of the motion for conditional certification. The Defendants ask that the Plaintiffs' request for telephone numbers be denied. Generally, it is proper for courts in collective actions to order the discovery of names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, and dates of employment of potential collective members. Limleartvate owns defendant Sea Thai, a restaurant in Brooklyn, New York. Sea Thai employed the Plaintiffs as bussers, servers, food runners, and/or bartenders. The Plaintiffs allege that Sea Thai has regularly misallocated shares of tips by allowing managers and supervisors to take part in a tip pool. The Plaintiffs further allege that Sea Thai gave no notice to the Plaintiffs that an FLSA tip pooling arrangement must be limited to employees who customarily and regularly receive tips (i.e., not managers and supervisors). A copy of the Court's order dated May 25, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qG6Twh at no extra charge.[CC] LISA PAIGE LLC: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lisa Paige, LLC. The case is styled as Alison Michele Cruz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Lisa Paige, LLC doing business as: Chewbeads, Case No. 1:23-cv-04605-PAE (S.D.N.Y., June 1, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lisa Paige, LLC doing business as Chewbeads -- https://www.chewbeads.com/ -- offers famous & original collection of baby teething jewelry made with 100% child-safe silicone & 100% BPA free.[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 LVNV FUNDING: Ct. Tosses Bid to Vacate Jan 9 Order in McCorker Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VANESSA MCCORKER, v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00382-JEM (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge John E. Martin entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion to vacate the January 9, 2023 Court Order. The Court REAFFIRMS the telephonic Rule 16 pretrial scheduling conference set for June 8, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. (Central Time), with parties to dial 877-873-8017 and enter access code 5155509# when prompted. Parties are to meet and confer and file a proposed joint discovery plan in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) by June 2, 2023. The Plaintiff has not alleged any violation of the FDCPA arising out of the debt claim filed against her in state court in September 2020. Despite her arguments that she filed her case prior to a final judgment in the state court and that she is not technically requesting that the Court reverse or void the state court judgment, any relief she requests in this Court with respect to determining whether she owed the debt to the Defendant would be a review of what the state court already decided and is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The injury she is claiming is inextricably intertwined with the state court judgment, and this Court does not have jurisdiction over the claim. On December 10, 2021, the Plaintiff McCorker, who is proceeding pro se, or without counsel, filed a Complaint claiming that the Defendant LVNV Funding did not comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) requirement that it send a debt collection letter to the Plaintiff before filing two claims against her in state court, one in September 2020 and another in March 2021. She requests that the two state court debt claims the Defendant filed against her be dismissed and that she be awarded damages. On January 9, 2023, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims arising out of the September 2020 state court case for lack of jurisdiction. LVNV Funding is a company that buys charged-off accounts from companies like credit card issuers and personal loan lenders. A copy of the Court's order dated May 25, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N1Uiex at no extra charge.[CC] M2 INGREDIENTS: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against M2 Ingredients, Inc. The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. M2 Ingredients, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04626 (S.D.N.Y., June 1, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. M2 Ingredients -- https://www.m2ingredients.com/ -- is a food production company that produces organic and whole food powdered and medical mushrooms.[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 MANHATTAN CARDIOLOGY: Saveth Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Manhattan Cardiology, P.C. The case is styled as Bradley Saveth, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Manhattan Cardiology, P.C, Case No. 1:23-cv-04638 (S.D.N.Y., June 1, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Manhattan Cardiology -- https://manhattancardiology.com/ -- is the premier facility for cardiac testing and preventive treatment in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 Ne 1st Ave, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com MATRIX ABSENCE: Bid for Summary Judgment Partly Granted in Weeks ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tina Weeks, et al., v. Matrix Absence Management Incorporated, Case No. 2:20-cv-00884-SPL (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Steven P. Logan entered an order granting in part the Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to the second prong of the Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA) administrative exemption and is otherwise denied in part. The Court further ordered that the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is denied. The Court cannot conclude as a matter of law that the Defendant acted either willfully or in good faith in classifying the Plaintiffs as exempt. There is minimal evidence in the record about the Ries plaintiffs, their job duties, and how they went about those duties, so it is unclear how factually analogous that case was to this one. It is therefore impossible to determine at this stage whether it was reasonable for the Defendant to conclude that the the Plaintiffs in this case, too, were appropriately categorized as exempt. It is likewise impossible to conclude that the Ries plaintiffs were so different from the Plaintiffs in this case that the Defendant acted with reckless disregard by relying on Ries. The issues of willfulness and good faith will be left for the factfinder to resolve at trial. The Defendant has demonstrated as a matter of law that the Plaintiffs' primary job duties related to the general business operations of the Defendant's clients such that the second prong of the administrative exemption is satisfied. The other issues raised by the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment will proceed. The Plaintiffs Tina Weeks, Michael McDonald, Cassandra Magdaleno, and Samantha Stocklein bring a claim against the Defendant Matrix Absence Management Incorporated for violation of FLSA for failure to pay overtime. The Plaintiff Stocklein also brings a claim against the Defendant for violation of Oregon Wage Law for failure to pay overtime. On November 22, 2022, the Court granted the Defendant's motion for Decertification of Collective Action and denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class, so the Plaintiffs have only individual claims remaining. The Plaintiffs were each employed by the Defendant as claims examiners. They worked as AMS Claims Examiners, which involved processing both STD and LOA claims filed under the Defendant's customers' policies. The Defendant is a licensed third-party administrator that processes leave of absence ("LOA"), short-term disability ("STD") and long-term disability ("LTD") claims for its customers according to the policies, procedures, and criteria in customers' plans. A copy of the Court's order dated May 25, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Cnat12 at no extra charge.[CC] MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Villanueva Sues Over Wage and Hour Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Cindy Villanueva, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., a Maryland corporation; Maxim Healthcare Services Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Maxim Healthcare Staffing Services, Inc., a Maryland corporation; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive; Case No. 23CV034697 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 1, 2023), is brought alleging that the Defendant has engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders, all of which contribute to Defendant's deliberate unfair competition. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant has increased their profits by violating state wage and hour laws by, among other things: Failing to pay all wages for all hours worked, including minimum and overtime wages; Failing to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; Failing to authorize or permit rest breaks or provide compensation in lieu thereof; Failing to provide accurate, itemized wage statements; Failing to reimburse all reasonable and necessary business expenses; and Failing to pay all wages due upon separation of employment. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit seeking monetary relief against Defendant on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated in California to recover, among other things, unpaid wages and benefits, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses and penalties pursuant, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants during the Class Period in California. The Defendants are in the business of providing healthcare staffing services to hospitals and other healthcare facilities throughout California, including the County of Alameda.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. Chancellor Nobles, Esq. LEBE LAW, APLC 777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90021 Phone: (213) 444-1973 Facsimile: (213) 457-3092 Email: Jon@lebelaw.com Chancellor@lebelaw.com MCGEE AIR SERVICES: Price Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Darius Price, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MCGEE AIR SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 23-CIV-00342 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on May 31, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-02705-SK. On March 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) asserting claims for relief arising out of Plaintiff's alleged employment with Defendant. The FAC asserts claims for: Minimum Wage Violations; Failure to Pay Meal Period Premiums at the Regular Rate of Compensation; Rest Period Violations; Wage Statement Violations; Waiting Time Penalties; Unfair Competition; Civil Penalties Under The Private Attorneys General Act.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Paul S. Cowie, Esq. Patricia M. Jeng, Esq. John Ellis, Esq. Melissa Hughes, Esq. Hyunki (John) Jung, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Phone: 415.434.9100 Facsimile: 415.434.3947 Email pcowie@sheppardmullin.com pjeng@sheppardmullin.com jellis@sheppardmullin.com mhughes@sheppardmullin.com hjung@sheppardmullin.com MDL 2936: Court Enters Class Certification Deadlines in Smitty's ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re: Smitty's/Cam2 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, Case No. Stephen R. Bough 4:20-md-02936 (W.D. Mo., Filed June 2, 2020), the Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part class certification deadlines as follows: (1) The Plaintiffs' opposition to the June 2, 2023 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed in or before: The Defendants' reply shall be filed July 10, 2023 on or before: (2) The Plaintiffs' opposition to the June 12, 2023 Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment shall be filed on or before: The Defendants' reply shall be filed July 17, 2023 on or before: (3) The Defendants' reply to its Motion July 14, 2023 for Summary Judgment shall be filed on or before: (4) The Defendants' reply to its Motions July 21, 2023 for Summary Judgment shall be filed on or before: (5) The Defendants' opposition to the August 4, 2023 Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification shall be filed on or before: The Plaintiffs' reply shall be filed August 21, 2023 on or before: (6) The Plaintiffs' opposition to the Oct. 13, 2023 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed on or before: The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud.[CC] METAIRIE TOWERS: AVMI LLC Suit Removed to E.D. Louisiana -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Carlos AVMI, L.L.C., Anne Cannon, individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Metairie Towers Condominium Association, Inc.; Metairie Towers Board of Directors through its Individual Members, Ron Carter, Betty Miles, Ellyn Meier, Carolyn Diaz, Jennifer Fagan, Mary Kay Zahn, & Ann Babst; Strategic Claims Consultants, LLC; GNO Property Management, LLC; Burlington Insurance Company; Greenwich Insurance Company; Federal Insurance Company, Interstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, ABC Insurance Company; GHI Insurance Company Case No. 839-979 was removed from the 24th Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on June 1, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01845 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Real Property. Metairie Towers Condominium Association, Inc. -- https://metairietowers.com/ -- is a condominium complex in Metairie, Louisiana.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants is represented by: Catherine Fornias Giarrusso PIPES MILES BECKMAN, LLC 1100 Poydras Street, Ste. 3300 New Orleans, LA 70163 Phone: (504) 322-7070 Fax: (504) 322-7520 Email: cgiarrusso@pipesmiles.com MHM HEALTH: Completion of Class Discovery in Lewis Set for July 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PENNY LEWIS, v. MHM HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00228-SEP (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk entered a third amended case management order -- class certification issues: -- The parties shall complete all discovery July 31, 2023 relating to conditional class certification issues no later than: -- Briefs supporting or opposing conditional Aug. 28, 2023 class certification must be filed no later than: -- Any response shall be filed no later than: Sept. 25, 2023 -- Any reply shall be filed no later than: Oct. 9, 2023 MHM Health is a healthcare company. It offers medical, dental, and forensic. A copy of the Court's order dated May 25, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N88a7g at no extra charge.[CC] MICHAEL PRIES: McCollum Class Cert Bid Nixed w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNNIE MCCOLLUM, v. MICHAEL H.W. PRIES, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01710-SHR-SM (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Sylvia H. Rambo entered an order serving the Plaintiff's amended complaint on the named Defendants. In addition, the Court will deny without prejudice the Plaintiff's pending motions for the appointment of counsel and class certification. The Court notes, however, that if licensed counsel enters an appearance on behalf of the Plaintiff in this case, either as a result of an appointment of counsel by the Court or by some other means, then licensed counsel will be permitted to file a renewed motion seeking class certification. At the present time, however, the Court will deny the Plaintiff's motions for class certification and the appointment of counsel. Pro se Plaintiff McCollum, who is a state prisoner currently incarcerated at State Correctional Institution Pine Grove in Indiana, Pennsylvania, has commenced the action pursuant to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. section 1983, asserting violations of his constitutional rights while incarcerated as a pretrial detainee at Dauphin County Prison (DCP) in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. In accordance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Court previously conducted an initial review of the Plaintiff's complaint. A copy of the Court's order dated May 25, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qBkl4O at no extra charge.[CC] MINNESOTA 3PL LLC: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Minnesota 3PL LLC. The case is styled as Alison Michele Cruz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Minnesota 3PL LLC doing business as: Fairy Glen, Case No. 1:23-cv-04611-AT (S.D.N.Y., June 1, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Minnesota 3PL -- https://www.minnesota3pl.com/ -- provides services for our own internally owned eCommerce companies.[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 NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Poe Bid to File Class Cert Under Seal OK'd --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERI POE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. THE NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 8:21-cv-02065-SPG-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett entered an order granting the Plaintiff's application to file motion for class certification and certain supporting documents under seal. Northwestern Mutual is a provider of life insurance and investment products. A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WWQShN at no extra charge.[CC] OHIO SECURITY: LVB Partial Summary Judgment Bid Tossed ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCKY VINTAGE BRANDS, LLC; and PETER GISSING, v. OHIO SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-00417-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Thomas S. Zilly entered an order: -- Denying the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment; -- Granting the Defendant Ohio Security's motion for partial summary judgment; -- Dismissing with prejudice the Plaintiffs' first cause of action for breach of contract; and -- Directing The parties are to file, on or before June 16, 2023, a Joint Status Report addressing whether and to what extent the Plaintiffs' remaining claims are affected by this Order. The Plaintiffs contend that Ohio Security’s reliance on Australia Unlimited is misplaced because the Washington Court of Appeals determined that the insurer breached its duty to defend AU in the Colorado I lawsuit. The Plaintiffs argue that, like the allegations of trade dress infringement in the Colorado I complaint, the facts Pollitz and Hazelwood pleaded in the underlying complaint allege a personal and advertising injuryconceivably covered under the Policy because Lucky Vintage used Pollitz's and Hazelwood's advertising ideas and purportedly owes them monetary damages as a resultof that use. Ohio Security operates as an insurance company. The Company provides automobile and workers compensation insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 25, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Nn8yjm at no extra charge.[CC] PAUL MOSS INSURANCE: Discovery on Individual Pavelka Claims Cont'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned JACKSON PAVELKA AND KAYLEE PAVELKA, Plaintiffs v. PAUL MOSS INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC dba EPIQ INSURANCE AGENCY, Defendant, Case No. 1:22 CV 02226 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Donald C. Nugent of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss and directs the parties to continue discovery on the Plaintiffs' individual liability claims. The case is before the Court on the Defendant's Motion for Determination That Plaintiffs Are Not Proper Parties and to Dismiss the Complaint, filed by Defendant Paul Moss Insurance Agency on March 31, 2023. Plaintiffs Jackson Pavelka and Kaylee Pavelka filed their opposition to the Defendant's motion on April 18, 2023, and the Defendant filed a reply on May 12, 2023. On Dec. 9, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed this action against the Defendant under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), alleging two claims of violation of the TCPA. The first claim alleges that Defendant Paul Moss Insurance made calls to the Plaintiffs using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") without their consent. The second claim alleges that the Defendant made calls to the Plaintiffs using a prerecorded voice without their consent. The Complaint also seeks to raise these claims as a class action "individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated" on behalf of two putative nationwide classes. The gist of the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss are assertions that: (1) Paul Moss Insurance did not initiate any call with the Plaintiffs, but rather that it received a "warm transfer" (in effect, that Paul Moss Insurance received the transfer of an initial call from another entity, Datalot, with Plaintiff Kaylee Pavelka on the line, based on her direction or consent after she received the initial call from Datalot), and that Paul Moss Insurance does not utilize an ATDS system; (2) Paul Moss Insurance (again) did not make any telephone calls to the Plaintiffs, and that it does not use a prerecorded voice in its communications; (3) the Plaintiffs have not identified any "harm" caused by the Defendant, based on the fact that Paul Moss Insurance did not initiate any calls with the Plaintiffs (effectively, that the Plaintiffs "lack standing" for their claims); and (4) the Plaintiffs have not identified any facts that Paul Moss Insurance could be held "vicariously liable" for any calls made by third parties, including Datalot (effectively, that no "agency" existed between Paul Moss Insurance and any third party). Among the items submitted in support of the Defendant's motion are copies of texts between Paul Moss Insurance and Kaylee Pavelka indicating that she consented to receiving the texts from Paul Moss Insurance, and that the texts were in fact responsive to information provided by her, as well as recordings of two telephone conversations she had, first, with Datalot, and then with Paul Moss Insurance, each of which last a number of minutes long and evidence a consensual exchange of information between the caller and Ms. Pavelka. There is no dispute that the only Plaintiff who had any interaction with Defendant Paul Moss Insurance (or Datalot) was Plaintiff Kaylee Pavelka, who is the "primary and customary user" of the cellular phone at issue in this case. Plaintiff Jackson Pavelka (Kaylee Pavelka's husband) is named as a Plaintiff solely because he is the "subscriber" for the subject phone's cellular account. Judge Nugent opines that the Defendant's motion raises a number of factual issues that make the granting of a motion to dismiss premature at this time. Both the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, in their briefing on the motion, present a number of matters that are outside the Pleadings, including various contract provisions between Defendant Paul Moss Insurance and Datalot, affidavits, copies of text messages, and recordings of the telephone conversations between Plaintiff Kaylee Pavelka and Datalot and between Plaintiff Kaylee Pavelka and Defendant Paul Moss Insurance. The case is still in its preliminary stages and discovery is ongoing. At the Case Management Conference, held on Feb. 27, 2023, the Defendant suggested that the Court bifurcate discovery, under Fed. R. CIV. P. 42(b), to first address the liability claims under the TCPA related to the Plaintiffs individually, and to accept summary briefing and rule upon such individual liability issues first, before expanding the scope of discovery to encompass the Plaintiffs' asserted "class action" claims, as the individual liability claims would likely be dispositive of whether the case should thereafter proceed as a "class action." The Court finds that bifurcation of discovery to first address the individual liability claims, and then to entertain possible summary judgment motion practice on the Plaintiffs' individual claims, prior to class action discovery, is appropriate under FED. R. CIV. P. 42(b). The Court also finds that the parties should be given an opportunity to complete discovery on the Plaintiffs' individual liability claims prior to any summary judgment motion practice that may be initiated on those individual claims at a later date. Accordingly, Judge Nugent holds that the Defendant's Motion for Determination That Plaintiffs Are Not Proper Parties and to Dismiss the Complaint is premature, and is not in a posture to rule upon at this time. For each of the reasons stated, Judge Nugent denies the Defendant's Motion for Determination That Plaintiffs Are Not Proper Parties and to Dismiss the Complaint. The parties are directed to continue discovery on the Plaintiffs' individual liability claims, with the intention of addressing and briefing these potentially dispositive claims first, before undertaking class action discovery and any related briefing in connection with the Plaintiffs' class action claims. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum of Opinion and Order dated May 29, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2v32w44f from Leagle.com. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Perez Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Lorenzo Perez, as an individual and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV07463 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 June 2, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04348. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges twelve causes of action: failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay all wages and minimum wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to provide suitable facilities for meal and rest breaks; failure to comply with California Labor Code; failure to timely furnish accurate itemized wage statements; failure to timely pay wages during employment; waiting time penalties; failure to reimburse business expenses; and (12) violation of Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Max Fischer, Esq. Sonia A. Vucetic, Esq. Anahi Cruz, 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: max.fischer@morganlewis.com sonia.vucetic@morganlewis.com anahi.cruz@morganlewis.com - and - Camille Watson, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 Phone: +1.415.442.1000 Fax: +1.415.442.1001 Email: camille.watson@morganlewis.com RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Borozny's Bid to Review Footnote Six Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, TARAH KYE BOROZNY, ANTHONY DeGENNARO, RYAN GLOGOWSKI, ELLEN McISAAC, SCOTT PRENTISS, ALEX SCALES, AUSTIN WAID-JONES, NICHOLAS WILSON, and STEVEN ZAPPULLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, PRATT & WHITNEY DIVISION; AGILIS ENGINEERING, INC.; BELCAN ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC; CYIENT, INC.; PARAMETRIC SOLUTIONS, INC.; and QUEST GLOBAL SERVICES-NA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-1657-SVN (D. Conn.), Judge Sarala V. Nagala of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut denies the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and the Defendants' motion to strike. In this antitrust putative class action, the Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by secretly agreeing to restrict their competition in the recruitment and hiring of aerospace engineers and other skilled workers in the jet propulsion systems industry. The Plaintiffs have accused the Defendants of running a years-long scheme to allocate the labor market in the aerospace engineering industry. This scheme was purportedly accomplished by each Defendant agreeing not to hire current employees from any other Defendant. By doing this, the Defendants were able to ensure salaries for their employees remained artificially low, due to the Plaintiffs' inability to move among the Defendants for better pay or benefits. On Jan. 20, 2023, the Court denied the Defendants' motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint, holding that the Plaintiffs had plausibly alleged both per se and rule of reason claims under the Sherman Act. Presently before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of footnote six in the Court's ruling and order on the Defendants' motions to dismiss. In that footnote, the Court, quoting from Bogan v. Hodgkins, 166 F.3d 509 (2d Cir. 1999), held that, because it is an element of a per se case to describe the relevant market in which we may presume the anticompetitive effect would occur, its analysis of the sufficiency of the Plaintiffs' allegations concerning the relevant market would relate not only to the rule of reason claim but to the per se allegations, as well. The Plaintiffs now challenge that holding, contending that they need not have alleged the relevant market to proceed with their per se claim, despite the language in Bogan. Initially, the Court has already held that the CAC states both a per se violation of the antitrust laws, as well as a violation under the rule of reason. The Plaintiffs do not contest this determination. Instead, they contend only that footnote six of the Court's ruling merits reconsideration. As noted, the Second Circuit in Bogan held that a plaintiff seeking to bring a claim for a per se violation of the antitrust laws must describe the relevant market in which the conduct took place. It concludes that the Court's analysis in the section of the ruling entitled "Identifying the Relevant Market," would relate not only to the rule of reason claim but to the per se allegations, as well. The Plaintiffs assert that this statement overlooks and is contrary to controlling decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court and the Second Circuit and should therefore be corrected to make clear that their per se claim is not limited to the specific geographic market the Court found plausibly pleaded, namely, Connecticut. Unsurprisingly, the Defendants disagree with the Plaintiffs' argument and contend that the Court correctly applied Bogan, and its progeny, to conclude that a Plaintiff must define a market to maintain either a rule of reason or per se claim under the antitrust laws. Judge Nagala agrees with the Defendants and will not reconsider the holding in footnote six. Under the familiar pleading standard applied by the federal courts, she says the Plaintiffs' complaint must plausibly allege that the Defendants have violated the antitrust laws. The Plaintiffs seek to advance a market allocation claim, alleging that the Defendants have allocated the labor market of aerospace employees, and thus have committed a per se violation of the antitrust laws. To hold that the Plaintiffs could allege a scheme of market allocation without plausibly alleging the market they claim to have been allocated simply defies logic, Judge Nagala opines. The Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged only that the Defendants' scheme allocated the market for the labor of aerospace employees in the state of Connecticut. For these reasons, the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and the Defendants' motion to strike are denied. A full-text copy of the Court's May 30, 2023 Ruling & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3zvcrhyt from Leagle.com. REPUBLIC SERVICES: Buffalo's Bid to Amend Complaint Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Buffalo Seafood House LLC, et al., Plaintiffs v. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 7:22-cv-1242-RMG (D.S.C.), Judge Richard Mark Gergel of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division, grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Clarify or Reconsider Order on Motion to Dismiss and to permit the amendment of the complaint. The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion to Clarify or Reconsider Order on Motion to Dismiss and to permit the amendment of the complaint to add the subsidiaries of Republic Services, Inc. ("RSI") asserts contracted with Plaintiffs Budget Inns of Pensacola, Inc. and Garibian & Associates Accountancy Corp. The Defendants responded in opposition. The consolidated, near-nationwide putative class action pertains to allegations that the Defendants overcharge their customers by increasing service rates by more than is allowed in the form contract at issue and by imposing fees that are unrelated to the costs Defendants purport justifies them. The Plaintiffs are Buffalo Seafood, a South Carolina LLC; Budget Inns, a Florida corporation; Garibian, a California corporation; and A+ Auto Service, LLC, a South Carolina LLC. Initially, the named Defendants were RSI, Republic Services of South Carolina, LLC ("RSSC"), Browning-Ferris Industries of Florida, Inc., and Allied Waste Systems, Inc. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff collectively refers to RSI, RSSC, Browning-Ferris, and Allied Waste as "Republic" or "Defendants." The Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that RSI wholly owns and controls all of its subsidiaries including the subsidiaries named in the case. They further allege that RSI and its subsidiaries operate as a single entity with regard to the conduct at issue and that RSI's subsidiaries are mere alter egos of RSI and have no independent existence. The Plaintiffs' complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment against "Republic," meaning all Defendants. Additionally, Budget Inns brought Florida Deceptive Unfair Trade Practices claims against "Republic," and Garibian brought California Unfair Competition Law claims against "Republic." Accordingly, the Plaintiffs causes of actions set forth in the complaint were as follows: Count I - Breach of Contract, Rate Increases (all Plaintiffs against all Defendants); Count II - Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Rate Increases (all Plaintiffs against all Defendants); Count III - Unjust Enrichment, Rate Increases (all Plaintiffs against all Defendants); Count IV - Violation of Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), Rate Increases (Budget Inns against all Defendants); Count V - Violation of California Unfair Competition Law (CUCL), Rate Increases (Garibian against all Defendants); Count VI - Unjust Enrichment, Recovery Fees, Fuel/Environmental (all Plaintiffs against all Defendants); Count VII - Violation of Florida Recovery Fees Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), Fuel/Environmental (Budget Inns against all Defendants); Count VIII - Violation of Recovery Fees California Unfair Competition Law (CUCL), Fuel/Environmental (Garibian against all Defendants). The Defendants moved to dismiss certain Defendants and claims. In that motion, they sought to dismiss Browning-Ferris and Allied Waste for lack of jurisdiction and as improper parties because Browning-Ferris and Allied Waste were not parties to any of the underlying contracts. Based on the representation that Browning-Ferris and Allied Waste were not contracting parties, the Plaintiffs did not oppose the dismissal of those parties. Because the Plaintiff did not oppose, the Court dismissed Defendants Browning Ferris and Allied Waste from all claims. After the Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss Browning-Ferris and Allied Waste, the Defendants sought to dismiss Budget Inns' and Garibian's breach of contract and breach of good faith and fair dealing claims against RSI because the Plaintiffs failed to name a RSI alter ego that entered into a contract with Budget Inns or Garibian. The Court found that Budget Inns and Garibian could not allege an alter ego theory of piercing the corporate veil because the Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss Browning-Ferris and Allied Waste, the RSI subsidiaries whose veil the Plaintiffs sought to pierce. The Defendants also sought to dismiss Budget Inns' and Garibian's state unfair practices claims against RSI. The Court denied their motion on that issue but did find that RSSC, a South Carolina entity, should not be named as a defendant under the California and Florida statutes. The Defendants also sought to dismiss the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims. The Court found that the Plaintiffs properly pled unjust enrichment in the alternative and denied the Defendants' motion on that issue. In the conclusion, however, the Court, in a scrivener's error, mistakenly dismissed Budget Inns' and Garibian's unjust enrichment claims. The Court reconsiders this portion of its prior order and rules that Budget Inns and Garibian can assert unjust enrichment claims against RSI. With respect to the Motion to Reconsider, since entering its order granting in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss, the Court has received (1) the Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider; (2) the Defendants' response in opposition; (3) the Defendants' supplemental disclosures, pursuant to the Court's text orders, identifying subsidiaries it alleges contracted with Budget Inns and Garibian and information regarding lawsuits in which RSI was named Defendant; and (4) the Plaintiffs' reply to the Defendants' disclosures. These filings have clarified various factual and legal issues in contest in the action and have persuaded the Court that its dismissal of Budget Inns and Garibian for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment claims were in error. The Plaintiffs allege that RSI's wholly owned subsidiaries are shams and under the control of RSI. Judge Gergel says the Court at this stage of the litigation must assume these claims are true and must view the Plaintiffs' allegations in a light most favorable to them as the nonmoving party. If RSI's subsidiaries are effectively a legal fiction and a sham then the Plaintiffs may sue RSI under a number of theories alleging claims of breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing without the necessity of naming RSI's subsidiaries as a party. This includes an alter ego theory of liability. He further reconsiders the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim to correct the scriveners error outlined in the conclusion of the order. Thus, Judge Gergel grants the Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider those portions of the Court's prior order dismissing Budget Inns' and Garibian's breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment; and denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss those claims. Regarding the Motion to Amend Complaint, the Plaintiffs request leave to amend the Complaint to add each of the subsidiaries listed on the form contracts with members of the near-nationwide putative class. The Defendants argue that this amendment would be futile because (1) the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over any out-of-state RSI subsidiary; (2) South Carolina's Door-Closing Statue forecloses the Plaintiffs' request to amend their Complaint to add non-resident subsidiaries as defendants; and (3) Buffalo Seafood lacks standing to assert breach of contract claims on behalf of putative class members who signed contracts with subsidiaries other than RSSC. Judge Gergel finds it unnecessary to add to this action at this time all of the subsidiaries of RSI. He says it would be sufficient at this time to add the properly named subsidiaries RSI alleges were parties to the contracts with Budget Inns and Garibian. He finds the Defendants' opposition to the motion to amend to be without merit. First, the Court may have personal jurisdiction over the subsidiaries based on an alter ego theory. Second, by separate order, the Court has ruled that the South Carolina Door-Closing Statue does not apply here because of the countervailing federal interest in consolidating price and fee increase actions. Third, the issue of whether the Plaintiffs have standing to assert contract claims on behalf of putative class members who contracted with subsidiaries of RSI not parties to the action is best left to the Court's later consideration of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Defendants do not contend that they will be prejudiced by the Plaintiffs' amendment to add the subsidiaries which allegedly contracted with Budget Inns and Garibian, and there is no other indication that they would be. RSI has been on notice of the litigation and, thus, is aware of the Plaintiffs alter ego theory that its subsidiaries are shell corporations under the control of RSI. Consequently, the Plaintiffs' motion to amend to add Allied Waste and Consolidated Waste Service as parties to the action is granted. For the reasons he stated, Judge Gergel grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider the dismissal of Budget Inns' and Garibian's causes of action for breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment against RSI is granted and the Defendants' motion to dismiss those claims is denied; 2. The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint to add the recently identified subsidiaries Allied Waste and Consolidated Waste is granted; and 3. The Plaintiffs' motion to add the balance of RSI's subsidiaries is denied at this time without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's May 30, 2023 Order & Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycad7v7a from Leagle.com. SENEX LAW: Court Grants Lord's Bid for Partial Summary Judgment --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled JENNIFER LORD, et al., Plaintiffs v. SENEX LAW, P.C. Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-00541 (W.D. Va.), Chief District Judge Michael F. Urbanski of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Roanoke Division, (1) grants Plaintiffs Jennifer Lord, Toniraye Moss and Ebony Reddicks' motion for partial summary judgment; and (2) denies Defendant Senex Law, P.C.'s motion for summary judgment. Senex is a Virginia-based law firm that provides services to landlord clients, including services associated with tenant rent delinquency. At issue in this lawsuit is whether Senex acts as a debt collector for the purposes of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692(a)(6), in drafting and sending Notices of Noncompliance ("Notices") to delinquent tenants for its landlord clients. The complaint raises both class action allegations and individual claims on behalf of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs contend that Senex acts as a debt collector subject to the FDCPA because it regularly engages in debt collection activities by drafting and sending the Notices to delinquent tenants. Senex argues that because the Notices are reviewed, approved, and signed by its landlord clients, the Notices are those of the landlord-creditor, and Senex is not subject to the FDCPA for its legal work in drafting the Notices and the ministerial task of sending the Notices to the tenants. Judge Urbanski notes that since the enactment of the FDCPA decades ago, federal courts have been faced with addressing its applicability to a wide variety of debt collection schemes. While these cases are very fact intensive, the Court concludes from these decisions that Senex acts as a debt collector when it drafts and sends delinquency Notices to the tenants of its landlord clients. The Plaintiffs brought the lawsuit on Sept. 9, 2020. On Oct. 28, 2020, Senex moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), alleging that the Plaintiffs' claims fail as a matter of law because Senex is not a debt collector subject to the FDCPA. The Court granted in part and denied in part Senex's motion to dismiss. In relevant part, the Court rejected the argument that Senex, as a matter of law, was not a debt collector and, thus, was not subject to the FDCPA. Senex, then, brought a motion to permit an interlocutory appeal and stay, alleging that "the application of the Virginia Uniform Electronic Acts (UETA) precludes Senex from liability for the claims asserted against it." The Court denied Senex's motion. Following discovery, the Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, and Senex moved for summary judgment. The Court heard argument on the motions on Dec. 2, 2022. The issue common to both of these motions is whether the Defendant qualifies as a "debt collector" pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1692a(6). The FDCPA does not regulate creditors "when they collect debt on their own account," Judge Urbanski says, citing Henson v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., 817 F.3d 131, 134 (4th Cir. 2016). As such, Senex first argues that the FDCPA does not apply to it because the Notices were reviewed, approved, and electronically signed by their landlord-creditor clients. Because the Notices appear to come from the landlord, are signed by the landlord, and direct payment and communications to the landlord, Senex argues that its role in drafting and sending the Notices falls below the FDCPA's radar. The Court agrees with the cases decided in the Second Circuit that the electronic signature of the landlord does not immunize Senex from FDCPA liability. The Court finds this Second Circuit precedent persuasive, and believes that Senex's undisputed conduct in drafting, processing, and sending the delinquent rent Notices is debt collection activity subjecting it to the requirements of the FDCPA. The Court is not persuaded by Senex's argument that a contrary conclusion is compelled by the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), which requires that electronic signatures be given legal effect. The UETA states that if a law requires a signature, an electronic signature satisfies the law, Va. Code Section 59.1-485(d), and therefore, according to Senex, this ends the only necessary analysis. Senex argues that because the landlord signs the Notice seeking to collect the debt, the Notice is that of the landlord, and Senex cannot be a debt collector. While the UETA gives legal effect to the landlord's electronic signature, Judge Urbanski opines that the statute does not excuse Senex from complying with the requirements of the FDCPA for its other debt collection activities separate and apart from the signature. The record establishes that Senex operates a debt collection processing system for its landlord clients by drafting, preparing, and sending rent delinquency Notices and engaging in subsequent collection activities, such as filing unlawful detainer actions. Following Second Circuit precedent, Judge Urbanski holds that Senex acts as a debt collector regardless of the fact that the Notices are electronically signed by the landlord. Senex also argues that summary judgment should be entered for it because the Plaintiffs originally alleged that Senex, rather than its landlord clients, signed the Notices. Following discovery, there is no dispute that Senex's clients, the landlords, actually electronically sign each Notice. Again, Judge Urbanski points out, Senex's argument places too much emphasis on the signature on the Notices and ignores Senex's crucial role in orchestrating and implementing the issuance of the Notices. In essence, Senex's argument elevates form, reflected in the landlord's signature, over the substance of Senex's integral role in the debt collection system it operates, Judge Urbanski says. As such, the Court disagrees with Senex that the fact that the landlords actually electronically sign each Notice allows Senex to disregard its obligations as a debt collector under the FDCPA. Judge Urbanski adds that plainly, Senex regularly engages in debt collection activity and meets the statutory test as a debt collector. Finally, Senex argues that its actions are ministerial only, invoking the line of cases holding that entities performing only labeling, stuffing, printing, or mailing services are not debt collectors under the FDCPA. Judge Urbanski opines that Senex's argument ignores the fundamental operation of the Senex delinquent rent collection system. Instead of merely serving as a mailing service, Senex provides a turn-key delinquent rent processing system for its landlord clients. Upon receipt of the delinquent rent data, Senex prepares the Notices on a template it drafted. It then sends the draft Notices to the landlords for review and electronic signature, and performs a final check before mailing the Notices. Importantly, Senex retains the delinquent tenant's information for follow-up collection and eviction proceedings. In no sense can the integrated Senex delinquent rent collection system be deemed ministerial, Judge Urbanski holds. At the motion to dismiss stage of this case, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true, the Court reached the same conclusion that more factors suggest Senex acts as a debt collector when it transmits the Notices. Now that the parties have completed discovery, the question is whether these factors apply differently to the facts of this case. The Court finds that they do not. In sum, Judge Urbanski opines that it cannot be concluded that Senex, operating a fully integrated system for collecting delinquent tenant rent for its landlord clients, merely engages in ministerial functions. To conclude otherwise would be to ignore the reality of the comprehensive Senex rent collection system. For these reasons, the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment is granted and the Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated May 29, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/nsn38ntk from Leagle.com. SOLARJUICE AMERICAN: Leach Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Solarjuice American Inc., et al. The case is styled as Nkosi Leach, Chi Shing Vincent Au, all others similarly situated v. Solarjuice American Inc., Solar4America Technology Inc., Solajuice Technology Inc., Case No. 23CV002557 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 31, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Solar4America -- https://www.solarjuiceamerica.com/ -- supplies residential solar systems that employ proven designs, the latest technologies, and brand-name products.[BN] STAKE CENTER LOCATING: Wolfe Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Austin Wolfe, individually and on behalf of all class members v. STAKE CENTER LOCATING, LLC, Case No. 02591 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 2, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02125. The Plaintiff alleges that SCL failed to pay him both straight time wages and overtime wages. The basis of these allegations is Plaintiff's allegation that he "received a taxable automobile allowance as compensation that was not included in his regular rate of pay." Plaintiff's Complaint states that SCL "represents to the IRS that the vehicle allowance is wages" but that SCL "failed to include the vehicle allowance in the regular rate calculation for purposes of determining [Plaintiff's] overtime rate. As a result, Plaintiff alleges that he was paid "less overtime than required by the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA), and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law (PWPCL)."[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Thomas M. Pohl, Esq. BURNS WHITE LLC Burns White Center 48 26th Street Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 995-3000 Fax: (412) 995-3300 Email: tmpohl@burnswhite.com - and - Richard S. Margulies, Esq. BURNS WHITE LLC 1880 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, 10th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 587-1600 Fax: (215) 587-1699 Email: rsmargulies@burnswhite.com STITCH FIX INC: Morrow Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stitch Fix, Inc. The case is styled as Caitlin Morrow, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Stitch Fix, Inc., Does 1 To 10, Inclusive, Case No. CGC23606819 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 31, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Stitch Fix -- http://www.stitchfix.com/-- is an online personal styling service in the United States and United Kingdom.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle Mclean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 S Flower St., Ste. 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017-4112 Phone: 213-376-3739 Email: KMcLean@sirillp.com TEMPO CANTINA: Trujillo Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------- Samantha Trujillo, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved Employees v. TEMPO CANTINA DOWNEY LLC, a California limited liability company CHINGON RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, a California limited liability company and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23VECV02182 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 2, 2023), is brought against the Defendants' failure to pay compensation in violation of Labor Code, the California Code of Regulations, and the applicable Wage Orders The Defendants failed to provide employment records in violation of Labor Code; failed to pay overtime and double time in violation of Labor Code and the applicable Wage Orders; failed to provide rest and meal periods in violation of Labor Code and the applicable Wage Orders; failed to pay minimum wage in violation of Labor Code and the applicable Wage Orders; failed to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements in violation of Labor Code and the applicable Wage Orders; failed to pay reporting time wages in violation of California Code of Regulations, Title 8; failed to pay split shift wages in violation of California Code of Regulations; failed to pay all wages earned on time in violation of Labor Code; says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from March 1, 2021 through the date of this complaint. The Defendants operate as a restaurant group with an emphasis on Latin flavors with locations across Southern California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Diana Zadykyan, Esq. HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: 1-818-696-2306 Facsimile: 1-818-696-2307 Email: haig@hbklawyers.com diana@hbklawyers.com UNION SECURITY: Completion of Discovery Depositions Due August 11 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTOINETTE LEWIS-ABDULHAADI, v. UNION SECURITY INSURANCE CO., SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA AND MERAKEY, USA, Case No. 2:21-cv-03805-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Wendy Beetlestone, J. entered a fourth amended scheduling order as follows: 1. The Parties will have 30 days following a decision on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification to complete fact discovery. 2. Any expert reports are due no later than June 6, 2023. If an expert report is intended solely to contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject matter identified by another party, counsel shall serve such report on counsel for every other party no later than July 7, 2023. 3. Any party expecting to offer opinion testimony from lay witnesses pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 701 with respect to the issues of liability and damages shall, at the time required for submission of information and/or reports for expert witnesses, serve opposing parties with details and/or documents covering the lay opinions of the Rule 701 witnesses. 4. Any discovery depositions of expert witnesses shall be completed by August 11, 2023. 5. Any motions for summary judgment and/or Daubert motions shall be filed and served on or before September 12, 2023. Any oppositions to summary judgment shall be filed no later than October 13, 2023, and Reply Briefs in Further Support of Summary Judgment shall be filed by November 13, 2023. 6. If the parties do not plan on filing summary judgment and/or Daubert motions, they shall so report to the Court (Chambers, Room 10614) on or before September 12, 2023. Union Security is a national provider of Medicare Supplement insurance solutions that help customers manage and budget for their health care needs. A copy of the Court's order dated May 25, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42GSwpa at no extra charge.[CC] UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Castleberry v. Universal Protection Service, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01178-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows: -- Rule 16 scheduling conference The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference approximately 30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is filed. The conference will generally be conducted by telephone. -- Discovery plan The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least three calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference If the parties agree on all matters contained in the discovery plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16 scheduling conference be cancelled. -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most hearings by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to appear for an in-person hearing. -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the discovery deadline has already passed The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all discovery disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even if the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to conduct discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the Court, they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived. -- Settlement conferences and mediation The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to Judge Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or mediation. A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42yyyN5 at no extra charge.[CC] ********* 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 ***