/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230628.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, June 28, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 129
Headlines
ABSOLUTE CONSULTING: Pharr Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
AETNA INC: Rule 23 Classes Certified in Peters Suit
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Court Stays Cruz Class Suit
ALTA MESA: Bids to Dismiss Securities Suit Denied W/o Prejudice
AMAZON WEB: Class Cert Deadline in Romero Extended to Dec. 11
AMAZON.COM INC: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Marquez Class Suit
AMAZON.COM INC: Mallouk Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Wiley Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Under Seal
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Deadline to File Class Cert Due April 22, 2024
BANK OF AMERICA: Nia Suit Seeks to Certify Class and Subclasses
BANK OF UTAH: Court Extends Stay of SLACC Suit Pending Mediation
BANNER HEALTH: Discloses Private Information, Irazaba Claims
BARCLAYS BANK: Class Settlement in Sonterra Suit Gets Initial Nod
BDO USA: ELMS Stock Sold at Artificially Inflated Prices, Levy Says
BELLRING BRANDS: Krystofiak Sues Over Lead in Protein Products
BLENDTEC INC: Completion of Class Cert Fact Discovery Due Sept. 18
BROCK GROUP: Completion of Class Cert Discovery Due Oct. 20
BUDGET HOST: Lewis Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime for Hotel Staff
CALIFORNIA: Parties Seek to File Docs Under Seal
CIGNA HEALTH: Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply in RJ Class Action
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Class Settlement in Boger Suit Gets Final Nod
CSAC INC: Bid to Dismiss Union Insurance Case Tossed
DELTA AIRLINES: Haley Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
DELTA STAR: Filing for Class Certification Bid Continued to Nov. 17
DISH NETWORK: Fuentes Appeals Remand Bid Denial to 9th Circuit
DOORDASH INC: Masters Sues Over Unfair Business Practices
DOUBLEDOWN INTERACTIVE: Class Settlement in Benson Gets Final Nod
FLAT CREEK: Court Denies as Moot Dusel Bid for Class Status
FLORIDA INSTITUTE: Navarro Suit Files Bid for Class Certification
FLORIDA POWER: Toll Wins Bid to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery
FLORIDA WOMAN: McCrackin Sues Over lllegal Collection Practices
FLORIDA: Jessup Fraud Suit Transferred From N.D. Cal. to S.D. Fla.
FORD MOTOR: Militello Sues Over Defective Engine's Water Pumps
FRONTIER ENVIRONMENTAL: Peck Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
GENERAL MOTORS: Seeks June 30 Extension to Oppose Class Cert. Bid
GEO GROUP: June 22 Partial Class Certification Hearing Vacated
GEORGE BLOUNT: Faces Washington Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due August 14
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Parties Seek July 12 Class Cert Bid Filing
GOODLEAP LLC: Bid to Compel Arbitration OK'd in Puskas Class Suit
GOOGLE INC: Settlement Final OK Hearing in Privacy Suit Set Oct. 12
GOURMET BAKE: Guzman Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Bake Shop Staff
GRUBHUB INC: Class Settlement in Co Craft Suit Gets Initial Nod
HALMAR INTERNATIONAL: JHB Engrg. Sues Over Unpaid Materials, Labor
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Black Ship Suit
HERITAGE VALLEY: Wiretapping Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
HOAG MEMORIAL: Files 9th Cir. Appeal Over Remand of Doe Suit
ICON HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Dec. 15 in Barclay
INSOMNIA COOKIES: Lee Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers
INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Hanna's Suit Claims Conspiracy to Fix Price
JPMORGAN CHASE: Fibbio Sues Over Duplicate Online Bank Transactions
JS RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mercado Suit Claims
KANSAS CITY: Bid to Dismiss McMillan Class Suit Granted in Part
KAYE-SMITH ENTERPRISES: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Oct. 13
KOHLBERG & KRAVIS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 12
KPMG LLP: Kusen Sues Over Decline of First Republic's Stock Price
L3HARRIS TECH: Savings Plan Participant Class Certified in Stengl
LEARFIELD COMMUNICATIONS: Heerde, Haines Sue Over Privacy Invasion
LEISURE TIME TOURS: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Nayani Seeks Class Certification
LOS ANGELES, CA: Brewster Seeks Reconsideration of Court Order
LOS ANGELES, CA: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Acedo Suit Claims
LOWE'S HOME: Fails to Provide 14-Day Notice for Work Schedules
MAJESTIC STAR: Filing of Class Certification Bids Due Sept. 28
MAJESTIC STAR: Rodriguez Seeks Extension of Case Management Date
MANAGED CARE: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Hanekom Alleges
MANAGED CARE: Nelson Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info
MARSHALL & MELHORN: Hendrix Files Suit in N.D. Ohio
MAT BUS CORP: Quick Seeks Unpaid Wages of Bus Monitors, Drivers
MAURA HEALEY: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert. Bid
MDL 2918: Reseller Plaintiffs Seek Class Cert. in Antitrust Suit
MICHAEL KORS: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Douglass Seeks Certification of Settlement Class
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal
NFI MANAGEMENT: Order on Class Cert Bids Entered in Navarrete Suit
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Class Certification in Black Suit Affirmed
OHIO: Tolliver Files Bid to Certify Class Action
OLO INC: Steamship Trade Seeks to Certify Class Action
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY: Pranger Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling
OREGON: Maney Can Depose Ex-Gov. Brown for Two Hours, Court Rules
PFIZER INC: Faces Miller Suit Over Alleged ERISA Violations
PHARMARICA CORP: Fails to Protect Health Info, Lurry Suit Says
PHP OF NC: Faces Johnson Wage-and-Hour Suit in M.D.N.C.
PIZZA CONNECTION: Muller Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
POOLTOGETHER INC: Wins Bids to Dismiss Kent's 2nd Amended Complaint
RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: June 30 Extension for Class Cert Sought
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Seventh Cir. Flips Dismissal of Mack FDCPA Suit
RHAPSODY INT'L: 9th Cir. Reverses $1.7MM Fee Award in Lowery Suit
ROGER WILLIAMS: Smith Appeals Court Orders in Civil Rights Suit
ROMARAK JANITORIAL: Gudiel Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
RUBY TUESDAY: Fails to Properly Pay Restaurant Staff, Hayes Says
RUTGERS UNIVERSITY: J.C. Appeals Reconsideration Bid Denial
SANTA MONICA, CA: Class Certification Bid Cutoff Moved to Sept. 18
SEA WORLD: Written Discovery Must be Served by August 18
SPACE COAST: Merritt Island Sues Over Fee Overcharges
T-MOBILE US: Fails to Timely Notify About Data Breach, Lashin Says
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Painters Suit
TOPCO ASSOCIATES: Court Has Diversity Jurisdiction in Calchi Suit
TRUMAN MEARS: Erskine Bid to Amend Complaint OK'd
UNITED STATES: Johnson Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling
WESTMORELAND SANITARY: Bid for More Time to Complete Discovery OK'd
*********
ABSOLUTE CONSULTING: Pharr Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DON PHARR, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ABSOLUTE CONSULTING, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-01558-BPG (D. Md., June 8, 2023) seeks to recover
Plaintiff's unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the
Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico
Minimum Wage Act.
The complaint asserts that the Plaintiff and the Putative Class
Members regularly worked in excess of 40 hours each week but the
Defendant did not pay them overtime of at least one and one-half
their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek.
The Plaintiff worked for Absolute from approximately early 2020
until approximately January 2022 to perform services for
Defendant's customers, to staff its worksites and further Absolute
business interests in various locations nationwide, New Mexico
among them.
Absolute Consulting is a staffing company that provides recruitment
services and personnel to energy, research, and nuclear facilities
throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: tjones@mybackwages.com
AETNA INC: Rule 23 Classes Certified in Peters Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDRA M. PETERS, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. AETNA,
INC., AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and OPTUMHEALTH CARE SOLUTIONS,
INC., Case No. 1:15-cv-00109-MR (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Martin
Reidinger entered an order that:
(1) The Plaintiff's claims for prospective injunctive relief,
both
for herself and on behalf of the Plan, are dismissed due to
a
lack of standing;
(2) The Plaintiff's claims for restitution, both for herself and
on
behalf of the Plan, are dismissed with prejudice;
(3) The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is granted,
and
the following classes are hereby certified pursuant to
Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3):
-- Plan Claim Class:
"All participants or beneficiaries of self-insured ERISA
health insurance plans administered by Aetna for which
plan
responsibility for a claim was assessed using an agreed
rate
between Optum and Aetna that exceeded the provider's
contracted rate with Optum for the treatment provided;"
-- Member Claim Class:
"All participants or beneficiaries of ERISA health
insurance
plans insured or administered by Aetna for whom
coinsurance
responsibility for a claim was assessed using an agreed
rate
between Optum and Aetna that exceeded the provider's
contracted rate with Optum for the treatment provided;"
(4) The law firms of The Van Winkle Law Firm and Zuckerman
Spaeder
LLP are appointed as counsel for the class;
(5) Within 14 days of the entry of this Order, the Plaintiff
shall submit a proposed class action notice to the Court.
The Plaintiff Sandra M. Peters brings this putative class action
against the Defendants, asserting claims pursuant to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
In her Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Aetna engaged in a
fraudulent scheme with its subcontractor Optum, whereby insureds
were caused to pay Optum's administrative fees because the
Defendants misrepresented such fees as medical expenses.
Aetna insures, underwrites, and administers health benefits plans.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JmrSuC at no extra charge.[CC]
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Court Stays Cruz Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Froylan Lopez Cruz, et
al., v. Alejandro Mayorkas, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01024-FLA-AFM
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha entered an
order approving joint stipulation to stay the Cruz case.
On May 23, 2023, the Plaintiffs Froylan Lopez Cruz and Rishelle
Cross and the Defendants Alejandro Mayorkas and Ur M. Jaddou filed
a Joint Stipulation to stay the case. The court, having reviewed
and considered the Joint Stipulation, and finding good cause
therefor, orders that the above-captioned action is stayed pending
the decision on the Motion for Class Certification currently
pending in the Western District of Washington in Maria Silvia
Guevara Enriquez, et al. v. United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00097-TL.
The parties are ordered to file a Joint Notice to the court within
seven (7) days of the Enriquez court's issuance of a decision on
the Motion for Class Certification.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 1, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Xib51F at no extra charge.[CC]
ALTA MESA: Bids to Dismiss Securities Suit Denied W/o Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE ALTA MESA RESOURCES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Civil Action No. 4:19-CV-957 (S.D. Tex.), Judge George C. Hanks of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division, denies the Defendants' motions to dismiss without
prejudice to being reasserted as motions for summary judgment.
Pending before the Court in this consolidated securities class
action are four motions to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The parties have submitted
excellent briefing, and the Court has heard oral argument.
The case arose out of the collapse of Alta Mesa, which began as a
special purpose acquisition company called Silver Run Acquisition
Corp. II. The motions to dismiss that are currently before the
Court attack the complaints filed by two groups of opt-out
Plaintiffs whose cases have been consolidated with the class
action.
The first group, to which the parties refer as "the Alyeska
Plaintiffs," consists of Plaintiffs Alyeska Master Fund, L.P.;
Alyeska Master Fund 2, L.P.; and Alyeska Master Fund 3, L.P. The
second group, "the Orbis Plaintiffs," consists of Plaintiffs Orbis
Global Equity LE Fund (Australia Registered); Orbis Global Equity
Fund (Australia Registered); Orbis Global Balanced Fund (Australia
Registered); Orbis SICAV; Orbis Institutional Global Equity L.P.;
Orbis Global Equity Fund Limited; Orbis Institutional Funds
Limited; Allan Gray Australia Balanced Fund; Orbis OEIC; and Orbis
Institutional U.S. Equity L.P.
The Alyeska Plaintiffs and the Orbis Plaintiffs (the opt-out
plaintiffs) are represented by the same counsel whenever possible.
In their briefing, the opt-out plaintiffs state that their
complaints are based on the same nucleus of operative facts alleged
in the Class Actions and challenge many of the same statements,
plus additional substantively similar statements. They have brought
claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), 18, and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as well as common-law fraud claims under
Texas state law and statutory fraud claims under Section 27.01 of
the Texas Business and Commerce Code.
The Defendants have filed four motions to dismiss between them
under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Although the motions do not
overlap completely, taken as a whole they make the following
arguments: (1) the opt-out plaintiffs' state-law fraud claims are
precluded by the state-law class-action bar contained in 15 U.S.C.
Section 78bb(f); (2) the opt-out Plaintiffs' state-law "holder"
fraud claims are not recognized under Texas law; (3) the opt-out
Plaintiffs' federal claims are time-barred; and (4) the opt-out
Plaintiffs' claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Texas state law are inadequately pled.
Judge Hanks begins with the argument that the opt-out plaintiffs'
state-law fraud claims are precluded by the state-law class-action
bar contained in 15 U.S.C. Section 78bb(f), as the Defendants bring
that argument under Rule 12(b)(1). He opines that the available
caselaw regarding SLUSA preclusion does not conclusively forestall
the opt-out plaintiffs' state-law claims. Regardless of how many
members comprise the class, he finds that only 13 plaintiffs in the
consolidated action have pled claims under Texas state law. Weighty
authority instructs that the fact that fewer than 50 plaintiffs in
this consolidated lawsuit have pled claims under Texas state law
renders SLUSA's preclusion provisions inapplicable. At this stage
of the litigation, Judge Hanks refuses to dismiss the opt-out
plaintiffs' state-law claims based on SLUSA preclusion.
Judge Hanks also refuses to dismiss the opt-out plaintiffs'
state-law holder fraud claims based on Grant Thornton LLP v.
Prospect High Income Fund, 314 S.W.3d 913, 930 (Tex. 2010). He says
he does not read Grant Thornton to bar holder fraud claims
categorically. In Grant Thornton, the Supreme Court of Texas left
open the prospect that holder claims involving specific, direct
communications are actionable under Texas law, though it declined
to permit a holder claim in the absence of any direct
communication.
With respect to the Defendants' third argument, Judge Hanks opines
that (i) the opt-out plaintiffs are not entitled to apply the
repose period of Section 1658 to their claims under Sections 14(a),
20(a), or 18 of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the opt-out plaintiffs
have at least a colorable argument that their suits share enough of
a common factual basis and legal nexus with the class claims to
obtain the benefit of the American Pipe doctrine.
Finally, Judge Hanks opines that having considered the Plaintiffs'
allegations, the judicially noticeable SEC filings, and the
applicable law, he cannot conclude that the lawsuit is an
impermissible strike suit. Several Defendants contend that the
opt-out plaintiffs' claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act are inadequately pled. As the opt-out plaintiffs note,
these portions of the Defendants' motions essentially amount to a
request that the Court reconsiders its denial of the Defendants'
motions to dismiss the class action complaint.
For these reasons, Judge Hanks denies the Defendants' motions to
dismiss without prejudice to being reasserted as motions for
summary judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdd5w4f5 from
Leagle.com.
AMAZON WEB: Class Cert Deadline in Romero Extended to Dec. 11
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROMERO, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON WEB SERVICES,
INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00269-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John
H. Chun entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for 45-day
extension of scheduling order deadlines:
Event Proposed Deadline
Completion of Fact Discovery (Merits July 24, 2023
Issues and Class Certification Issues):
Disclosure of the Plaintiffs’ Expert(s) and Aug. 21, 2023
Expert Report(s) regarding Class
Certification:
Disclosure of the Defendant’s Expert(s) and Sept. 25,
2023
Expert Report(s) regarding Class
Certification:
Completion of Expert Discovery regarding Nov. 13, 2023
Class Certification:
The Plaintiffs' Deadline to Move for Class Dec. 11, 2023
Certification:
The Defendant's Deadline to Respond to Motion Jan. 11, 2024
for Class Certification:
The Plaintiffs’ Deadline to Reply in support Feb. 1, 2024
of Class Certification:
Amazon Web is a subsidiary of Amazon that provides on-demand cloud
computing platforms and APIs to individuals, companies, and
governments, on a metered, pay-as-you-go basis.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NDqp5X at no extra charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM INC: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Marquez Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANDREZ MARQUEZ, On behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, including but not limited to, Clarissa Morejon,
Morgan Howard, Sophia Feliciano, James Bromley, and Jeff Barr,
CLARISSA MOREJON, MORGAN HOWARD, SOPHIA FELICIANO, JAMES BROMLEY,
et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. AMAZON.COM, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 21-14317 (11th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirms the district court's
order granting Amazon's motion to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint for failure to state a claim with prejudice.
At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, Amazon stopped providing
"Rapid Delivery" to Amazon Prime subscribers. Because Prime
subscribers were not notified of the suspension and continued to
pay full price for their memberships, Andrez Marquez and other
Plaintiffs brought a putative class action against Amazon alleging
breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act
("WCPA"), and unjust enrichment. The district court granted
Amazon's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint for failure
to state a claim with prejudice because it found that Amazon did
not have a duty to provide unqualified Rapid Delivery to Prime
subscribers.
Prime is a fee-based subscription service. Its subscribers receive
several benefits not available to other Amazon customers, including
Rapid Delivery, which is two-hour, same-day, one-day, or two-day
shipping at no additional cost for certain Prime-eligible items
purchased from Amazon's online marketplace. From the start of the
COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020 to at least May 2020, Amazon
suspended Rapid Delivery without notifying Prime members. The
Plaintiffs alleged that, rather than providing the full benefit of
Prime membership to its subscribers, Amazon instead focused on
profits from consumer grocery and pharmacy spending to compete with
major pharmacy and grocery chains as well as keep up with
significantly increased demand.
As Prime subscribers, each Plaintiff agreed to identical contracts
with Amazon. The contracts included the Amazon Prime Terms and
Conditions which, in turn, incorporated provisions from several
linked documents.
The Plaintiffs were Prime subscribers between March 2020 and May
2020 who -- with one exception -- periodically placed orders for
Rapid Delivery. They filed the case in Florida state court. Amazon
removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida based on diversity jurisdiction.
The Plaintiffs then filed their First Amended Complaint, which
asserted claims for breach of contract (Claim I), breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Claim II), violation of
the WCPA (Claim III), and unjust enrichment (Claim IV).
Importantly, they did not plead the obvious: Amazon's suspension of
Rapid Delivery was in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Amazon moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), and the district court dismissed all claims with
prejudice for failure to state a claim. The district court held
that, on the breach of contract claim, the Plaintiffs did not plead
facts that established that Amazon owed a duty to provide Prime
subscribers with unqualified rapid delivery shipping. That is,
without a promise to provide unqualified Rapid Delivery, Amazon
necessarily did not breach its contract by suspending that
service.
Relatedly, the district court found that the contract was neither
procedurally nor substantively unconscionable, and it specifically
noted the irony of the Plaintiffs' argument that prioritizing the
shipment of essential goods during the COVID-19 pandemic was
unconscionable because Amazon exercised responsible business
judgment during an unprecedented global public health crisis.
Through reasoning like its breach of contract analysis, the
district court found that Claim II (breach of good faith and fair
dealing) and Claim III (violation of the WCPA) also failed.
Finally, the district court held that Claim IV (unjust enrichment)
failed because there was a contract between the parties; and, under
Washington law, unjust enrichment applies only when there is no
contractual relationship.
The Plaintiffs timely appealed.
To begin, the Eleventh Circuit assumes that Amazon's contract with
Prime subscribers included a promise to provide Rapid Delivery.
Proceeding from this assumption, it finds that the Plaintiffs have
not stated a claim for breach of contract because Amazon had the
right to limit Rapid Delivery. It also holds that Amazon's
significant discretionary authority over Rapid Delivery does not
render the contract unconscionable.
Then, the Eleventh Circuit concludes that the Plaintiffs have not
sufficiently alleged that Amazon breached its duty of good faith or
violated the WCPA. Finally, because the Plaintiffs pleaded a
contractual relationship in their unjust enrichment count, it holds
that their unjust enrichment claim fails.
In sum, the Eleventh Circuit concludes that the Plaintiffs ask it
to ignore the plain meaning of the contract they agreed to, forget
the worldwide effect of the COVID-19 pandemic, and reverse the
district court's dismissal. It declines their request. Accordingly,
it affirms the district court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs' First
Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim with prejudice,
although it reaches its conclusions for different reasons.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5n8836vr from Leagle.com.
AMAZON.COM INC: Mallouk Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUZANNE MALLOUK, ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ PEREZ, and ARJUN DHAWAN,
Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM INC. and STARBUCKS CORPORATION,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00852 (W.D. Wash., June 7, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for damages and other legal and
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Amazon and
Starbucks in collecting, retaining, storing, converting, using,
sharing, and profiting from Plaintiffs' and other similarly
situated individuals' biometric identifier information in direct
violation of the New York City Biometric Identifier Information
Law.
According to the complaint, Amazon and Starbucks, by operating
Amazon's Just Walk Out technology, collect, retain, convert, and
store, biometric identifier information about each customer who
enters the store, including but not limited to information about
the size and shape of each customer's body and palm images of
consumers who use the Amazon One technology to sign into the store.
And Starbucks shares such information about customers with Amazon.
Information about the size and shape of each customer's body is
biometric identifier information within the meaning of N.Y.C.
Admin. Code Section 22-1201, because that information constitutes a
physiological or biological characteristic used by Amazon, singly
or in combination, to identify the customer, and that information
is an "identifying characteristic" of each customer. By failing to
post any sign notifying consumers that their biometric information
is being collected, retained, converted or stored by all of the
Amazon Go and Starbucks-Amazon Go stores in New York City from
January 15, 2022 through March 13, 2023, Amazon and Starbucks
violated the law, says the suit.
Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company
focusing on e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising,
digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew Z. Crotty, Esq.
Casey Bruner, Esq.
RIVERSIDE LAW GROUP, PLLC
905 W. Riverside Ave. Ste. 404
Spokane, WA 99201
Telephone: (509) 850-7011
E-mail: mzc@riverside-law.com
- and -
Peter Romer-Friedman, Esq.
PETER ROMER-FRIEDMAN LAW PLLC
1629 K Street NW Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 355-6364
E-mail: peter@prf-law.com
- and -
Christopher K. Leung, Esq.
POLLOCK COHEN LLP
111 Broadway, Suite 1804
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (917) 985-3995
E-mail: chris@pollockcohen.com
cmb@riverside-law.com
- and -
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
Matthew A. Girardi, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
- and -
Albert Fox Cahn, Esq.
David Siffert, Esq.
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY OVERSIGHT PROJECT
40 Rector Street 9th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 518-7573
E-mail: albert@stopspying.org
david@stopspying.org
AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Wiley Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONA WILEY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN
FINANCIAL NETWORK, INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-00244-CJC-DFM (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her
leave to file Confidential portions of her motion for class
certification and Confidential exhibits to Rachel E. Kaufman's
Declaration in support thereof under seal.
The Plaintiff's motion for class certification cites exhibits
produced and designated as Confidential by the Defendant, pursuant
to the protective order. The exhibits include the Defendant's
policies and procedures regarding advertising, scripts, vendor
invoices, and the Defendant's responses to interrogatories.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff requests leave to file Confidential
exhibits to the Kaufman Declaration under seal, and further
requests leave to file under seal an unredacted version of the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification that cites to the
confidential information.
AFN is a residential mortgage banker.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 5, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Nd75L9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 S. Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: rachel@kaufmanpa.com
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Deadline to File Class Cert Due April 22, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS IGLESIAS, v.
ARIZONA BEVERAGES USA, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-09108-JSW (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Jeffrey S. White entered an order modifying class
certification deadlines as follows:
-- Deadline to file motion for class April 22, 2024
Certification:
-- Deadline to oppose motion for June 21, 2024
class certification:
-- Deadline to file reply on motion August 15, 2024
for class certification:
-- The deadline to complete the May 24, 2024
depositions of the Plaintiff's
experts regarding class
certification is:
-- The deadline to complete July 26, 2024.
depositions of the Defendant's
experts regarding class
certification is:
Arizona Beverages is a producer of many flavors of iced tea, juice
cocktails, and energy drinks.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NcMgQg at no extra charge.[CC]
BANK OF AMERICA: Nia Suit Seeks to Certify Class and Subclasses
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOHAMMAD FARSHAD ABDOLLAH
NIA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
V. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. (BANA), a National Banking Association,
Case No. 3:21-cv-01799-BAS-BGS (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order certifying the following Class and
Subclasses, consisting of The Defendant Bank of America, N.A.'s
Iranian-citizen credit-card and checking accountholders whose
accounts were restricted and/or closed due to inadequate proof of
residency:
-- Nationwide Class
"All present or former BANA credit-card and checking-account
holders whose accounts were restricted or closed by BANA, and
for whom BANA's records or correspondence with the
accountholder
show the account was restricted or closed due to inadequate
proof of residency, and who were citizens of the Islamic
Republic of Iran and resided in the United States on the
date(s)
when the restriction or closure was imposed;"
-- Nationwide Subclass
"All present or former BANA credit-card account holders whose
accounts were closed by BANA, and for whom BANA's records or
correspondence with the accountholder show the account was
restricted or closed due to inadequate proof of residency, and who
were citizens of the Islamic Republic of Iran and resided in the
United States on the date(s) when the restriction or closure was
imposed;" and
-- California Subclass
"All present or former BANA credit-card and checking-account
holders whose accounts were restricted or closed by BANA, and
for whom BANA's records or correspondence with the
accountholder
show the account was restricted or closed due to inadequate
proof of residency, and who were citizens of the Islamic
Republic of Iran and resided in the State of California on
the
date(s) when the restriction or closure was imposed."
BANA offers saving and current account, investment and financial
services, online banking, and mortgage and non-mortgage loan.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 2, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Nf9Iw5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew A. Smith, Esq.
Nicholas Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
201 Spear St, Ste 1100
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (831) 687-8255
E-mail: msmith@classlawdc.com
nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
jrathod@classlawdc.com
- and -
Benjamin I. Siminou, Esq.
SINGLETON SCHREIBER, LLP
591 Camino de la Reina, Ste. 1025
San Diego, CAifornia 92108
Telephone: (619) 704-3288
E-mail: bsiminou@singletonschreiber.com
BANK OF UTAH: Court Extends Stay of SLACC Suit Pending Mediation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY
OF CANADA, v. BANK OF UTAH, as Securities Intermediary, Case No.
1:21-cv-03973-LMM (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May
entered an order granting the consent motion to extend stay pending
mediation:
-- The action is stayed for an additional 45 days, to September
6,
2023, including, without limitation, the current case
deadlines
and ongoing fact and expert discovery, so that the Parties
may
conduct a mediation in an attempt at resolving this
litigation.
-- The Class Certification Motion and the Summary Judgment
Motion
are held in abeyance by the Court until the expiration of the
stay period.
Bank of Utah offers personal and business banking, consumer and
commercial lending, mortgages, trusts and investments.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NdU0l0 at no extra charge.[CC]
BANNER HEALTH: Discloses Private Information, Irazaba Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Irazaba, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Banner Health, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-01054-ESW (D. Ariz., June 8, 2023) alleges claims against
the Defendant for negligence, invasion of privacy, breach of
confidence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and for
violations of the Electronics Communication Privacy Act, the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act.
Plaintiff Irazaba brings this case to address Defendant's illegal
and widespread practice of disclosing Plaintiff's and Class
Members' confidential personally identifiable information (PII) and
protected health information (PHI) to third parties, including Meta
Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta ("Facebook"). Allegedly, the Defendant
installed and implemented the Facebook Tracking Pixel on its
website, which secretly enables the unauthorized transmission and
disclosure of Plaintiff and Class Members' PII and PHI as it is
communicated to Defendant. In addition, the Defendant also
installed and implemented the Facebook Conversions Application
Programming Interface on its website, which secretly enabled
additional unauthorized transmissions and disclosures of Plaintiff
and Class Members' PII and PHI. Operating as designed and as
implemented by Defendant, the Pixel allows the Private Information
that Plaintiff and Class Members submit to Defendant to be
unlawfully disclosed to Facebook alongside the individual's unique
and persistent Facebook ID, says the Plaintiff.
Banner Health originally incorporated in the state of Arizona in
1938, where it remains an active domestic nonprofit corporation,
headquartered at 2901 N. Central Ave., Suite 160, Phoenix, Arizona.
It is one of the largest nonprofit hospital systems in the country,
operating 30 acute-care hospitals and a number of other service
centers and clinics throughout the states of Arizona, California,
Colorado, Nebraska, Nevada, and Wyoming. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cristina Perez Hesano, Esq.
PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7508 N. 59th Avenue
Glendale, AZ 85301
Telephone: (602) 730-7100
Facsimile: (602) 794-6956
E-mail: cperez@perezlawgroup.com
- and -
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
Dylan J. Gould, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 E. Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
E-mail: SCampbell@msdlegal.com
- and -
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
THE LYON FIRM, LLC
2754 Erie Ave.
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Telephone (513) 381-2333
E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
BARCLAYS BANK: Class Settlement in Sonterra Suit Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SONTERRA CAPITAL MASTER
FUND, LTD., RICHARD DENNIS, and FRONTPOINT EUROPEAN FUND, L.P., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BARCLAYS
BANK PLC, COOPERATIEVE CENTRALE RAIFFEISENBOERENLEENBANK B.A.,
DEUTSCHE BANK AG, LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL BANK OF
SCOTLAND PLC, UBS AG, JOHN DOE NOS. 1-50, and BARCLAYS CAPITAL,
INC., Case No. 1:15-cv-03538-VSB (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vernon
S. Broderick entered an order granting the Representative
Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement.
The action was filed on May 6, 2015, on behalf of all persons and
entities that engaged in Sterling LIBOR-based Derivative
transactions.
Barclays Bank offers personal, retail, and corporate banking, as
well as wealth management, investment banking, consumer finance,
treasury, and insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 1, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42RvzzG at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Vincent Briganti, Esq.
Geoffrey Horn, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
White Plains, New York
- and -
Christopher Lovell, Esq.
Victor E. Stewart, Esq.
Benjamin M. Jaccarino, Esq.
LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
New York, NY
The Defendants are represented by:
Elizabeth M. Sacksteder, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
New York, NY
BDO USA: ELMS Stock Sold at Artificially Inflated Prices, Levy Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHMUEL LEVY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JASON LUO, JAMES TAYLOR, ALBERT LI, MARSHALL
KIEV, DAVID BORIS, and BDO USA, LLP, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-00653-UNA (D. Del., June 14, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.
According to the complaint, the Defendants filed materially false
and misleading statements in order to trade Electric Last Mile
Solutions, Inc.'s (ELMS) common stock in the private investment in
public equity (PIPE) offering at artificially inflated prices on or
about December 10, 2020. Specifically, the Defendants failed to
disclose the following adverse facts: (a) that Defendants Luo,
Taylor, and other senior members of Electric Last Mile, Inc.'s
(ELM) management had acquired ELM common stock at substantial
discounts to market value in the November 2020 Equity Transaction
and the December 2020 Equity Transaction; (b) that the difference
between the fair market value of the ELM common stock sold in the
November 2020 Equity Transaction and the December 2020 Equity
Transaction and the amount actually paid had not been properly
recorded as compensation expense by ELM; (c) that the failure to
record compensation expenses stemming from the November 2020 Equity
Transaction and the December 2020 Equity Transaction had the effect
of substantially inflating ELM's year-end 2020 financial
performance and the pro forma year-end 2020 financial performance
of the combined company (ELMS), thereby understating expenses, net
loss, and shareholders' deficit; (d) that as a result of the
failure to properly treat the November 2020 Equity Transaction and
the December 2020 Equity Transaction as compensation, ELM's
historical financial statements could no longer be relied upon and
would need to be restated; (e) that the ELM historical financial
statements provided in the Proxy Statement were not prepared in
accordance with GAAP; (f) that BDO had failed to follow applicable
laws, rules, and regulations regarding auditor independence in
auditing the ELM historical financials provided in the Proxy
Statement; and (g) that as a result of the foregoing, the
Defendants' positive statements in the lead up to the merger about
the business metrics and financial prospects of ELM and the
combined company were materially false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis in fact.
When the truth emerged, the price of ELMS common stock declined by
$2.88 per share, or 51%, to close at $2.71 per share on February 2,
2022, on unusually heavy trading volume, says the suit.
BDO USA, LLP is a professional services firm that provides
accounting, tax, and consulting services, headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gorris, Esq.
David Hahn, Esq.
FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS, P.A.
1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2200
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 573-3508
Facsimile: (302) 573-3501
E-mail: jgorris@friedlandergorris.com
dhahn@friedlandergorris.com
- and -
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
- and -
Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
BELLRING BRANDS: Krystofiak Sues Over Lead in Protein Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA KRYSTOFIAK, LUIS CARRENO, and JONATHAN ZIMMERMAN, on
behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the
general public, Plaintiffs v. BELLRING BRANDS, INC. and PREMIER
NUTRITION COMPANY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-02819 (N.D.
Cal., June 7, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
breaches of express warranties, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, unfair and deceptive business practices, false
advertising, negligent misrepresentation, intentional
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, and
the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Based on testing conducted by multiple independent, ISO-accredited
laboratories in April, May, and June 2023, Defendants' Premier
Protein Shakes and Premier Protein Plant Powders allegedly contain
high levels of lead -- in some cases almost three times the legal
limit under California's Proposition 65 -- which Defendants do not
disclose. This is not Defendants' first major problem with the
Premier Protein brand. Last August, they initiated a major recall
after several lots of the product were identified as spoiled and
contaminated with microbial organisms that could cause severe food
poisoning and botulism, says the suit.
Because consumers who purchased the Premier Protein Products were
injured by Defendants' affirmative misrepresentations, acts, and
deceptive omissions concerning the presence of lead in the
products, Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendants on behalf
of themselves, similarly-situated Class Members, and the general
public to enjoin Defendants from deceptively marketing the Premier
Protein Products in this manner and to recover compensation for
injured Class Members.
Bellring Brands, Inc. operates as a nutrition company which sells
protein, dymatize, and powerbar products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
Melanie Persinger, Esq.
Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
Caroline S. Emhardt, Esq.
FITZGERALD JOSEPH LLP
2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92110
Telephone: (619) 215-1741
E-mail: jack@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
paul@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
melanie@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
trevor@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
caroline@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
BLENDTEC INC: Completion of Class Cert Fact Discovery Due Sept. 18
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Isaac, et al., v.
Blendtec, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-11254 (D. Mass., Filed Aug. 04,
2022), the Hon. Judge Richard G. Stearns entered an order granting
in part and denying in part motion for extension of time as
follows:
-- All fact discovery will be completed by: Sept. 18,
2023
-- Notwithstanding, the Plaintiffs' class Oct. 13,
2023
certification motion will be filed by:
with any opposition by: Nov. 6, 2023
-- The hearing on class certification Nov. 9, 2023.
will be held on
Given counsels' expectation to "move for class certification on as
many as ten separate legal claims with numerous subclasses," the
court has doubts that the basic tenet of commonality could exist in
this case.
Any use of experts in the class certification process will be
accomplished as part of the parties' regular filings without the
proposed scheduled disclosures and rebuttals.
The court will set the remaining schedule after it issues its
certification order.
This case purports to be a class action against Blendtec for an
alleged defect ("premature total failure of the Jar's Blade
Assembly") in its "residential use blenders" "rendering the Blender
useless."
Appreciating the parties' desire to attempt mediation prior to
expending monies on motion practice and expert discovery (mediation
is typically undertaken when discovery is completed), the court
gave the parties an additional 90 days to complete fact discovery.
However, the parties now ask the court for an additional 6+ months
of fact discovery (Nov. 14, 2023) and then another seven months for
their class certification process (June 4, 2024). The motion is
allowed in part denied in part.
The nature of suit states Contract Product Liability.
Blendtec is an American company that sells commercial and
residential blenders.[CC]
BROCK GROUP: Completion of Class Cert Discovery Due Oct. 20
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALAN VALENTIC, v. THE
BROCK GROUP, INC., BROCK INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, LLC, and BROCK
SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01789-WSH (W.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge W. Scott Hardy entered amended scheduling order as follows:
a. Class Certification discovery shall Oct. 20, 2023
be completed by:
b. The Plaintiff's Motion and Supporting Dec. 1, 2023
Memorandum in Support of Class
Certification and all supporting
evidence shall be filed by:
c. The Defendants' Memorandum in Feb. 2, 2024
Opposition to Class Certification
and all supporting evidence shall
be filed by:
d. The Plaintiff's Reply Brief shall Feb. 23, 2024
be filed by:
Brock Group is a provider of industrial specialty services provider
for capital projects, routine maintenance, and turnarounds.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NgoZfZ at no extra charge.[CC]
BUDGET HOST: Lewis Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime for Hotel Staff
--------------------------------------------------------------
MEGAN LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BUDGET HOST INN; V.S.T., INC.; JASON G.
MILLER; LATONIA MILLER; and KELLY SCHWARTZ, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-00163-MJN-PBS (S.D. Ohio, June 14, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for unpaid overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wages
Standards Act and for unlawful retaliation.
Ms. Lewis was hired to work at Budget Host Inn's front desk on or
about December 6, 2022 until her termination on June 5, 2023.
Budget Host Inn is a hotel/motel located at 505 East State Street
Botkins, Ohio.
VST, Inc. is an operator of an on-site bar and restaurant at Budget
Host Inn, with principal place of business located at 505 East
State Street Botkins, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris Wido, Esq.
SPITZ, THE EMPLOYEE'S ATTORNEY
25825 Science Park Drive, Suite 200
Beachwood, OH 44122
Telephone: (216) 291-4744
Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
E-mail: Chris.Wido@Spitzlawfirm.com
CALIFORNIA: Parties Seek to File Docs Under Seal
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re California Gasoline Spot Market
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:20-cv-03131-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and certain non-parties will move the
Court, pursuant to the Order Modifying Sealing Procedures for Class
Certification Briefing, for an administrative order to file under
seal all or portions of:
-- the Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Class
Certification;
-- the Plaintiffs' Omnibus Opposition to the Defendants' Motions
to
Exclude Expert Testimony; and
-- Exhibits 20-23 to the Reply Declaration of Dena Sharp in
Support
of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
The Plaintiffs are conditionally filing the above documents under
seal pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order entered in this
case and the Order Modifying Sealing Procedures for Class
Certification Briefing.
Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 79-5 and 7-11(c), the hearing date
has been set for July 20, 2023, at 10:00am PST in courtroom E –
15th Floor with the Honorable Jacqueline S. Corley.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43Yn3Qo at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
Kyle G. Bates, Esq.
Tae Kim, Esq.
Samantha Derksen, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 633-1908
Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
clebsock@hausfeld.com
kbates@hausfeld.com
tkim@hausfeld.com
sderksen@hausfeld.com
- and –
Dena C. Sharp, Esq.
Scott Grzenczyk, Esq.
Kyle P. Quackenbush, Esq.
Mikaela M. Bock, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com
scottg@girardsharp.com
kquackenbush@girardsharp.com
mbock@girardsharp.com
CIGNA HEALTH: Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply in RJ Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RJ, as the representative
of her beneficiary son; DS, an individual, and on behalf of and all
others similarly situated, v. CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, and MULTIPLAN, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-02255-EJD (N.D.
Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting them
leave to file their proposed sur-reply.
The Plaintiffs' new arguments and theories support their
late-in-the-game attempt to remedy their failure to submit a
damages model when they moved for class certification -- a mistake
the Plaintiffs are clearly motivated to try to fix in light of
Judge Gonzales Rogers' denial of class certification in LD v.
United Behavioral Health due to the plaintiffs' lack of damages
model. LD v. United Behav. Health, 2023 WL 2806323 (N.D. Cal. Mar.
31, 2023).
Each of these is a never-before heard argument, and so the
Defendants must be given an opportunity to respond to them.
On May 16, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their Reply, which made
several new arguments. These include new arguments seeking to
informally amend their class definition, new arguments regarding
their verification of benefits call theory, and new arguments
supporting their new damages models.
On May 23, 2023, the Defendants filed an objection to the new
exhibits that the Plaintiffs submitted in support of the Reply, and
asked the Court to strike them and any parts of the Reply which
relied upon them.
Cigna Health offers life and health insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 1, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Czrt4c at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
William P. Donovan, Jr., Esq.
Joshua B. Simon, Esq.
Warren Haskel, Esq.
Dmitriy tishyevich, Esq.
Caroline Incledon, Esq.
Chelsea Cosillos, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206
Telephone: (310) 277-4110
Facsimile: (310) 277-4730
E-mail: wdonovan@mwe.com
jsimon@mwe.com
whaskel@mwe.com
dtishyevich@mwe.com
cincledon@mwe.com
ccosillos@mwe.com
- and -
Errol J. King, Jr., Esq.
Katherine C. Mannino, Esq.
Taylor J. Crousillac, Esq.
Brittany H. Alexander, Esq.
Craig L. Caesar, Esq.
PHELPS DUNBAR LLP
II City Plaza, 400 Convention Street, Suite 1100
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Telephone: (225) 376-0207
Facsimile: (225) 381-9197
E-mail: errol.king@phelps.com
katie.mannino@phelps.com
taylor.crousillac@phelps.com
brittany.alexander@phelps.com
craig.caesar@phelps.com
- and -
Dennis B. Kass, Esq.
Adam D. Afshar, Esq.
MANNING & KASS, ELLROD, RAMIREZ,
TRESTER LLP
801 South Figueroa Street, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 624-6900
Facsimile: (213) 624-6999
E-mail: dennis.kass@manninkass.com
adam.afshar@manningkass.com
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Class Settlement in Boger Suit Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAN L. BOGER, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC.,
Case No. 8:19-cv-01234-LKG (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Lydia Kay
Griggsby entered an order:
1. Granting the Plaintiff's consent motion for final approval of
class action settlement;
2. Certifying Rule 23 Class:
"all persons within the United States to whom the Defendant
and/or a third party acting on its behalf (a) made one or
more
telephone calls to their cellular telephone number; (b) made
two
or more telephone calls while the call recipient's number was
on
the National Do Not Call Registry; and/or (c) made one or
more
calls after asking the Defendant to stop calling;"
3. approving the Settlement Agreement;
4. approving a Service Payment Award to Mr. Boger in the amount
of
$10,000;
5. approving reimbursement of administration costs to the
Settlement Administrator in the amount of $509,617.90; and
6. approving an attorney's fees award to Class Counsel in the
amount of $916,667.67 and costs in the amount of $59,974.41.
The proposed settlement agreement and release resolve alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and the
Maryland Telephone Consumer Protection Act (MTCPA.
Mr. Boger has also moved for an award of attorney’s fees,
expenses and class representative award. The Court held a fairness
hearing on May 10, 2023. No class members have objected to the
proposed Settlement Agreement.
Citrix Systems is an American multinational cloud computing and
virtualization technology company that provides server, application
and desktop virtualization, networking, software as a service, and
cloud computing technologies.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 1, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43KhKUG at no extra charge.[CC]
CSAC INC: Bid to Dismiss Union Insurance Case Tossed
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as UNION INSURANCE COMPANY,
v. CSAC, INC., et. al., Case No. 4:22-cv-01180-AGF (E.D. Mo.), the
Hon. Judge Audrey G. Fleissig entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion to dismiss or to stay case.
The Defendants argue that the Court should follow the holding in
Greenwich Insurance Company v. Matt Muray Trucking, No. 4:21 CV 202
DDN, 2021 WL 4902326 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 21, 2021) in which the Court
found that Missouri had a strong interest in hearing the issues
raised in the federal declaratory judgment case.
However, in that case, the Court noted that the case involved
questions of the plaintiff's obligation to cover negligent drivers
it did not insure. Id. The federal action therefore concerned
questions regarding defendants in both federal and state court
cases.
The same concerns are not present here, where the Plaintiff has
asked this Court to determine the extent of its obligation to cover
CSAC only. Thus, the third factor weighs in the Plaintiff's favor.
The case concerns the extent of the Plaintiff's obligation to
provide insurance coverage to CSAC for a class action lawsuit
against it pending in the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit Court for
St. Louis City, Missouri.
The Plaintiff denied coverage on February 18, 2021. Nevertheless,
on November 4, 2022, CSAC and Ms. Crawford entered a "Class Action
Settlement Agreement and Release," which (i) provided for CSAC to
cause its insurers -- apparently certain other insurers -- to pay
$1,575,00 into a qualified fund, and (ii) permitted the class to
take a judgment against CSAC in an amount to be determined by the
state court and to be satisfied by CSAC's insurers, presumably
including the Plaintiff.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 1, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CzrUvm at no extra charge.[CC]
DELTA AIRLINES: Haley Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK HALEY and RANDAL
REEP, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
DELTA AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-01076-SEG (N.D. Ga.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
1. Certify the claim in this case on behalf of the following
Classes:
(a) All current and former pilots who work or worked for
Delta
Air Lines, Inc. in the United States or its territories
or
possessions who took short-term military leave (i.e., a
military leave of 30 consecutive days or fewer) from
their
employment from Delta as a pilot from April 30, 2007, to
the
date of judgment in this action, as reflected by Delta's
military leave data (the Damages Class); and
(b) All pilots currently employed by Delta who are also
currently members of the uniformed services (the
Injunction
Class);
Excluded from the Classes are the judge assigned to this
case and any of his or her relatives.
2. Certifying the Damages Class pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3) and certification of the Injunction Class
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) (or, in
the
alternative, 23(b)(3));
3. Appointing absent class member Benjamin A. Best as the Class
Representative of both Classes; and
4. Appointing R. Joseph Barton and Michael Scimone as Co-Lead
Class
Counsel, and local counsel Stephen Anderson as Liaison Class
Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g).
Delta Air Lines offers airline tickets & flights to over 300
destinations in 60 countries.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PoI8iJ at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Colin M. Downes, Esq.
R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
BARTON & DOWNES LLP
1633 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 200
Washington D.C. 20009
Telephone: (202) 734-7046
E-mail: colin@bartondownes.com
jbarton@bartondownes.com
- and -
Stephen J. Anderson, Esq.
KENNETH S. NUGENT, P.C.
4227 Pleasant Hill Road
Building 11, Suite 300
Duluth GA 30096
Telephone: (770) 820-0893
E-mail: sanderson@attorneykennugent.com
- and -
Michael J. Scimone, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
E-mail: mscimone@outtengolden.com
- and -
Peter Romer-Friedman, Esq.
PETER ROMER-FRIEDMAN LAW PLLC
1629 K Street, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 355-6364
E-mail: peter@prf-law.com
- and -
Robert Friedman, Esq.
GUPTA WESSLER PLLC
2001 K Street NW, Suite 850 North
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 888-1741
E-mail: robert@guptawessler.com
- and -
Matthew Z. Crotty, Esq.
RIVERSIDE LAW GROUP, PLLC
905 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 404
Spokane, WA 99201
Telephone: (509) 850-7011
E-mail: mzc@riverside-law.com
- and -
Thomas G. Jarrard, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS G.
JARRARD LLC
1020 N. Washington St.
Spokane, WA 99201
Telephone: (425) 239-7290
E-mail: Tjarrard@att.net
- and -
Crystal L. Matter, Esq.
MATTER LAW, APC
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
Folsom, CA 95630
Telephone: (916) 735-7495
E-mail: crystal@matterlawapc.com
- and -
Andrew Joseph Coomes, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF A. JOSEPH COOMES, LLC
990 Hammond Drive, Suite 840
Atlanta, GA 30328
Telephone: (404) 285-1745
E-mail: ajc@jcoomeslaw.com
DELTA STAR: Filing for Class Certification Bid Continued to Nov. 17
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAX WILSON, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated; v. DELTA STAR, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive; Case No. 3:21-cv-07326-LB (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered an order:
-- The Plaintiff's time to file his motion Nov. 17, 2023
for class certification is continued
to:
-- The Defendant opposition to the motion Dec. 18, 2023
for class certification is continued
to:
-- The Plaintiff's reply in support of his Jan. 17, 2024
motion for class certification shall be
filed on or before Jan. 17, 2024:
Delta Star manufactures electrical power products of all sizes for
utilities, industrials, and municipalities.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 1, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PeG6BC at no extra charge.[CC]
DISH NETWORK: Fuentes Appeals Remand Bid Denial to 9th Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
NARCISO FUENTES is taking an appeal from a court order denying its
motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled Narciso Fuentes, on behalf
of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dish
Network, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-02001-JSW, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.
On March 7, 2016, Mr. Fuentes filed a complaint in the California
Superior Court for the County of Alameda, asserting putative class
claims against Defendant Dish Network LLC for alleged violations of
California's Home Solicitation Sales Act (HSSA), Civil Code section
1632 (CTA), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and the Unfair
Competition Law (UCL).
On Apr. 15, 2016, Dish Network removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on the basis
that the Court had jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness
Act.
On Mar. 30, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case
for lack of jurisdiction, which the Court denied through an Order
entered by Judge Jeffrey S. White on May 17, 2023. The Court agreed
with Dish Network that there are no unadjudicated claims to
remand.
The appellate case is captioned Narciso Fuentes v. Dish Network,
LLC, Case No. 23-15865, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 12, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Narciso Fuentes Mediation Questionnaire was due on
June 20, 2023;
-- Transcript is due on August 8, 2023;
-- Appellant Narciso Fuentes opening brief is due on September
18, 2023;
-- Appellee Dish Network, LLC answering brief is due on October
17, 2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant NARCISO FUENTES, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated, is represented by:
Elliot Jason Conn, Esq.
CONN LAW, PC
354 Pine Street, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 417-2780
- and -
Arthur David Levy, Esq.
3950 Broadway
Oakland, CA 94611
Telephone: (415) 702-4551
Defendant-Appellee DISH NETWORK, LLC is represented by:
Richard R. Patch, Esq.
COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS, LLP
One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 391-4800
DOORDASH INC: Masters Sues Over Unfair Business Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
Kameron Masters, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DoorDash, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
4:23-cv-02805-DMR (N.D. Cal., June 7, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for declaratory judgment and injunctive
relief, fraud or deceit, fraudulent concealment, negligent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the
California Unfair Competition Law.
According to the complaint, this action challenges certain fees
that are charged by DoorDash. The rates Plaintiff paid for
Defendant's services were hiked, resulting in Plaintiff, and all
others similarly situated, paying artificially inflated rates for
services, when compared to users of other types of mobile phones.
Specifically, Plaintiff and all others similarly situated, were
charged higher rates for services from Defendant because they are
iPhone users, rather than Android users, notes the complaint.
The Plaintiff asserts that the first of Defendant's unlawful
practices is the retention of contracted drivers' tips. Under this
model, much like rideshare services, the contracted drivers are
paid tips by consumers. Instead of giving these tips to their
contracted drivers, DoorDash keeps these tips for itself. Second,
DoorDash provides no delivery, but still charges consumers a range
of delivery fees. Third, DoorDash disavows that it controls the
manner and means of deliveries, but still charges consumers an
"express" or "priority" fee for delivering "direct to you."
Finally, DoorDash charges consumers an "expanded range delivery"
fee on orders "outside of normal delivery area," but DoorDash never
creates "normal delivery areas" for each consumer, the suit says.
DoorDash is an online marketplace platform using web-based
technology that connects contractors, restaurants and/or other
businesses to provide business-to-consumer deliveries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
E-mail: eric@akimlawfirm.com
blake@akimlawfirm.com
pauld@akimlawfirm.com
DOUBLEDOWN INTERACTIVE: Class Settlement in Benson Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIENNE BENSON and MARY
SIMONSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. DOUBLEDOWN INTERACTIVE, LLC, a Washington limited
liability company, INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY, a Nevada
corporation, and IGT, a Nevada corporation, Case No.
2:18-cv-00525-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Lasnik
entered an order granting final approval of class action
settlement:
-- The Court confirms its certification for settlement purposes
of
the following Settlement Class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the
Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure:
"All individuals who, in the United States (as reasonably
determined by IP address information, or other information
furnished by the Defendants and Platform Providers), played
the
Applications on or before Preliminary Approval of the
Settlement."
-- The Class Notice given by the Settlement Administrator to the
Class was the best practicable notice under the circumstances
and
was reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise
Settlement Class Members of the pendency of the Action, their
right to object to the Settlement or exclude themselves from
the
Settlement Class, and to appear at the Final Approval Hearing.
-- The Court grants final approval to the Settlement
and finds that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interests of the
Settlement Class.
-- Class Members were given a fair and reasonable opportunity to
object to the Settlement. Seven class members requested to be
excluded pursuant to the terms of the Settlement, and the
Court
orders that those seven class members are excluded from this
settlement: Judith Both, David Deroussis, Whitney Goodman,
Margaret Herbst, Maria Zapico, Rita Hockman, and Michael B.
Clegg.
-- Attorney's Fees and Expenses; Settlement Administrator's
Costs.
Pursuant to the Court's Order Granting Class Counsel's Motion
for
Award of Attorney's Fees and Expenses and Issuance of
Incentive
Awards, the Court
(i) awards $121,485,000 in attorney's fees to Class
Counsel,
and
(ii) approves of the Settlement Administrator recovering
up
to $3,000,000 for notice and administration related
fees
and costs.
DoubleDown Interactive is a casual games developer of "fun to play"
casino experiences on the Internet.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 1, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43zXMfn at no extra charge.[CC]
FLAT CREEK: Court Denies as Moot Dusel Bid for Class Status
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUDOLF DUSEL, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. FLAT CREEK
TRANSPORTATION, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00316-RAH-JTA (M.D. Ala.),
the Hon. Judge R. Austin Huffaker, Jr. entered an order denying as
moot the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
On May 31, 2023, the parties filed a Joint Status Report in which
they state that they intend to dismiss this action because they
have concluded that the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act (the WARN Act), does not apply.
Flat Creek is an active interstate freight carrier.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 1, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Nxj73t at no extra charge.[CC]
FLORIDA INSTITUTE: Navarro Suit Files Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA NAVARRO, et al.,
and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v. FLORIDA
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Florida corporation, Case No.
6:22-cv-01950-CEM-EJK (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. Certifying claims one, two, and three of this litigation as a
class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 23(a) and 23(b)(2) on
behalf of a class defined as follows:
"All present, prospective, and future male students at FIT who
are harmed by and want to end FIT's sex discrimination in: (a)
the allocation of athletics participation opportunities; (b)
the
allocation of athletics financial assistance; (c) the
allocation
of benefits provided to varsity athletes; and all males who
are
deterred from enrolling at FIT because of the sex
discrimination
in its athletics program;"
2. Appointing the undersigned counsel as class counsel, pursuant
to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g);
3. Appointing the named the Plaintiffs as representatives of the
class; and
4. Granting such other relief as the Court deems just.
The Plaintiffs are male student athletes at FIT who allege that FIT
discriminates against men in the administration and operation of
its athletics program. FIT has a significant history of failing to
comply with Title IX.
Specifically, in this putative class action, the Plaintiffs allege
that FIT violates Title IX by, among other things:
-- (1) failing to provide male students with an equal
opportunity
to participate in varsity intercollegiate athletics;
-- (2) failing to provide male students with equal access to
athletic financial assistance; and
(3) failing to provide male athletes with the same or
comparable benefits provided to female athletes.
FIT is a private research university located in Melbourne, Florida,
that receives federal financial assistance.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 2, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43JGWec at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Arthur Schofield, Esq.
ARTHUR T. SCHOFIELD, P.A.
330 Clematis Street, Suite 207
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 655-4211
E-mail: aschofield@flalabor.com
- and -
James C. Larew, Esq.
Claire M. Diallo, Esq.
LAREW LAW OFFICE
504 E. Bloomington Street
Iowa City, IA 52245
Telephone: (319) 337-7079
E-mail: James.Larew@LarewLawOffice.com
Claire.Diallo@LarewLawOffice.com
FLORIDA POWER: Toll Wins Bid to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LOUIS S. TOLL, et al., on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 23-CV-60598-RAR (S.D. Fla.), Judge
Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida:
a. grants the Plaintiffs' ore tenus motion to conduct
jurisdictional discovery based on the proposed class
definition in the Amended Complaint; and
b. defers ruling on the Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Remand,
pending the close of jurisdictional discovery and
submission of supplementary briefing.
The Plaintiffs, individuals who live in the residential
neighborhood of Davis Isles in Dania Beach, Florida, bring the
class action against Defendant Florida Power & Light Co. ("FPL")
alleging eight temporary and two permanent common law nuisance
claims. The Defendant constructed and now operates a power plant,
the Dania Beach Clean Energy Center, which is near the Plaintiffs'
properties. The Plaintiffs' claims are based on the Defendant's
construction and operation of this power plant.
The Plaintiffs initially filed the case in the Circuit Court of the
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida on
Jan. 20, 2023. On March 27, 2023, the Defendant removed the case to
this Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). On
April 19, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Remand, which
argues that the Court should not exercise jurisdiction under CAFA
because the case falls under either of two exceptions to CAFA --
the "local controversy" exception and the "discretionary"
exception. The Defendant responds that Plaintiffs have failed to
meet their burden of proof that two-thirds of the class members are
Florida citizens (i.e., they reside and intend to remain in
Florida).
On May 6, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint which
altered the proposed class definition. The operative Complaint at
the time the case was removed defined the proposed class as: "All
individuals living in the 1/3-mile radius (around 540 yards) of
FPL's conduct." In contrast, the Amended Complaint defines the
proposed class as: "Any person or entity with current or prior
ownership interest or current or prior possessory interest in a
house listed by address in Exhibit N who has suffered an injury or
damage resulting from FPL's conduct alleged in Count 1-10 of this
Complaint."
Exhibit N to the Amended Complaint contains a list of 70 addresses.
The practical effect of the alteration of the proposed class
definition is to exclude a rental building, "The Isles," that the
Plaintiffs' counsel did not intend to include in the original class
and informed Plaintiffs' counsel that it does not intend to
participate in this lawsuit.
At the June 5, 2023 hearing, the Plaintiffs' counsel represented
that he has collected at least 40 affidavits from class members
swearing to their residency and intent to remain in Florida and
that the counsel intends to continue collecting affidavits to meet
the two-thirds requirement of the local controversy exception. The
Defendant argued during the hearing that these efforts would be
fruitless because the Plaintiffs must prove the residency of
two-thirds of class members as defined in the Complaint at the time
the case was removed, which includes potentially hundreds of
residents of The Isles apartment complex and current and former
residents of a nearby trailer park. It argued in its Response that
without properly identifying all of the individuals living within
the affected area, the Plaintiffs cannot determine the total number
of putative class members in the class they defined—much less
what percentage of them are Florida citizens.
The Plaintiffs argued during the hearing, however, that they need
only prove the residency of two-thirds of class members as defined
in their Amended Complaint, i.e., residents of the 70 houses, not
the apartment complex or trailer park. Thus, to determine whether
to grant the Plaintiffs time to complete jurisdictional discovery,
the Court must determine which is the operative class definition
for purposes of ascertaining whether the local controversy or
discretionary exceptions apply.
Judge Ruiz addresses a narrow legal question: When determining the
applicability of the local controversy and discretionary exceptions
under CAFA, is the Court limited by the class definition in the
operative complaint at the time the notice of removal is filed, or
may the Court consider a revised class definition in an amended
complaint filed after removal? The Eleventh Circuit has not
addressed this precise question, making it an issue of first
impression in this Circuit.
Judge Ruiz states that the case involves Florida residents suing a
Florida company over actions and harm that occurred only in
Florida, solely based on Florida law. Notably, the Complaint was
originally drafted for state court, and therefore may not have
fully addressed CAFA-specific issues relevant to the local
controversy exception. Given all these factors, it is appropriate
to consider the proposed class definition as provided in the
Amended Complaint.
For the Court to grant the Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Remand
pursuant to the local controversy exception, Judge Ruiz says the
Plaintiffs must provide sufficient proof of the citizenship
(including residence and intent to remain in Florida) of at least
two-thirds of the proposed class as defined in the Amended
Complaint. To obtain relief under the discretionary exception, they
must provide proof of residency of at least one-third of the
proposed class as defined in the Amended Complaint and address the
six discretionary factors. Based on his analysis, Judge Ruiz finds
that the Plaintiffs' request for discovery is well taken and will
shed light on the applicability of the foregoing exceptions to CAFA
jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' ore tenus motion to conduct
jurisdictional discovery based on the proposed class definition in
the Amended Complaint is granted. The Plaintiffs will, by Aug. 7,
2023, complete jurisdictional discovery and supplement their
Renewed Motion to Remand with all evidence of Florida citizenship
of class members, accompanied by a supplemental brief not to exceed
10 pages. The Defendant may, within 14 days of receiving the
Plaintiffs' supplemental evidence and brief, file a supplemental
brief in support of its Response, also not to exceed 10 pages. The
Court will not extend these deadlines without a showing of good
cause.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2v4cu74n from Leagle.com.
FLORIDA WOMAN: McCrackin Sues Over lllegal Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY MCCRACKIN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FLORIDA WOMAN CARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-23-014411 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., June 7,
2023) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent an electronic
communication to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of the
consumer debt. The Electronic Communication was sent to Plaintiff
between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the time zone of
Plaintiff. The Defendant did not have the consent of Plaintiff to
communicate with Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00
AM. By doing this, the Defendant violated the FCCPA, says the
suit.
Florida Woman Care, LLC provides women's health and gynecological
care services located in Boca Raton, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
Shannon E. Gilvey, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
shannon@jibraellaw.com
FLORIDA: Jessup Fraud Suit Transferred From N.D. Cal. to S.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHAEL ELLIOTT JESSUP, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. SAMUEL BANKMAN-FRIED, CAROLINE
ELLISON, NISHAD SINGH, GARY WANG, and SAM TRABUCCO, Case No.
3:22-cv-07666, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on June 14, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-22200-KMM to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against the
Defendants for fraud, unjust enrichment, and conversion by
convincing individuals to invest in a cryptocurrency exchange
called FTX and interfering with their rights to control their own
money. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
Todd Logan, Esq.
Yaman Salahi, Esq.
P. Solange Hilfinger-Pardo, Esq.
EDELSON PC
150 California Street, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 212-9300
Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
tlogan@edelson.com
ysalahi@edelson.com
shilfinge1pardo@edelson.com
FORD MOTOR: Militello Sues Over Defective Engine's Water Pumps
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARK MILITELLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-11363-LJM-APP (W.D.N.Y., June 8, 2023) alleges claims
against the Defendant for violations of the New York consumer
protection statutes, breach of implied warranty, and common law
fraud.
The vehicles incorporating the Ford Cyclone Engine, branded as the
Duratec engine, allegedly contain a defect in design that can cause
the internal chain-driven water pump to prematurely fail well
before the end of the useful life of the engine, leading to a
costly replacement or catastrophic engine failure due to the water
pump's placement inside the engine block. Further, Ford failed to
disclose the water pump defect to consumers or fix the defect and
instead, concealed it, says the suit.
Ford Motor Co. is a Delaware corporation, with its corporate
headquarters located in Dearborn, Michigan. It designs, engineers,
manufactures, markets, and/or sells vehicles throughout the U.S.,
including New York, through its network of authorized dealers.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
Robert M. Rothman, Esq.
Francis P. Karam, Esq.
Philip T. Merenda, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
rrothman@rgrdlaw.com
fkaram@rgrdlaw.com
pmerenda@rgrdlaw.com
- and –
Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN& DOWD LLP
120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 750-3000
Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
E-mail: mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
Melissa L. Troutner, Esq.
Tyler S. Graden, Esq.
Jonathan F. Neumann, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
mtroutner@ktmc.com
tgraden@ktmc.com
jneumann@ktmc.com
- and -
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
Emily E. Hughes, Esq.
William Kalas, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
E-mail: epm@miller.law
ssa@miller.law
dal@miller.law
eeh@miller.law
wk@miller.law
FRONTIER ENVIRONMENTAL: Peck Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN PECK and EVAN P. SOUTHERN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. FRONTIER ENVIRONMENTAL,
INC., f/k/a FRONTIER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., d/b/a FRONTIER
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01014-WSS
(W.D. Pa., June 8, 2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act, the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law,
and the Ohio Fair Wage Standards Act.
According to the complaint, this proposed collective action group
consists of heavy equipment operators employed by Defendant in the
three years prior to the filing of this complaint through final
disposition of this action, to whom Defendant has failed and
refused to pay overtime, minimum wage, and/or straight time for
orientation and/or training, whether online or in person; and/or
has failed or refused to pay for overtime and minimum wage.
Plaintiffs Peck and Southern were employed by the Defendants as
heavy equipment operators from March 27, 2023 to April 20, 2023 and
from March 20, 2023 to April 25, 2023, respectively.
Frontier Environmental, Inc. is an environmental safety company
that offers construction, engineering, and remedial services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rachel L. McElroy, Esq.
MCELROY LAW FIRM, LLC
100 First Avenue Suite 1010
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 620-8735
E-mail: rachel@mcelroylawfirm.com
- and -
Christine T. Elzer, Esq.
Tamra Van Hausen, Esq.
ELZER LAW FIRM, LLC
100 First Avenue Suite 1010
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 230-8436
Facsimile: (412) 206-0855
E-mail: celzer@elzerlaw.com
tvanhausen@elzerlaw.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Seeks June 30 Extension to Oppose Class Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK RILEY, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00924-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Defendant asks the
Court to enter an order extending the time by three weeks, from
June 9 to June 30, 2023, for GM to file an opposition to the motion
for class certification filed by the Plaintiff Mark Riley.
The Plaintiff filed a putative class action involving claims for
relief for breach of warranty and contract arising from an alleged
defect in certain GM vehicles.
On May 19, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification. In his motion, the Plaintiff requested that the
Court certify a class of "Initial purchasers and lessees of new
2017-2019 GMC Acadia, 2019 Chevrolet Blazer, 2016-2019 Chevrolet
Malibu, 2018-2019 Chevrolet Traverse, and 2016-2019 Chevrolet Volt
vehicles, who purchased or leased their vehicles in Ohio (the
‘Ohio Class.’)."
In the alternative, the Plaintiff requested that the Court certify
a class of those persons who bought or leased a Class Vehicle in
Ohio and sought but did not receive certain repairs during the
warranty period (the "Alternative Ohio Class").
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(a)(2), GM's opposition brief is due on
June 9, 2023.
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 1, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43XePaQ at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel R. Birnbaum, Esq.
Joseph J. Orzano, Esq.
William F. Benson, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 460-5000
Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
E-mail: dbirnbaum@seyfarth.com
jorzano@seyfarth.com
wbenson@seyfarth.com
GEO GROUP: June 22 Partial Class Certification Hearing Vacated
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hernandez Gomez, et al.,
v. The GEO Group, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00868 (E.D. Cal., Filed
July 13, 2022), the Hon. Judge Christopher D. Baker entered an
order vacating the hearing on the motion for Partial Class
Certification set for June 22, 2023, in light of the parties
stipulation to continue briefing deadlines on motions for summary
judgment and partial class certification, and the Honorable
District Judge Ana de Alba's order extending the schedule.
-- The Court will reschedule the hearing once briefing is
completed,
if necessary.
The nature of suit states Other Labor Litigation.
GEO Group is a publicly traded C corporation that invests in
private prisons and mental health facilities in North America,
Australia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom.[CC]
GEORGE BLOUNT: Faces Washington Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY WASHINGTON, on behalf of himself, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GEORGE BLOUNT
SECURITY INC., d/b/a HONDO SECURITY, and GEORGE BLOUNT,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04853 (S.D.N.Y., June 8,
2023) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor policies and
practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New
York Labor Law, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New
Jersey Wage Payment Law.
This is a civil action for damages and other redress based upon
willful violations that Defendants committed of Plaintiff's rights
guaranteed to him by failing to pay him minimum and overtime wages,
failing to pay full wages owed, failing to pay spread of hours
compensation, failing to furnish accurate wage statements, and
failing to timely pay earned wages upon termination.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a security guard, first in
Manhattan from April 2015 through the end of October 2020, and then
in both Manhattan and Newark, New Jersey, from November 2020
through January 13, 2023.
George Blount Security Inc. is a New York corporation that operates
a Brooklyn, New York-based security company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tenzin Tashi, Esq.
Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 248-5550
Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due August 14
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GUR-RAVANTAB, et al., v.
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:22-cv-01038 (D.D.C., Filed April
13, 2022), the Hon. Judge Trevor N. Mcfadden entered an order on
motion for extension of time to complete discovery:
-- The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is now due June
26, 2023.
-- The Defendant's Opposition is now due August 14, 2023.
-- The Plaintiffs' Reply is now due August 28, 2023.
-- Fact discovery shall now close on September 27, 2023.
The nature of suit states Breach of Contract.
Georgetown University is a private research university in the
Georgetown neighborhood of Washington, D.C.[CC]
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Parties Seek July 12 Class Cert Bid Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMIR GUR-RAVANTAB and
EMILY LAMA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:22-cv-01038-TNM
(D.D.C.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the
class certification and fact discovery deadlines as follows,
without changing any other deadlines in the case:
Current Proposed
Deadline Deadline
-- The Plaintiffs' Motion for June 12, 2023 July 12,
2023
Class Certification:
-- The Defendant's Opposition to July 31, 2023 Aug. 30,
2023
the Plaintiffs' Class
Certification Motion:
-- The Plaintiffs' Reply in Aug. 14, 2023 Sept. 13,
2023
Support of Class
Certification:
Fact Discovery: Sept. 13, 2023 Oct. 13,
2023
Georgetown University is a private research university in the
Georgetown neighborhood of Washington, D.C.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 1, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46923Z2 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
Anthony A. Alesandro, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: Mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com
GOODLEAP LLC: Bid to Compel Arbitration OK'd in Puskas Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN AND TERESA PUSKAS,
v. GOODLEAP, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-00736-SDM-TGW (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Steven D. Merryday entered an order granting
motion to compel arbitration in accord with Solymar Investments.
-- The motion to reply in support of arbitration and the motion
to
certify a class are denied as moot.
-- The action is stayed pending resolution of the arbitration.
Not
later than seven days after receipt of the arbitral decision,
the
Puskases must file a notice announcing the decision. The clerk
must administratively close the case.
In this removed action, Brian and Teresa Puskas sue Goodleap, LLC;
Modern Concepts Construction, LLC (MC Construction); and Modern
Concepts Solar and Roofing, LLC (MC Solar). The complaint
challenges the Defendants' sale and installation of solar panels on
the Puskases' home.
Goodleap removes and moves to compel arbitration. The Puskases
respond and Goodleap moves for leave to reply. Also, the Puskases
move to certify a class of similarly situated plaintiffs.
In June 2022, the Puskases met a salesperson from MC Solar to
discuss installing solar panels on the Puskases home. The Puskases
requested a solar-panel system that would "offset the entire
electrical use" at the house and "eliminate an electric bill." The
salesperson responded that the Puskases would need to purchase
one-hundred panels.
The complaint alleges this is far more than necessary to offset the
household’s electrical usage. The Puskases agreed to purchase the
one-hundred-panel system, and the salesperson presented an
electronic purchase and financing agreement for the Puskases to
sign.
GoodLeap is a finance technology company that provides financing
options for the residential solar energy industry.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qRnY6V at no extra charge.[CC]
GOOGLE INC: Settlement Final OK Hearing in Privacy Suit Set Oct. 12
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Perez of USA Today reports that people who searched using
Google and clicked on search results between October 2006 and
September 2013 may be entitled to receive a cut of a $23 million
settlement Google has agreed to pay.
A class action lawsuit claiming Google shared user's searches with
third party websites without permission led to the settlement, but
Google is denying claims that it shared information and said the
settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing, according to the
notice of proposed settlement of class action for the case.
Data collection Apple, Google and Microsoft know a lot about you.
How to turn off data collection.
Who is eligible to receive money in Google's class-action
settlement?
People who used Google Search and clicked on a search result link
between or on Oct. 26, 2006 and Sept. 30, 2013 are included in the
settlement as a settlement class member.
Settlement class members have to decide to participate by July 31.
How do I submit a claim?
To opt out or into of the settlement, visit
refererheadersettlement.com.
To opt out the settlement, click on the Exclusion Form page, where
you will register to receive a Class Member ID.
To opt into the settlement, click on the Registration Form page.
Fill out your information and submit it to receive a Class Member
ID at your email provided in your registration form. You'll then go
to the Submit Claim page, where you can enter your Class Member ID
and submit the form to file your claim.
How much will each person get?
Based on current data, the payment amounts for those with approved
claims is expected to be around $7.70 per person.
When can I expect the settlement to be finalized?
The final approval hearing for the settlement is currently
scheduled for Oct. 12. Users who wish to object the settlement have
to write to the court about why they disapprove of it by July 31,
and can also ask to speak in court on the issue.
How is Google changing following the lawsuit?
Following the settlement, Google will change its frequently asked
questions (FAQs) and key terms pages to explain the circumstances
under which search queries are shared with third parties using
referrer headers.
More on Google lawsuits:40 states settle Google location-tracking
charges for $392M. [GN]
GOURMET BAKE: Guzman Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Bake Shop Staff
----------------------------------------------------------------
RONY UMANA GUZMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE GOURMET BAKE SHOP INC., JOSEPH
GIFOLI and JUDITH GIFOLI, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-04386
(E.D.N.Y., June 14, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law including failure to pay regular and overtime wages,
failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate
wage statements.
Mr. Guzman was employed by the Defendants as a baker, stocker,
dishwasher and cleaner, while performing related miscellaneous
duties, from in or around August 2019 until in or around July
2021.
The Gourmet Bake Shop Inc. is a bake shop owner and operator, with
principal executive offices located at 775 Hillside Ave., New Hyde
Park, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
GRUBHUB INC: Class Settlement in Co Craft Suit Gets Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CO CRAFT, LLC d/b/a
Freshcraft, and ARBORZ, LLC d/b/a The Piper Inn, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, LYNN
SCOTT, LLC, and THE FARMER'S WIFE, the Plaintiff-Intervenors, v.
GRUBHUB INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01327-NYW-NRN (D.
Colo.), the Hon. Judge Nina Y. Wang entered an order granting in
part and denying in part the unopposed renewed motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement:
"All restaurants, convenience stores, markets, grocery stores,
and
other food service businesses in the United States or its
territories that were listed or otherwise included by Grubhub on
Grubhub Platforms that did not have an unterminated contract,
partnership, or other agreement to be listed or otherwise
included
on Grubhub Platforms at any time from May 11, 2016, until the
Settlement Effective Date."
Specifically excluded are the following Persons:(i) all persons
who
are employees, directors, officers, or agents of Grubhub; (ii)
government entities; and (iii) the Court, the Court's immediate
family, and Court staff.
-- The Proposed Class is preliminarily certified for purposes of
settlement only.
-- The Plaintiff Piper Inn is preliminarily appointed class
representative.
-- Laura L. Sheets of Liddle Sheets Coulson P.C. and Ross Ziev
of
the Law Offices of Ross Ziev, P.C. are provisionally
appointed
interim class counsel.
-- Preliminary approval of the Proposed Settlement Agreement is
denied.
-- The Plaintiffs are granted leave to file a renewed motion for
preliminary approval that addresses the specific deficiencies
identified in this Order.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 1, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/443UBMY at no extra charge.[CC]
HALMAR INTERNATIONAL: JHB Engrg. Sues Over Unpaid Materials, Labor
------------------------------------------------------------------
JHB ENGINEERING, PLLC, individually, and on behalf of all other
similarly situated New York Lien Law Article 3-A trust
beneficiaries, Plaintiff v. HALMAR INTERNATIONAL, LLC, DENNIS J.
CAPOLINO, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, LIBERTY
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
EULER HERMES NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, QBE INSURANCE
COMPANY, and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
711860/2023 (N.Y., June 8, 2023) alleges claims for lien
foreclosure, breach of contract, trust fund diversion, breach of
fiduciary duty, conversion, quantum merit, unjust enrichment and
foreclosure and recovery against payment bond.
On or about May 19, 2021, Plaintiff, as subcontractor, entered into
a written contract with Defendant Halmar, as general contractor,
whereby plaintiff agreed to provide labor and materials and other
related construction surveying work on the on a public improvement
project known as Van Wyck Expressway Capacity and Access
Improvement to JFK Airport in exchange for compensation by
Defendant Halmar in the amount of $441,090. To date, Defendant
Halmar has failed to pay Plaintiff in full for its labor and
materials provided on the said project pursuant to the subcontract,
leaving an outstanding balance due and owing by Defendant Halmar to
Plaintiff in the amount of $154,631.87. The Plaintiff seeks
injunctive relief, damages and all other appropriate relief for the
resulting damages Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer as a
direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful actions.
Halmar is a domestic corporation with its principal place of
business located at 421 East Route 59, Nanuet, NY. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Israel Klein, Esq.
PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP
950 Third Avenue, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 213-8511
Facsimile: (347) 897-0094
E-mail: Israel@pnlawyers.com
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Black Ship Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HEARTLAND PAYMENT SYSTEMS LLC is taking an appeal from a court
order denying its motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled Black Ship
LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Heartland Payment Systems LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3-21-cv-13855, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey.
The Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Defendant for breach
of contract.
On Oct. 11, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which
the Defendant moved to dismiss on Nov. 10, 2021 for lack of
personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
On May 22, 2023, the Court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss
through an Order entered by Judge Zahid N. Quraishi.
The appellate case is captioned Black Ship LLC, et al. v. Heartland
Payment Systems LLC, Case No. 23-1997, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on June 12, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees BLACK SHIP LLC, et al., are represented by:
Olimpio L. Squitieri, Esq.
Paul V. Sweeny, Esq.
SQUITIERI & FEARON
305 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 421-6492
Defendant-Appellant HEARTLAND PAYMENT SYSTEMS LLC,
successor-in-interest to Heartland Payment Systems, LLC, formerly
known as Heartland Payment Systems Inc., is represented by:
Ryan T. Kearney, Esq.
KING & SPALDING
1180 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1600
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 572-4656
HERITAGE VALLEY: Wiretapping Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled John Doe, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Heritage Valley Health System, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 23CI10578, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of
Beaver County, Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on June 8, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01044-WSH to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful wiretapping
and invasion of privacy by installing third-party source code for
the Meta Pixel on Heritage Valley's public website.
Heritage Valley operates hospital facilities as well as a website,
www.heritagevalley.org, which includes digital tools that Heritage
Valley encourages patients to use when seeking or receiving
healthcare. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Edward J. McAndrew, Esq.
Justin M. Kadoura, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1735 Market Street, Suite 3300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 564-8386
E-mail: emcandrew@bakerlaw.com
jkadoura@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1801 California Street, Suite 4400
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 861-0600
E-mail: pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com
-and -
Carrie Dettmer Slye, Esq.
Jennifer Brumfield, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
312 Walnut Street, Suite 3200
Cincinnati, OH 45202-4074
Telephone: (513) 929-3400
E-mail: cdettmerslye@bakerlaw.com
jbrumfield@bakerlaw.com
HOAG MEMORIAL: Files 9th Cir. Appeal Over Remand of Doe Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian filed an appeal from the
District Court's Order dated May 2, 2023 entered in the lawsuit
entitled JANE DOE, Plaintiff v. HOAG MEMORIAL PRESBYTERIAN
HOSPITAL, Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-00444-CJC-ADS, in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California, Santa
Ana.
On Jan. 13, 2023, Doe filed a putative class action in the Superior
Court of California, County of Orange against the Defendant,
alleging that its online practices effectuate various invasions of
privacy. The Defendant removed the case to the District Court on
March 10, 2023, pursuant to the federal officer removal statute, 28
U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1).
According to the Defendant, it uses a tool provided by Facebook
called Meta Pixel as a component of its website analytics practices
to drive patients to its websites and to the patient portal. It
asserts that the federal government, through the "Meaningful Use"
program, has incentivized and directed providers who participate in
the Medicare and Medicaid program (like the Defendant) to offer
patients online access to their health records, and to optimize
patient engagement with their medical information.
On May 2, 2023, Judge Carney granted the Plaintiff's motion to
remand the action back to the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Orange.
The appellate case is captioned as Jane Doe v. Hoag Memorial
Hospital Presbyterian, Case No. 23-55500, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 7, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Mediation
Questionnaire was due June 14, 2023;
-- Appellant Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian opening brief
is due on August 7, 2023;
-- Appellee Jane Doe answering brief is due on September 7,
2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN,
Erroneously Sued As Hoag Memorial Presbyterian Hospital, is
represented by:
Teresa Carey Chow, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
Telephone: (310) 820-8800
- and -
Alexander Vitruk, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
999 3rd Avenue, Suite 3900
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 566-7092
Plaintiff-Appellee JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, is represented by:
Michael Allen Caddell, Esq.
Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
Amy E. Tabor, Esq.
CADDELL & CHAPMAN
628 E 9th Street
Houston, TX 77007
Telephone: (713) 751-0400
ICON HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Dec. 15 in Barclay
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barclay v. Icon Health &
Fitness, Inc., et al., Case No. 0:19-cv-02970 (D. Minn., Filed Nov.
22, 2019), the Hon. Judge Dulce J. Foster entered an order amending
the pretrial schedule as follows:
(a) Fact discovery must be completed by: Oct. 16, 2023
(b) The Plaintiffs must identify experts Nov. 30, 2023
by:
(c) The Defendants must identify Jan. 10, 2024
experts by:
(d) All expert discovery must be April 22, 2024
completed by:
(e) The Plaintiffs' class certification July 14, 2023
expert disclosures due by:
(f) Rebuttal class certification Aug. 14, 2023
expert disclosures due by:
(g) Class certification expert Oct. 16, 2023
deposition deadline shall be:
(h) The Plaintiffs' class certification Dec. 15, 2023
motion due by:
(i) The Defendants' opposition to Feb. 2, 2024
class certification due by:
(j) Reply to class certification March 15, 2024
motion due by:
(k) Non-dispositive motions must April 15, 2024
be filed by:
(l) Dispositive motions, including June 4, 2024
Daubert motions must be filed by:
(m) The case must be trial ready by: October 2024
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property --
Diversity-Fraud.[CC]
INSOMNIA COOKIES: Lee Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH LEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INSOMNIA COOKIES, LLC; KRISPY KREME INC
f/d/b/a Krisy Kreme Doughnut of New York d/b/a Krispy Kreme; SERVE
U BRANDS, INC.; and SETH BERKOWITZ, Defendants, Case No.
6:23-cv-06321 (W.D.N.Y., June 14, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law including illegal tip retention, failure to
pay regular and overtime wages, failure to provide time of hire
wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements.
Mr. Lee was employed as a delivery driver at the Defendants' store
located at 1333 Mount Hope Avenue Rochester, New York from on or
about March 8, 2019 to March 29, 2022.
Insomnia Cookies, LLC is a bakery company, with a principal address
at 440 Park Avenue South, 14th Floor, New York, New York.
Krispy Kreme Inc., doing business as Krispy Kreme, is a bakery
company, located at 80 State Street, Albany, New York.
Serve U Brands, Inc. is the parent company of Insomnia Cookies,
LLC, with a principal address at 345 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1202,
New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
Tiffany Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Hanna's Suit Claims Conspiracy to Fix Price
------------------------------------------------------------------
HANNA'S CANDLE COMPANY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES
INC., GIVAUDAN SA, GIVAUDAN FRAGRANCES CORP., DSM-FIRMENICH AG,
FIRMENICH INTERNATIONAL SA, FIRMENICH INC., SYMRISE AG, and SYMRISE
INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-03266 (D.N.J., June 14, 2023) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 1
and 3 of the Sherman Act.
The case arises from an unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, or
maintain the prices for fragrances and fragrance ingredients by
Defendants Symrise AG, International Flavors & Fragrances Inc.,
Givaudan SA, Firmenich International SA, and certain entities owned
or controlled by them. The Defendants and their co-conspirators
also took affirmative steps to conceal the conspiracy and carry it
out in a manner that would evade detection. Additionally, the
Defendants provided pretextual reasons for their price increases
that the Plaintiff and the Class reasonably relied upon. The
Plaintiff and the members of the Class have sustained injury to
their businesses or property, having paid higher prices for
fragrances and fragrance ingredients than they would have paid in
the absence of the Defendants' illegal contract, combination, or
conspiracy, says the suit.
Hanna's Candle Company is a candle manufacturer, located at 3655
South School Avenue, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. is a manufacturer of
flavors and fragrances, with its principal place of business at 521
West 57th Street, New York, New York.
Givaudan SA is a manufacturer of flavors and fragrances,
headquartered in Vernier, Switzerland.
Givaudan Fragrances Corp. is a manufacturer of flavors and
fragrances, headquartered in East Hanover, New Jersey.
DSM-Firmenich AG is a manufacturer of flavors and fragrances,
headquartered in Switzerland.
Firmenich International SA is a manufacturer of flavors and
fragrances, headquartered in Satigny, Switzerland.
Firmenich Inc. is a manufacturer of flavors and fragrances,
headquartered in Plainsboro, New Jersey.
Symrise AG is a manufacturer of flavors and fragrances,
headquartered in Holzminden, Germany.
Symrise Inc. is a manufacturer of flavors and fragrances,
headquartered in Teterboro, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
Hilary Scherrer, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
E-mail: hscherrer@hausfeld.com
- and -
Scott Martin, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 357-1100
Facsimile: (212) 202-4322
E-mail: smartin@hausfeld.com
- and -
Katie R. Beran, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
325 Chestnut Street, Suite 900
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 985-3270
Facsimile: (215) 985-3271
E-mail: kberan@hausfeld.com
- and -
Mike Roberts, Esq.
ROBERTS LAW FIRM US, PC
20 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
Telephone: (501) 821-5575
E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
JPMORGAN CHASE: Fibbio Sues Over Duplicate Online Bank Transactions
-------------------------------------------------------------------
IRINA FIBBIO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. and EARLY WARNING
SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a ZELLE, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-04239-ENV-RER (E.D.N.Y., June 8, 2023) alleges claims
against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
contract, misrepresentation, breach of implied contract, breach of
fiduciary duty, and for violations of the New York General Business
Law and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.
On or about June 2, 2023, numerous customers using Chase online
banking services noticed that online payments were being debited
from their accounts twice, including payments made via Zelle. The
Defendants failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the within
occurrence, which was a direct result of Defendants' failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cyber procedures and protocols to
prevent the registering of duplicate transactions. As a result of
Defendants' failure to institute said measures, Plaintiff and Class
Members have suffered the loss of funds; loss of use of their
funds; loss of interest on monies wrongfully taken, duplicate
transaction fees; overdrafts; overdraft fees; increased interest
payments; inability to pay ongoing expenses; bounced checks,
adverse impact to credit scores; inability to obtain various loans,
such as automobile and mortgage, and the time, stress and anxiety
associated with unauthorized withdrawals from their accounts, says
the suit.
JPMorgan Chase & Co. is an American multinational financial
services company headquartered in New York City and incorporated in
Delaware. It is the largest bank in the United States and the
world's largest bank by market capitalization. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip M. Hines
HELD & HINES, L.L.P.
2004 Ralph Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Telephone: (718) 531-9700
E-mail: phines@heldhines.com
JS RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mercado Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR MANUEL MERCADO, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JS RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a LA
CARIDAD, JOSE SANTOS, DARIO SANTOS and DAISY SANTOS, Defendants,
Case No. 1:23-cv-04814 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2023) arises from the
Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
New York Labor Law, and NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover (i) compensation for wages paid at
less than the statutory minimum wage; (ii) back wages for overtime
work for which Defendants willfully failed to pay overtime premium
pay as required by the NYLL and the supporting New York State
Department of Labor regulations; (iii) spread-of-hours compensation
for each shift worked exceeding 10 hours in length; (iv)
compensation for Defendants' violation of the Wage Theft Prevention
Act; and (v) liquidated damages pursuant to New York Labor Law for
these violations.
Plaintiff Mercado was employed by Defendants from approximately
July 2013 until July 22, 2021 as a delivery man, dishwasher and
stocker, with his duties including unloading merchandise from
trucks and food preparation.
JS Restaurant Corp. owns and operates a restaurant named La Caridad
located in Bronx, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Samuel, Esq.
THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
1441 Broadway Suite 6085
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 563-9884
KANSAS CITY: Bid to Dismiss McMillan Class Suit Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LARRY A. McMILLAN, Plaintiff v. KANSAS CITY LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Civil No. 1:22-cv-01100-ELH (D. Md.),
Judge Ellen L. Hollander of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland grants in part and denies in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Class
Action Complaint.
McMillan filed a class action complaint against Defendant Kansas
City Life Insurance Company ("KCLI" or "KCL"), alleging breach of
contract and conversion with respect to universal and variable
universal life insurance policies issued by KCLI. He included his
insurance policy as an exhibit to the suit. According to him, the
Defendant breached his Policy and the policies of others by
assessing charges more than amounts authorized by the insurance
policies.
The Complaint contained five counts. Count I alleged breach of
contract. According to the Plaintiff, KCLI breached the insurance
contracts by improperly calculating monthly cost of insurance rates
using factors not authorized by the Policies, and then deducting
those charges from accumulated values. Count II alleged breach of
contract by deducting unauthorized expense charges from the
accumulated values. Count III alleged breach of contract by failing
to reduce the cost of insurance rates despite improved mortality
expectations.
Count IV alleged conversion. According to the Plaintiff, KCLI
converted the property interests of plaintiff and the class in
their accumulated values by deducting charges exceeding the amounts
authorized by the Policies. Count V asserted a claim for
declaratory and injunctive relief. In particular, the Plaintiff
sought a declaration that the Defendant is in material breach of
the Policy and the Class Policies, and an injunction to enjoin KCLI
from further breach. He also sought compensatory and punitive
damages, attorney's fees, and costs.
KCLI moved to dismiss, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). It
also sought dismissal of McMillan's punitive damages claim. By
Memorandum Opinion and Order of March 14, 2023, Judge Hollander
denied the motion to dismiss as to Counts I to IV, but she granted
it as to Count V and as to the Plaintiff's request for punitive
damages. However, she granted the Plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint.
The Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint on April 4, 2023. The
allegations in the FAC concerning Counts I to V are largely the
same as the allegations in the Complaint. But the Plaintiff added
11 paragraphs to support his claims for punitive damages.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the Defendant has moved to
dismiss the Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages. The motion is
supported by a memorandum. The Defendant has otherwise answered the
Amended Complaint, supported by a single exhibit. The Plaintiff
opposes the Motion. The Defendant has replied. No hearing is
necessary to resolve the Motion.
KCLI argues that the Plaintiff has not pleaded sufficient facts
that, if true, entitle him to recover punitive damages. Therefore,
it asks the Court to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim for punitive
damages. As a threshold matter, KCLI asks the Court to dismiss the
Plaintiff's claim for punitive as to the conversion claim, as well
as for breach of contract.
Judge Hollander states that the Maryland Court of Appeals has made
clear well before 1976 and has consistently maintained since then,
that punitive damages are not recoverable by anyone in a breach of
contract action. Accordingly, she dismisses the Plaintiff's request
for punitive damages in connection with his claim of breach of
contract.
However, Judge Hollander holds that the McMillan has alleged facts
to show that KCL was aware that it was assessing costs and charges
more than what was authorized by the Policies. Perhaps most
important, the Plaintiff alleges that, despite KCL's knowledge that
it can only utilize mortality factors in its cost of insurance
calculation, it continued to use other factors, and therefore it
"continues to retain funds unlawfully without the Plaintiff and the
class members' consent.
Therefore, according to Judge Hollander the Plaintiff has alleged
facts supporting a plausible inference that KCLI acted with
reckless indifference about the insurance calculations.
Accordingly, to the extent that the claim for punitive damages is
governed by Missouri law, she denies the Motion.
Considering the foregoing, Judge Hollander denies the Motion as to
the Plaintiff's request for punitive damages in connection with his
conversion claim, to the extent that Missouri law applies. But she
grants the Motion insofar as the Plaintiff seeks punitive damages
in connection with a claim for breach of contract. And she grants
the Motion as to Count V of the FAC.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2023 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ywzuphet from Leagle.com.
KAYE-SMITH ENTERPRISES: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Oct. 13
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Smith v. KAYE-SMITH
ENTERPRISES, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-01499 (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge
Jeff Armistead entered a scheduling order as follows:
(1) Additional parties to be joined by: July 7, 2023
(2) Motion for class certification due: Oct. 13, 2023
(3) Response to motion for class certification due 30 days after
service of motion.
(4) Reply in support of class certification due 30 days after
service of response.
(5) Additionally, the court sets a telephonic status conference
at
10:30 am on June 21, 2023, to discuss matters related to the
scope of discovery.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other
Personal Injury.
Kaye-Smith provides management of outsourced marketing
solutions.[CC]
KOHLBERG & KRAVIS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 12
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPHINE TORRES, on
behalf herself and all others similarly situated, v. KOHLBERG,
KRAVIS, ROBERTS & CO L.P., a New York corporation, CONOPCO, INC., a
New York corporation, and UPFIELD US INC., a Delaware corporation
Case No. 1:20-cv-05025-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mary Kay
Vyskocil entered a civil case management plan and scheduling order
as follows:
-- The Defendant Upfield shall file its motion June 12,
2023
for judgment on the pleadings by:
-- The Plaintiff's opposition is due: June 26,
2023
Any reply is due: June 30,
2023
-- The Plaintiff shall file any motion Dec. 12,
2023
for class certification no later than:
-- All fact discovery shall be completed Sept. 29,
2023
no later than:
-- All expert discovery shall be completed Nov. 28,
2023
no later than:
Kohlbergis an American global investment company that manages
multiple alternative asset classes, including private equity,
energy, infrastructure, real estate, credit, and, through its
strategic partners, hedge funds.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 1, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43JQfe7 at no extra charge.[CC]
KPMG LLP: Kusen Sues Over Decline of First Republic's Stock Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRA KUSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JAMES H. HERBERT, II, HAFIZE GAYE ERKAN,
MICHAEL J. ROFFLER, OLGA TSOKOVA, MICHAEL D. SELFRIDGE, NEAL
HOLLAND, and KPMG, LLP, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-02940 (N.D.
Cal., June 14, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
According to the complaint, the Defendants filed materially false
and misleading statements about First Republic's business and
operations in order to trade First Republic securities at
artificially inflated prices between January 14, 2021, and April
27, 2023. Specifically, the Defendants misrepresented the strength
of the company's balance sheet and liquidity position, while also
understating the significant pressure rising interest rates posed
to First Republic's business model. The Defendants also
misrepresented the strength of the company's ability to deliver
consistent results across different interest rate environments, the
diversity of the company's deposit funding base, and its ability to
generate net interest income growth and maintain stable net
interest margin.
When the truth emerged, the price of First Republic common stock
declined by $22.14 per share, or more than 16%, from a closing
price of $134.73 per share on October 13, 2022, to a closing price
of $112.59 per share on October 14, 2022. The price continuously
declined by $3.19 per share, or more than 91%, from a closing price
of $3.51 per share on April 28, 2023, to a closing price of $0.32
per share on May 4, 2023, says the suit.
KPMG, LLP is an international accounting firm, with principal
executive offices in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3000
Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com
lucasg@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
L3HARRIS TECH: Savings Plan Participant Class Certified in Stengl
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT J. STENGL, DANIEL
WILL, RONALD F. KOSEWICZ, GARY K. COLLEY, LESLIE D. DIAZ, AMAYA
JOHNSON, WILLIAM A. MCKINLEY and JOHN KARIPAS, v. L3HARRIS
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF L3HARRIS
TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF L3HARRIS
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 6:22-cv-00572-PGB-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the
Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion for class certification of:
"All persons, except the Defendants and their immediate family
members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the L3
Technologies Master Savings Plan, and either (i) paid
recordkeeping and administration fees at any time from
November 23, 2015, through July 1, 2018 (the "Recordkeeping
Class
Period"), or (ii) were invested in allegedly imprudent
investment
options from November 23, 2015, through December 31, 2019 (the
"Imprudent Investment Class Period")."
The Plaintiffs Robert J. Stengl, Daniel Will, Gary K. Colley,
Leslie D. Diaz, Amaya Johnson, William A. McKinley, and John
Karipas are certified and appointed as Class representatives.
Capozzi Adler, P.C. is appointed and certified as Class counsel
pursuant to Rule 23(g)(1).
On or before June 23, 2023, the parties shall jointly file for
approval by the Court a proposed notice to absent Class members.
Alternatively, if the parties cannot agree on a proposed notice,
the Plaintiffs shall file a proposed notice on or before June 23,
2023, and the Defendant shall file any objections within five days
of the filing of the Plaintiffs' proposed notice.
Moreover, the Plaintiffs contend that its counsel, Capozzi Adler,
P.C., has no conflicts and will vigorously prosecute this action,
noting its investigation, experience, and qualifications.
The Plaintiffs further allege that the Board failed to monitor the
Plan's fiduciaries in violation of ERISA. The Plaintiffs filed
their Amended Class Action Complaint on behalf of the L3 Harris
Retirement Savings Plan, and a proposed class of participants and
beneficiaries of the Plan.
L3Harris is an American technology company, defense contractor, and
information technology services provider.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PjK5Nt at no extra charge.[CC]
LEARFIELD COMMUNICATIONS: Heerde, Haines Sue Over Privacy Invasion
------------------------------------------------------------------
EMILY HEERDE and MARK HAINES, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LEARFIELD COMMUNICATIONS,
LLC, SIDEARM SPORTS, LLC, and UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-04493 (C.D. Cal., June 8, 2023) arises
out of the Defendants' alleged violations of the Video Privacy
Protection Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and the
Federal Wiretap Act.
Allegedly, the Defendants employed the tracking tools, which are
created by Google, Meta, Oracle, The Trade Desk, and comScore, to
intercept communications between visitors and subscribers to
University of Southern California's college program website,
https://usctrojans.com/ as well as the websites of 173 National
Collegiate Athletics Association Division 1 Teams. These tracking
tools, as implemented by Defendants, resulted in the violations of
the CIPA, the VPPA, and the Wiretap Act. The Defendants failed to
obtain consent from website's visitors and subscribers to utilize
these tracking tools on the website, says the suit.
Learfield Communications, LLC was formed in the state of Delaware
and is a collegiate sports marketing company with headquarters at
2400 Dallas Parkway, Suite 500 Plano, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam M. Apton, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
445 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 985-7290
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: aapton@zlk.com
- and -
Mark S. Reich, Esq.
Courtney Maccarone, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
55 Broadway, 4th Floor, Suite 427
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
Email: mreich@zlk.com
cmaccarone@zlk.com
LEISURE TIME TOURS: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Leisure Time Tours.
The case is styled as Frangie Espinal, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Leisure Time Tours, Case No.
1:23-cv-04982-JPO (S.D.N.Y., June 13, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Leisure Time Tour -- https://www.leisuretimetours.com/ -- is a full
time, year-round tour and hotel operator.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Nayani Seeks Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NIZAR S. NAYANI,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
LIFESTANCE HEALTH GROUP, INC., MICHAEL K. LESTER, J. MICHAEL BRUFF,
ROBERT BESSLER, DARREN BLACK, JEFFREY CRISAN, WILLIAM MILLER,
JEFFREY RHODES, ERIC SHUEY, KATHERINE WOOD, MORGAN STANLEY & CO.
LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, JEFFERIES
LLC, TPG CAPITAL BD, LLC, UBS SECURITIES LLC, and WILLIAM BLAIR &
COMPANY, L.L.C., Case No. 1:22-cv-06833-JSR (S.D.N.Y.), lead
Plaintiff Nayani asks the Court to enter an order:
1. Certifying a class of all persons, other than The Defendants
and
their affiliates, who purchased the common stock of
LifeStance
Health Group, Inc. in and/or traceable to LifeStance's
initial
public offering on or about June 10, 2021;
2. Appointing Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative; and
3. Appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Class
Counsel.
LifeStance Health offers mental and physical healthcare services.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 2, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43QzXQz at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
Mark T. Millkey, Esq.
Michael G. Capeci, Esq.
Brent E. Mitchell, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
mmillkey@rgrdlaw.com
mcapeci@rgrdlaw.com
bmitchell@rgrdlaw.com
LOS ANGELES, CA: Brewster Seeks Reconsideration of Court Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAMYA BREWSTER, ELIAS
ARIZMENDI and JULIAN VIGIL, individually and as class
representative, et al., v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Case No.
5:14-cv-02257-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order reconsidering its order denying class certification
of the proposed OPG Class, and its denial of any class
certification based on the Plaintiffs' due process claims, pursuant
to Local Rule 7-18(c).
In the course of this protracted litigation, the Court made certain
class related rulings that the Plaintiffs contend should be
reconsidered in light of the Court's summary judgment ruling.
The Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of 1) the Court's denial of
class certification for the OPG Class, and 2) denial of class
certification based on any of the Plaintiffs;' procedural due
process claims.
The Court's summary judgment order undermined the Court's reasons
for finding that common issues did not predominate on both these
issues.
That General OPG Class definition is:
"During the class period for seizures and impounds initiated
from
November 2, 2012, until July 1, 2017, vehicle owners whose
vehicles
were i) impounded under the authority of LAPD Special Order 7
for a
30-day impound; ii) released from impound after the first day of
the impound [OR not released from impound until such time, if
any,
to be determined by the Court or Jury, that the impound became
unlawful based on duration of the impound alone]; and iii) the
owner retrieved their impounded car from an Official Police
Garage
(OPG) (tow yard) and paid all accrued fees and charges."
The Class Representative for the OPG Class is Julian Vigil.
Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the center
of the nation's film and television industry.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 5, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JlqUia at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Barrett S. Litt, Esq.
E-mail: blitt@mbllegal.com
MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT
975 East Green Street
Pasadena, CA 91106
Telephone: (626) 844-7660
Facsimile: (626) 844-7670
- and -
Donald W. Cook, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DONALD W. COOK
SCHONBRON and SEPLOW
3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2910
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 252-9444
Facsimile: (213) 252-0091
E-mail: manncook@earthlink.net
LOS ANGELES, CA: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Acedo Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS ACEDO, et al., on behalf of themselves and other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-04482 (C.D. Cal., June 7, 2023) arises from the
Defendant's failure to pay overtime for all hours worked in excess
of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The complaint alleges the Defendant's failure and refusal to
provide Plaintiffs overtime pay at the proper rate for the hours
they have worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek for shifts
worked on an ambulance, as required by the FLSA. The Defendant
wrongly deprives Plaintiffs of the overtime compensation that has
been due to them at all times material to this action, adds the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs are employees or former employees of the city of Los
Angeles. They were employed at the Los Angeles Fire Department,
which is located in the Central District of California.
City of Los Angeles is an "employer," as defined by 29 U.S.C.
Section 203(d), an "enterprise" as defined by 29 U.S.C. Section
203(r), and a "public agency," as defined by 29 U.S.C. Section
203(x).
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Dana S. Martinez, Esq.
BUSH GOTTLIEB, A Law Corporation
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 950
Glendale, CA 91203-1260
Telephone: (818) 973-3200
Facsimile: (818) 973-3201
E-mail: dmartinez@bushgottlieb.com
- and -
Lauren McDermott, Esq.
Arthur R. Traynor, Esq.
MOONEY, GREEN, SAINDON, MURPHY & WELCH, P.C.
1920 L. Street, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 783-0010
Facsimile: (202) 783-6088
E-mail: lobpowell@gmail.com
atraynor@mooneygreen.com
LOWE'S HOME: Fails to Provide 14-Day Notice for Work Schedules
--------------------------------------------------------------
KAREEM JACKSON, NASIR SAMPSON, and YOULANDA BOLDEN, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LOWE'S HOME
CENTERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 230600755 (Pa. Com. Pl.,
Philadelphia Cty., June 8, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's
alleged violations of the Fair Workweek Law.
According to the complaint, Lowe's violated the Fair Workweek Law
by failing to provide compliant written good faith estimates of
employees' work schedules; failing to provide 14-days' notice of
employees' works schedules; failing to pay required penalties and
Predictability Pay and obtain written consent when Lowe's changed
employees' work schedules with less than 14-days' notice; failing
to ensure at least nine hours of rest between employees' shifts;
changing employees' schedules at the last minute; and failing to
offer new shifts to current employees before hiring new employees.
Lowe's is a North Carolina corporation and a nationwide big box
retailer with its principal place of business in Mooresville, North
Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq.
WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON
1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 656-3600
Facsimile: (215) 567-2310
E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com
- and -
Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
Krysten Connon, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (267) 256-9973
E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com
kconnon@llrlaw.com
- and -
Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
705 8th St SE #100
Washington, DC 20003
Telephone: (202) 830-2016
E-mail: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com
MAJESTIC STAR: Filing of Class Certification Bids Due Sept. 28
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rodriguez v. The Majestic
Star Casino, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00198 (N.D. Ind., Filed
July 19, 2022), the Hon. Mag. Judge John E Martin entered an order
granting motion for extension of time to complete discovery:
-- Discovery deadline for initial bifurcated Aug. 30, 2023
stage is:
-- Class certification Motions due by: Sept. 28, 2023
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Majestic Star provides casino and hotel services.[CC]
MAJESTIC STAR: Rodriguez Seeks Extension of Case Management Date
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. THE
MAJESTIC STAR CASINO, LLC, d/b/a HARD ROCK CASINO NORTHERN INDIANA,
HRNI HOLDINGS, LLC, d/b/a HARD ROCK CASINO NORTHERN INDIANA, HARD
ROCK NORTHERN INDIANA, LLC, HARD ROCK GARY MANAGER, LLC And HARD
ROCK GARY, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00198-PPS-JEM (N.D. Ind.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting a 90-day
extension of the current discovery deadline and the deadline to
file the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification and/or
Rule 23 class certification.
On November 30, 2022, this Court issued its Order on the Report of
Parties' Planning Meeting. Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, the
deadline to complete all discovery for the initial bifurcated stage
of discovery is June 1, 2023, and the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification and/or Rule 23 class certification is due
to be filed by June 30, 2023.
With this extension, the discovery deadline will be August 30,
2023, and the deadline to file the Plaintiff's motion will be
September 28, 2023.
The Defendants' counsel consents to the extension of these
deadlines as requested.
The Plaintiff requests a 90-day extension to complete all discovery
for the initial bifurcated stage of discovery and for the Plaintiff
to file his motion for conditional certification and/or Rule 23
class certification.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 1, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Xqdbgd at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert J. Hunt, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. HUNT, LLC
1905 South New Market Street, Ste 168
Carmel, IN 46032
Telephone: (317) 743-0614
Facsimile: (317) 743-0615
E-mail: rob@indianawagelaw.com
MANAGED CARE: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Hanekom Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
YVON HANEKOM and KADE MCCRAW, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MANAGED CARE OF NORTH
AMERICA, INC., d/b/a MCNA DENTAL, Defendant, Case No.
0:23-cv-61151-CMA (S.D. Fla., June 14, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy,
unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action against the Defendant for
its failure to properly secure and safeguard their protected health
information (PHI) and personally identifiable information (PII)
stored within its information network and servers following a data
breach between at least February 26 and March 7, 2023. The
Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly
situated patients about the data breach. As a result, the PII and
PHI of the Plaintiffs and Class Members were compromised and
damaged through access by and disclosure to an unknown and
unauthorized third party, says the suit.
Managed Care of North America, Inc., doing business as MCNA Dental,
is a dental benefits manager, with its principal place of business
in Miramar, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark B. DeSanto, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE, PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: mdesanto@bm.net
- and -
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE, PC
1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Telephone: (612) 594-5933
Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
MANAGED CARE: Nelson Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDY NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MANAGED CARE OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-22116 (S.D. Fla., June 7, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per
se, breach of confidence, invasion of privacy, breach of contract,
breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary
duty, declaratory judgment, and violations of the Louisiana's
Database Security Breach Notification Law and Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
On May 26, 2023, MCNA Dental confirmed that it had suffered a
ransomware attack that disrupted its computer systems. MCNA Dental
detected the attack on March 6, 2023, and waited more than 11 weeks
before informing the public. The Plaintiff did not receive a
notification letter until May 26, 2023, when she had already been
the target of a phishing attack related to her bank account and
received inquiries on her credit report to open new lines of
credit.
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant's failure to adequately protect
its customers' personal information; warn customers of its
inadequate information security practices; and effectively secure
hardware, data, and information systems through reasonable and
effective security procedures. The Defendant's alleged conduct
constitutes negligence that proximately caused damages to Plaintiff
and Class Members.
As a direct and proximate result of MCNA Dental's breach of
confidence and failure to protect the personal information,
Plaintiff and Class Members have been injured by facing ongoing,
imminent, impending threats of identity theft crimes, fraud, scams,
and other misuses of their Personal Information; ongoing monetary
loss and economic harm; loss of value of privacy and
confidentiality of the stolen personal information; illegal sales
of the compromised personal information; mitigation expenses and
time spent on credit monitoring; identity theft insurance costs;
credit freezes/unfreezes; expense and time spent on initiating
fraud alerts and contacting third parties; decreased credit scores;
lost work time; and other injuries, says the suit.
Managed Care of North America, Inc., doing business as MCNA Dental,
provides dental plans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
Zachary S. Bower, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY
& AGNELLO, P.C.
2222 Ponce de Leon
Miami, FL 33134
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
E-mail: jalperstein@carellabyrne.com
zbower@carellabyrne.com
- and -
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Kevin G. Cooper, Esq.
Jordan M. Steele, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY
& AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
kcooper@carellabyrne.com
jsteele@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
Christopher L. Ayers, Esq.
Audrey Siegel, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
Telephone: (973) 639-1000
E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
cayers@seegerweiss.com
asiegel@seegerweiss.com
MARSHALL & MELHORN: Hendrix Files Suit in N.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marshall & Melhorn,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Mark Hendrix, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Marshall & Melhorn, LLC,
Case No. 3:23-cv-01181-JRK (N.D. Ohio, June 13, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Marshall Melhorn -- https://www.marshall-melhorn.com/ -- is a
full-service law firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dylan J. Gould, Esq.
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
Jonathan Tehan Deters, Esq.
MARKOVITS STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 E. Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Phone: (513) 651-3700
Fax: (513) 665-0219
Email: dgould@msdlegal.com
tcoates@msdlegal.com
jdeters@msdlegal.com
- and -
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE - MINNEAPOLIS
100 Washington Avenue South, Ste. 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 767-3613
Fax: (612) 336-2940
Email: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com
MAT BUS CORP: Quick Seeks Unpaid Wages of Bus Monitors, Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
STANLEY QUICK and GUISEPPINNA RISPO, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MAT BUS CORP. and
TOTAL TRANSPORTATION CORP., Defendants, Case No. 516982/2023 (N.Y.
Sup., Kings Cty., June 9, 2023) is an action brought by Plaintiffs
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated for unpaid
overtime and untimely payment of wages under the New York Labor
Law.
Plaintiff Quick was employed by the Defendants as a bus monitor
beginning October 13, 2022 and continuously thereafter until his
separation from employment in March 2023.
Plaintiff Rispo was employed by the Defendants as a bus driver
beginning October 13, 2022 and continuously thereafter until her
separation from employment in March 2023.
Mat Bus Corp. is a non-publicly traded New York domestic business
corporation providing charter bus transportation services to
individuals and facilities in New York State.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Nathaniel K. Charny, Esq.
CHARNY & WHEELER P.C.
42 West Market Street
Rhinebeck, NY 12572
Telephone: (845) 876-7500
Facsimile: (845) 876-7501
E-mail: ncharny@charnywheeler.com
MAURA HEALEY: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN SIMMONS, et al, v.
MAURA HEALEY, in her official capacity as Governor of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-11715-PBS
(D. Mass.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order
extending the deadline for them to oppose the motion for class
certification by 60 days, to and including August 29, 2023.
The Defendants further request corresponding extensions of the
deadlines for the Plaintiffs' reply brief from July 28, 2023, until
September 28, 2023, and of the Defendants' surreply from September
15, 2023, until October 30, 2023.
On April 19, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.
On May 3, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an amended memorandum in
support of their motion.
The Defendants respectfully submit that they cannot reasonably
complete all of these tasks by June 30, 2023. Further, an extension
of sixty days is both reasonable and necessary considering the
complexity and amount of work the Defendants' counsel must
accomplish in order to respond to a substantial motion.
Counsel for the Defendants have various long-planned preexisting
family commitments and vacation plans during the months of June,
July, and August 2023.
The Plaintiffs include DAVID MARSTERS, by his next friend, Nancy
Pomerleau; LORRAINE SIMPSON, by her guardian, Sarah Spooner; SHERI
CURIN, by her guardian, Sara Spooner; CAROLE CHOJNACKI, by her
guardian, Sara Spooner; RICHARD CAOUETTE, by his guardian, Sara
Spooner; DONALD GRANT, by his guardian, Sara Spooner, on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated persons; and MASSACHUSETTS
SENIOR ACTION COUNCIL.
The Defendants include KATE WALSH, in her official capacity as
Acting Secretary of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Health
and Human Services; MATTHEW GORZKOWICZ, in his official capacity as
Secretary of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Administration
and Finance; ELIZABETH CHEN, in her official capacity as Secretary
of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Elder Affairs; and MICHAEL
LEVINE, in his official capacity as Assistant Secretary for
MassHealth in the Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and
Human Services,
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 5, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Xgllrp at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrea Joy Campbell, Esq.
Jennifer E. Greaney, Esq.
Christine Fimognari, Esq.
Grace Gohlke, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108-1698
Telephone: (617) 963-2981
E-mail: jennifer.greaney@mass.gov
christine.fimognari@mass.gov
grace.gohlke@mass.gov
MDL 2918: Reseller Plaintiffs Seek Class Cert. in Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Hard Disk Drive Suspension
Assemblies Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC (N.D.
Cal.), the Reseller Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
certifying the following class, pursuant to Rule (b)(3) of the
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure:
"All persons or entities, in the Indirect Purchaser States,
except
OEMs, who, during the period from January 2003 through May 2016,
purchased a Standalone Storage Device or Computer for resale
which
included as a component part one or more HDD suspension
assemblies
that were manufactured or sold by the the Defendants, any
current
or former subsidiary of the Defendants, or any coconspirator of
the
Defendants or indirectly purchased an HDD suspension assembly,
for
resale, that was manufactured or sold by the Defendants, any
current or former subsidiary of the Defendants, or any co-
conspirator of the Defendants."
In the alternative, the Plaintiffs seek certification of separate
classes under the laws of each of the Indirect Purchaser States,
namely a California class, a Michigan class, a Minnesota class, a
New York class, and a North Carolina class.
The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint Cuneo Gilbert &
LaDuca, LLP and Larson King, LLP as Class Counsel, pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(g).
The Reseller Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint Cuneo Gilbert
& LaDuca, LLP and Larson King, LLP as Class Counsel, pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P.23(g).
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 1, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/444NiEO at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
Victoria Sims, Esq.
Joel Davidow, Esq.
Daniel Cohen, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LaDUCA, LLP
4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 789-3960
E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
vicky@cuneolaw.com
joel@cuneolaw.com
danielc@cuneolaw.com
- and -
Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
LARSON • KING, LLP
2800 Wells Fargo Place
30 East Seventh Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (651) 312-6500
E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com
MICHAEL KORS: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Gabriella Hernandez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. MICHAEL KORS (USA),
INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,
Case No. 23STCV11431 was removed from the Superior Court of
California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 13,
2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04654.
The Complaint alleges that Michael Kors's website,
https://www.michaelkors.com (the "Website"), "discloses to third
parties the personally identifiable information (PII) of consumers
derived from their video viewing habits, along with the title of
any video viewed." Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
Website "notifies TikTok every time a user watches a video on the
Website along with the title of the video and PII." The Plaintiff
purports that this alleged activity violates the Video Privacy
Protection Act (the "VPPA").[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Becca Wahlquist, Esq.
KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3800
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (310) 712-6100
Facsimile: (310) 712-6199
Email: BWahlquist@kelleydrye.com
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Douglass Seeks Certification of Settlement Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLAIR DOUGLASS, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. MONDELĒZ GLOBAL
LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00875-WSH (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order certifying the class for settlement
purposes and granting final approval of the parties' class action
settlement agreement.
The Defendant does not oppose the relief sought in the motion.
Mondelez Global is a global snacking powerhouse.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 5, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42OjsmT at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin W. Tucker, Esq.
Kevin J. Abramowicz, Esq.
Chandler Steiger, Esq.
Stephanie Moore, Esq.
EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC
6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215
Pittsburgh, PA 15208
Telephone: (412) 877-5220
E-mail: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com
kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com
csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com
smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Emily Fitzmorris, et al.
v. Commissioner, currently Lori Weaver in her official capacity as
Interim Commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Health and
Human Services, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00025-PB (D.N.H.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order partially sealing their
Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and Exhibits 2, 4, and 22, and fully sealing the
following exhibits: 5, 6,8,9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,
19,
20, 21,23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33,34, and 35.
On August 24, 2021, the Court granted the parties' joint motion for
a Protective Order and ordered that information including protected
health information and information relating to Adult Protective
Services investigations pursuant to RSA 161-F:42 through 161-F:57
may be designated as confidential and protected from disclosure or
dissemination.
A copy of the Court's order the Defendants' motion dated June 1,
2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43GxjwB
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Philip J. Peisch, Esq.
Caroline M. Brown, Esq.
Julia M. Siegenberg, Esq.
Kendra Doty, Esq.
Rebecca Wolfe, Esq.
BROWN & PEISCH PLLC
1233 20th Street NW, Suite 505
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 499-4258
E-mail: ppcisch@brownandpeisch.com
kdoty@brownandpeisch.com
rwolfe@brownandpeisch.com
- and -
Brendan O’Donnell, Esq.
Catherine Denny, Esq.
NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE (CIVIL BUREAU)
33 Capitol Street
Concord, NH 03301
Telephone: (603) 271-3650
E-mail: brendan.a.odonnell@doJ.nh.gov
cathcrine.a.denny@doJ.nh.gov
NFI MANAGEMENT: Order on Class Cert Bids Entered in Navarrete Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZUBAN ISIDOR NAVARRETE, v.
NFI MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, et al, Case No. 2:23-cv-02665-FMO-MAR
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order
regarding motions for class certification as follows:
1. Joint Brief:
The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single, fully
integrated joint brief covering each party's position, in
which
each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a party is immediately
followed by the opposing party's/parties' response.
2. Citation to Evidence:
"All citation to evidence in the joint brief shall be directly
to
the exhibit and page number(s) of the evidentiary appendix.
3. Unnecessary Sections:
The parties need not include a "procedural history" section,
since the court will be familiar with the procedural history.
The
court is also familiar with the general standard for class
certification, so that need not be argued. However, if a party
believes a specialized standard is applicable, the party may
brief such a standard.
4. Schedule for Preparation and Filing of Joint Brief:
A. Meet and Confer:
In order for a motion for class certification to be filed in
a
timely manner, the meet and confer must take place no later
than
35 days before the deadline for class certification motions
set
forth in the Court's Case Management and Scheduling Order.
B. No later than seven days after the meet and confer, the
moving party shall personally deliver or e-mail to the
opposing
party an electronic copy of the moving party’s portion of
the
joint brief, together with the moving party’s portion of
the
evidentiary appendix.
C. No later than 14 days after receiving the moving party's
papers, the opposing party shall personally deliver or e-mail
to
the moving party an electronic copy of the integrated motion,
which shall include the opposing party's portion of the joint
brief, together with the opposing party's portion of the
evidentiary appendix.
5. Failure to Comply with this Order:
If it appears from the joint brief that the parties have not
discharged their meet and confer obligations in good faith,
that
the parties have not worked to fully integrate the document,
or
that the parties have otherwise failed to fully comply with
this
Order, the motion shall be stricken, and the parties shall be
required to repeat the process.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43P0GwU at no extra charge.[CC]
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Class Certification in Black Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DENNIS A. BLACK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v.
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION; ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION;
ANADARKO E&P ONSHORE LLC; ANADARKO LAND CORP; ANADARKO OIL & GAS 5
LLC, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 22-8040 (10th Cir.), the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirms the district court's
certification of a class.
The other Plaintiffs-Appellees are ANITA C. DESELMS, as Trustee of
the Anita C. Deselms Living Trust and for all similarly situated
persons; GROSS WILKINSON RANCH LLC; JOHN G. WILLIAMS; THERESA M.
WILLIAMS, Trustee for the John & Theresa Williams Trust dated July
18, 2019; RUSSELL I. WILLIAMS, JR., Trustee Russell I Williams Jr.
Revocable Trust U/A dated July 27, 1983; RABOU RESOURCES, LLC, by
and through its manager, a/k/a Ron Rabou; JOLENE M. SIMKINS; NORMA
JEAN SMITH; RICHARD BAGBY; TRACY BAGBY; PHYLLIS A. COONEY, Trustee
of the Phyllis A Cooney Trust U/A dated September 22, 1995; JUSTIN
W. MILLER; BRANDI J. MILLER; MINA BAYNE; KAREN BRYANT, Individually
and as Trustee of the Karen Bryant Living Trust dated September 22,
2017; KAREN BLACK; PHILLIP BROCK CARL WILLIAMS, Trustee of the
Williams Family Trust U/A dated July 21, 2014; SUZANNE LEE EKLUND,
Trustee of the Suzanne Lee Eklund Revocable Trust UA April 25,
2011; JOHN K. MARQUARDT, Trustee of the John K. Marquardt Revocable
Trust UA dated May 1, 2008; GUST OF WIND, LLC, a Nebraska limited
liability company; PARTY VIKINGS, LLC, a Colorado limited liability
company; J & L LERWICK LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; JULIE JAYNE GOYEN; J.
MICHAEL POWERS, Trustee of the J. Michael Powers Revocable Trust UA
dated August 10, 1982; BENJAMIN D. ADKINSON, a/k/a Benjamin
Adkison, a/k/a Benjamin D. Adkison; KELLI J. ADKISON, a/k/a Kelli
Adkison; VAL D. EKLUND, a/k/a Val Eklund; SHARRON R. EKLUND, a/k/a
Sharon Eklund; KAREN LESLIE EKLUND, a/k/a Karen Bryant; JOHN C.
EKLUND, Trustee of the John C. Eklund Revocable Trust UA April 25,
2011; JOHN GILBERT WILLIAMS, Trustee of the John & Theresa Williams
Trust dated July 18, 2019, a/k/a John G. Williams; and THERESA M.
WILLIAMS, Individually.
The appeal is from the district court's certification of a class in
an antitrust dispute between private landowners holding many
thousands of surface and mineral acres lying within Laramie County,
Wyoming," ("Plaintiffs") and Anadarko Petroleum Corp., a surface
and mineral interest owner and operator in Laramie County, and its
subsidiaries (collectively "Anadarko"). The Plaintiffs allege
Anadarko's intracompany practice of leasing its mineral interests
to its affiliated operating company, including its 30% royalty
rate, had the intent and effect of reducing the value of
Plaintiffs' mineral interests. They claim Anadarko thereby
maintained and furthered its dominant position in the market for
leasing oil and gas mineral interests in violation of the Sherman
Act section 2 and Wyoming antitrust laws. The Plaintiffs seek
treble damages and attorneys' fees under Section 4 of the Clayton
Act.
In November 2019, the Plaintiffs filed suit against Anadarko in
U.S. States District Court for the District of Wyoming. In their
operative complaint, the Plaintiffs seek damages in accordance with
the Sherman Act Section 2, the Clayton Act Section 4, and Wyoming
law for Anadarko's alleged antitrust violations. They allege
Anadarko obtained, maintained, and extended its dominance in the
market for leasing of oil and gas mineral rights in Laramie County
by (1) creating intracompany oil and gas leases with
anticompetitive 30% royalty rates and (2) filing permits to drill
without engaging in drilling or having intent to drill.
The Plaintiffs allege these actions constituted a willful exercise
of monopoly or monopsony power, in violation of state and federal
antitrust laws, and injured named Plaintiffs and other putative
class members by the loss of lease royalties, loss of lease
bonuses, and loss of realization of the full value of their mineral
ownership. Anadarko denied any system of anticompetitive conduct or
intent to monopolize the market for oil and gas leasing and
development in Laramie County.
The Plaintiffs moved to certify a class of "all persons having
ownership of Class Minerals during the Class Period" subject to
specified exclusions not at issue in the appeal. The Class Period
was defined as the time from July 1, 2016, through Oct. 19, 2020.
Anadarko opposed the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
arguing they had failed to meet their burden of satisfying the Rule
23(a) requirements of typicality and adequate representation or the
Rule 23(b)(3) requirements of predominance and superiority.
The district court certified a class action, for liability purposes
only, comprised of "all persons having ownership of Class Minerals
during the Class Period." Class Minerals were further defined as
oil and gas mineral interests that were not under lease to drill
and operate wells during the Class Period and that were situated
within specified geographic regions of Laramie County and adjacent
to sections of minerals covered by Anadarko's 30% royalty
intracompany leases. The Class Period ran from Nov. 1, 2017,
through Oct. 19, 2020.
Anadarko appeals the district court's class certification pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), raising two main issues.
First, It argues the district court erred in holding the Plaintiffs
had met their burden of proving the predominance requirement of
Rule 23(b)(3). Specifically, Anadarko argues the district court
erred in concluding the issues of market power and antitrust impact
could be proven on a class-wide basis. Second, Anadarko argues the
district court erred in certifying an issue class under Rule
23(c)(4) without making specific findings as to why doing so would
materially advance the litigation.
The Tenth Circuit concludes the district court applied the correct
standards for determining whether to certify a class under Rule
23(b)(3) and whether an issue class was appropriate under Rule
23(c)(4). And it holds the district court did not abuse its
discretion either by concluding the questions of market power and
antitrust impact presented common issues capable of class-wide
resolution or by certifying an issue class under Rule 23(c)(4).
Because the district court applied the correct legal standard, and
because it did not abuse its discretion in certifying an issue
class, the Tenth Circuit affirms the district court's class
certification.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mrxbtx5z from Leagle.com.
Lauren Moskowitz -- lmoskowitz@cravath.com -- Cravath, Swaine &
Moore, New York, New York (Katherine B. Forrest, Benjamin
Gruenstein -- bgruenstein@cravath.com -- Samantha Hall, Benjamin M.
Wylly -- bwylly@cravath.com -- Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLC, New
York, New York, and Darin B. Scheer -- dscheer@crowleyfleck.com --
Timothy M. Stubson -- tstubson@crowleyfleck.com -- Crowley Fleck
PLLP, Casper, Wyoming, on the briefs), for the
Defendants-Appellants.
Samuel Issacharoff, New York, New York (Robert Klonoff, Portland,
Oregon; Robert P. Schuster -- info@bobschuster.com -- Bradley L.
Booke, Adelaide P. Myers, Robert P. Schuster, P.C., Jackson,
Wyoming; J.N. Murdock, Murdock Law Firm LLC, Casper, Wyoming; Cody
L. Balzer, Balzer Law Firm, P.C., Loveland, Colorado; Thomas N.
Long -- tlong@lrw-law.com -- Kris C. Koski -- kkoski@lrw-law.com --
Aaron J. Lyttle -- alyttle@lrw-law.com -- Kaylee A. Harmon --
kharmon@lrw-law.com -- Long Reimer Winegar LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming;
and Laurence O. Masson, Law Office of Laurence O. Masson, Berkeley,
California; with him on the brief), for the Plaintiffs-Appellees.
OHIO: Tolliver Files Bid to Certify Class Action
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN A. TOLLIVER
(428576), On behalf of himself and all others situated v. OHIO
DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS, Annette
Chambers-Smith (Director), Dr. Mike Davis (Chief of Religious
Services), Jennifer Urrah, (Chief of Holistic Services), John and
Jane Doe Administrators, and Staff John and Jane Doe Islamic
Services Contractors, Case No. 2:22-cv-04567-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion
to certify case as class action under Federal Rule Civil Procedure
23(c)(l).
Ohio Department is the administrative department of the Ohio state
government responsible for oversight of Ohio State Correctional
Facilities, along with its Incarcerated Individuals.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 1, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NytSCM at no extra
charge.[CC]
OLO INC: Steamship Trade Seeks to Certify Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEAMSHIP TRADE
ASSOCIATION OF BALTIMORE – INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S
ASSOCIATION PENSION FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. OLO INC., NOAH GLASS, and PETER BENEVIDES,
Case No. 1:22-cv-08228-JSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Lead Plaintiff Steamship
Trade Association of Baltimore moves the Court pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(3), and 23(g), for an order:
-- certifying the case as a class action;
-- appointing it as Class Representative; and
-- appointing Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP as Class Counsel.
Pursuant to the Civil Case Management Plan entered by the Court on
April 17, 2023:
1. The Defendants shall file their Opposition to the Motion by
June
26, 2023;
2. Lead Plaintiff shall file its Reply in further support of the
Motion by July 17, 2023; and
3. The Court will hear oral argument on the Motion on July 24,
2020,
at 4:00 P.M.
Olo Inc. is an open software as a service (SaaS) platform for
restaurants.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qRhm8x at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq.
Donald A. Broggi, Esq.
Jeffrey P. Jacobson, Esq.
Mandeep S. Minhas, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
E-mail: alawrence@scott-scott.com
dbroggi@scott-scott.com
jjacobson@scott-scott.com
mminhas@scott-scott.com
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY: Pranger Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs DANIELLE PRANGER, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Opinion & Order and Judgment dated May 8, 2023
entered in the lawsuit entitled DANIELLE PRANGER and GARRETT
HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY, a public body of
the State of Oregon, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00656-HZ,
in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon,
Portland.
On March 5, 2021, the Plaintiffs initiated the suit against the
Defendants, which was removed from Multnomah County Circuit Court
to the District Court. The Plaintiffs initially asserted six claims
for relief against the Defendants, and the Plaintiffs agreed to
voluntarily dismiss their fourth through sixth claims for relief
without prejudice. Accordingly, the remaining three claims are for
(1) breach of express contract against OSU; (2) breach of implied
contract against OSU; and (3) unjust enrichment against all
Defendants.
On January 25, 2022, Judge Marco A. Hernandez entered an Order
granting in part and denying in part Defendants' June 14, 2021
motion to dismiss. Judge Hernandez opined that the educational
malpractice doctrine does not bar the Plaintiffs' claims. He also
held that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently plead facts that allege
valid breach of contract claims against OSU. However, because
Oregon has not waived sovereign immunity from quasi-contract unjust
enrichment claims, both OSU and the Trustee Defendants are entitled
to sovereign immunity on the unjust enrichment claim and that claim
is dismissed.
On January 4, 2023, the Court denied Defendants' February 22, 2022
motion for reconsideration and denied Defendants motion to certify
a question to the Oregon Supreme Court or certify interlocutory
appeal.
On February 21, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment
and a motion for judicial notice which the Court both granted
through an Opinion and Order signed by Judge Hernandez on May 8.
The appellate case is captioned as Danielle Pranger, et al. v.
Oregon State University, Case No. 23-35393, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 7, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants Garrett Harris and Danielle Pranger Mediation
Questionnaire was due June 14, 2023;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by July 7, 2023;
-- Transcript is due on August 7, 2023;
-- Appellants Garrett Harris and Danielle Pranger opening brief
is due on September 15, 2023;
-- Appellee Oregon State University answering brief is due on
October 16, 2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants DANIELLE PRANGER and GARRETT HARRIS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Steve Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN
1301 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
- and -
Jae Kook Kim, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
117 E Colorado Boulevard, Suite 600
Pasadena, CA 91105
Telephone: (626) 550-1250
- and -
Daniel John Kurowski, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1144 West Lake Street
Oak Park, IL 60301
Telephone: (708) 628-4949
- and -
Tiffine Malamphy, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (213) 723-0707
Defendant-Appellee OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY, a public body of the
State of Oregon, is represented by:
Sarah Jean Crooks, Esq.
Stephen F. English, Esq.
Gregory J. Mina, Esq.
PERKINS COIE, LLP
1120 NW Couch Street, 10th Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128
Telephone: (503) 727-2000
OREGON: Maney Can Depose Ex-Gov. Brown for Two Hours, Court Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAUL MANEY; GARY CLIFT; George NULPH; THERON HALL;
DAVID HART; SHERYL LYNN SUBLET, and FELISHIA RAMIREZ, a personal
representative for the ESTATE OF JUAN TRISTAN, individually, on
behalf of a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STATE
OF OREGON; KATE BROWN; COLETTE PETERS; HEIDI STEWARD; MIKE GOWER;
MARK NOOTH; ROB PERSSON; KEN JESKE; PATRICK ALLEN; JOE BUGHER; and
GARRY RUSSELL, Defendants, Case No. 6:20-cv-00570-SB (D. Or.),
Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Oregon:
a. grants the Plaintiffs' motion for an order compelling the
Defendants to make Governor Brown available for deposition;
and
b. denies the Defendants' motion for a protective order
barring Governor Brown's deposition.
Plaintiffs Paul Maney, Gary Clift, George Nulph, Theron Hall, David
Hart, and Sheryl Lynn Sublet, adults in custody ("AIC") at Oregon
Department of Corrections ("ODOC") institutions, along with
Felishia Ramirez, the personal representative for the Estate of
Juan Tristan, filed a motion for an order compelling former
Governor Brown, former Oregon Health Authority Director Allen,
several ODOC officials, and the State of Oregon (together,
"Defendants") to make Governor Brown available for a deposition.
The Defendants filed a motion for protective order, seeking to bar
Governor Brown's deposition. All parties have consented to the
jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
636.
The Plaintiffs filed the class action in April 2020, alleging that
the Defendants failed to protect AICs in ODOC's custody from the
heightened risk that COVID-19 presented in the custodial setting. A
jury trial is scheduled to begin in July 2024.
In May 2020, in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, the
Plaintiffs filed a motion for temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction to require the Defendants to reduce the AIC
population at each ODOC facility, appoint an expert to effectuate
the rapid downsizing of those facilities, require the Defendants to
provide safe and non-punitive housing separation of AICs in each
ODOC facility based on their COVID-19 infection status, require the
Defendants to create and enforce procedures to reduce the risk of
COVID-19 transmission in ODOC facilities consistent with public
health guidance, and immediately implement new procedures to bring
ODOC in compliance with expert guidance and appoint an independent
monitor to ensure such compliance. Following an evidentiary
hearing, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion.
In August 2020, the Defendants filed a motion for partial summary
judgment arguing that qualified immunity bars the Plaintiffs'
Eighth Amendment claims and discretionary immunity bars their
negligence claims. Following oral argument, the Court denied the
Defendants' motion with respect to qualified immunity but granted
the motion in part with respect to discretionary immunity and
entered partial summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' negligence
claims. It entered summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' negligence
claims challenging the Defendants' deliberative policy decisions,
but not on their claims challenging failures to act or to implement
policy decisions.
In October 2020, the Plaintiffs requested a deposition of Governor
Brown, as well as (now former) ODOC Director Peters, and the Court
held an informal telephonic discovery hearing. The Court denied the
Plaintiffs' request to depose Director Peters at that time, on the
ground that the information the Plaintiffs sought was available
from a less burdensome or alternative source, namely, (then) Deputy
Director Steward or Health Services Administrator Bugher. The Court
deferred the question of Governor Brown's deposition pending
further briefing, but instructed the parties that it expected the
Plaintiffs to serve interrogatories and a detailed deposition
notice before the question would be appropriate for the Court's
review.
In July 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint arguing that the Defendants
cannot be held liable under the Eighth Amendment for Governor
Brown's discretionary exercise of her constitutional clemency
powers and that none of the remaining allegations state a claim
against Governor Brown. Following oral argument, the Court denied
the Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to Plaintiffs' claim
against Governor Brown, holding that the Plaintiffs alleged
sufficient facts that a causal connection exists between
Plaintiffs' alleged injuries and Governor Brown's involvement in
implementing and overseeing ODOC's policies, and that Governor
Brown knew or reasonably should have known the consequences of her
actions or inaction.
In April 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify
two classes of Plaintiffs:
(a) the "damages" class, with respect to Plaintiffs' Eighth
Amendment deliberate indifference and negligence claims, defined as
"all adults incarcerated in Oregon Department of Corrections
facilities who: (1) were incarcerated on or after Feb. 1, 2020; (2)
while incarcerated, tested positive or were otherwise diagnosed
with COVID-19; and (3) if they became incarcerated after Feb. 1,
2020, tested positive or were otherwise diagnosed with COVID-19 at
least fourteen days after they entered Oregon Department of
Corrections custody;" and
(b) the "wrongful death" class, with respect to the
Plaintiffs' wrongful death claims, defined as "estates of all
adults incarcerated at Oregon Department of Corrections facilities
continuously since Feb. 1, 2020, who died during the Wrongful Death
Class period, and for whom COVID-19 caused or contributed to their
death."
The Defendants sought permission to appeal the Court's class
certification opinion, but the Ninth Circuit denied their request
in May 2022.
On Oct. 31, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion for protective
order to prevent the Plaintiffs from deposing Governor Brown while
she remained in office, so that Governor Brown can focus on state
business, including the upcoming transition to a new
administration, and not have to sit for a premature and potentially
unnecessary deposition. The Plaintiffs opposed the motion.
The Court granted the Defendants' motion for a protective order
with respect to Governor Brown's deposition, holding that the
Plaintiffs have not met their burden of demonstrating extraordinary
circumstances to justify taking Governor Kate Brown's deposition
before the end of her current term.
On April 10, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed the motion to compel at
issue, and the Defendants responded with their motion for
protective order on April 17, 2023. The Court heard oral argument
on the motions on May 24, 2023.
The Plaintiffs move to compel the deposition of former Governor
Brown. They seek to depose Governor Brown primarily on the topics
of her early release program and her closure of two ODOC facilities
during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Defendants object to any
deposition of Governor Brown, on the ground that the deposition
privilege applicable to high-ranking officials protects her from
answering any of the Plaintiffs' questions about her role in
managing ODOC's response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
First, the Defendants argue that the deposition privilege
applicable to high-ranking government officials protects former
Governor Brown from any deposition in the case and that the
Plaintiffs have not established extraordinary circumstances to
justify Governor Brown's deposition.
The parties do not dispute that Governor Brown is a high-ranking
government official for the purposes of the deposition privilege
and therefore the Court must determine if the Plaintiffs have
demonstrated extraordinary circumstances to allow them to depose
the former governor.
Judge Beckerman concludes that Governor Brown was elected from the
mass of the people, and on the expiration of the time for which she
was elected, she has returned to the mass of the people again.
Although the Court agreed with the Defendants that deposing
Governor Brown while she remained in office would interfere with
her official duties as governor, the demands of the job have now
remitted. As a result, although the deposition privilege continues
to apply, the rationale behind the deposition privilege applies
with less force.
The deposition privilege is important to protect high-ranking
government officials from harassment, distraction, or burden while
they execute the demanding duties of their office. But now that
Governor Brown has left office, a brief deposition is less
burdensome and will not distract from any official duties.
In addition, Judge Beckerman says this is not a case of one AIC
seeking to depose the governor about an individual claim, nor is
there any evidence that Plaintiffs seek to depose former Governor
Brown for any improper purpose. Instead, a certified class of
thousands of individuals infected with COVID-19 while in the
state's custody -- including the estates of dozens who died -- seek
to ask Governor Brown questions about her knowledge of and actions
regarding the spread of COVID-19 in Oregon's prisons while she
served as Oregon's governor. To minimize the burden of a deposition
on Governor Brown pursuant to Rule 26(c)(1), Judge Beckerman limits
the duration to two hours, and finds that a two-hour deposition in
this certified class action is not too much to ask of a former
elected official.
For the reasons she stated, Judge Beckerman grants the Plaintiffs'
motion to compel the deposition of former Governor Brown, denies
the Defendants' motion for a protective order barring the
deposition, and orders the Defendants to make former Governor Brown
available for a deposition, not to exceed two hours, at a time and
location convenient to former Governor Brown.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ytdmbb5v from Leagle.com.
PFIZER INC: Faces Miller Suit Over Alleged ERISA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW A. MILLER, individually, and as a representative of a Class
of Participants and Beneficiaries of the Pfizer Savings Plan,
Plaintiff v. PFIZER, INC. and BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF PFIZER, INC.,
and THE SAVINGS PLAN COMMITTEE OF PFIZER, INC., Case No.
1:23-cv-00594 (W.D. Mich., June 8, 2023) arises out of the
Defendants' alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.
Plaintiff alleges two ERISA violations against Defendants: a
violation of the duty of prudence against the Plan Committee for
charging excessive Total recordkeeping and administrative fees in
which the Defendants paid over 86% premium per participant for
Total RKA fees for the Plan to the Plan recordkeeper, Fidelity
Investments Institutional Operations Co. during the Class Period.
In addition, Plaintiff also alleges a claim against Pfizer and its
Board of Directors for their failure to monitor fiduciaries on the
Plan Committee with regard to Plan Total RKA fees.
Pfizer, Inc. is a major American pharmaceutical company
headquartered in New York, NY. The largest manufacturing site in
the Pfizer network is located at 7000 Portage Rd., Kalamazoo, MI.
This 1,300 acre facility manufactures active pharmaceutical
ingredients, drug products, and medical devices. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul M. Secunda, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Dr., Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (414) 828-2372
E-mail: psecunda@walcheskeluzi.com
- and -
Troy W. Haney, Esq.
HANEY LAW OFFICE, P.C.
330 E. Fulton Street
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
Telephone: (616) 235-2300
Facsimile: (616) 459-0137
E-mail: thaney@troyhaneylaw.com
PHARMARICA CORP: Fails to Protect Health Info, Lurry Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAKETRIUS LURRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PHARMERICA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-00297-RGJ (W.D. Ky., June 8, 2023) alleges claims against
the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract,
negligence per se, and unjust enrichment in connection with the
data breach that occurred between March 12 and 13, 2023.
Allegedly, Defendant violated the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act by actively disclosing Plaintiff's and the Class
Members' electronic protected health information; by failing to
provide fair, reasonable, or adequate computer systems and data
security practices to safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI;
and by failing to timely notify Plaintiff and Class Members of a
breach of their PHI.
PharMerica is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of
business located at 805 N. Whittington Parkway, Louisville,
Kentucky. It is a national pharmacy that services patients of more
than 3,100 long-term care, senior living, behavior health, home
infusion, specialty pharmacy, and hospital management programs. In
total, PharMerica operates 180 pharmacies located in all 50
states.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
THE LYON FIRM
2754 Erie Ave.
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Telephone: (513) 381-2333
Facsimile: (513) 766-9011
E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
- and -
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
jamisen@lcllp.com
nickc@lcllp.com
PHP OF NC: Faces Johnson Wage-and-Hour Suit in M.D.N.C.
-------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PHP OF NC, INC. and JUSTINE WIGGINS,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00477 (M.D.N.C., June 14, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for unpaid minimum wages and
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
North Carolina Wage and Hour Act and for breach of contract and
unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a habilitation
technician from approximately 2016 until June 2023.
PHP of NC, Inc. is a support services company for individuals who
are intellectually and developmentally disabled, with its principal
place of business located at 4125 Ben Franklin, Durham, North
Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian L. Kinsley, Esq.
CRUMLEY ROBERTS, LLP
2400 Freeman Mill Road, Suite 200
Greensboro, NC 27406
Telephone: (336) 333-9899
Facsimile: (336) 333-9894
E-mail: blkinsley@crumleyroberts.com
- and -
Philip Bohrer, Esq.
Scott E. Brady, Esq.
BOHRER BRADY, LLC
8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Telephone: (225) 925-5297
Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
E-mail: scott@bohrerbrady.com
phil@bohrerbrady.com
PIZZA CONNECTION: Muller Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------
TYLER MULLER, for himself and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PIZZA CONNECTION, INC., a Florida Profit
Corporation, d/b/a Josie's Ristorante, and SEBASTIAN SETTICASI,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 9:23-cv-80891 (S.D. Fla., June
8, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, an additional
equal amount as liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a non-exempt
hourly paid "pizza maker," preparing food in Defendant's kitchen
from March 2020 until March 2023.
Pizza Connection, Inc. is a pizza restaurant based in Palm Beach
County, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Angeli Murthy, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) 318-0268
Facsimile: (954) 327-3016
E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com
POOLTOGETHER INC: Wins Bids to Dismiss Kent's 2nd Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH KENT, Plaintiff v. POOLTOGETHER, INC.; DHARMA
LABS, INC.; OZONE NETWORKS, INC.; LEIGHTON CUSACK; KAIN WARWICK;
STANISLAV KULECHOV; DRAGONFLY DIGITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC; NASCENT US,
LLC; NASCENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; STICHTING MAVEN 11 FUNDS; GALAXY
DIGITAL TRADING HK LIMITED, LP; PARAFI CAPITAL, LP; and COMPOUND
LABS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 21-CV-6025-FB-CLP (E.D.N.Y.),
Judge Frederic Block of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York grants the Defendants' motions to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint.
In this putative class action, Kent claims that he and thousands of
others contributed cryptocurrency to an illegal lottery. He seeks
to recover double the amount contributed, plus double his
reasonable attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to New York law.
Jurisdiction is premised on the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005,
28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d).
All of the Defendants who have appeared in the action have moved to
dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6); two have moved, in the alternative, to compel
arbitration. These motions present numerous issues, but the
dispositive question is whether the Plaintiff has alleged
sufficient facts to establish his standing to sue under Article
III.
In 2019, Defendant Leighton Cusack and others wrote a piece of
software (technically, a network protocol) for use on the Ethereum
blockchain, a decentralized ledger of highly encrypted transactions
involving various cryptocurrencies. The protocol -- dubbed
PoolTogether -- allows the owners of these secure digital assets to
make their holdings available to "liquidity pools" for various
investments. These pools, in turn, use different protocols to lend
out cryptocurrency at interest. One such protocol was developed by
Compound Labs, Inc. Compound, which promotes PoolTogether on its
website, retains a portion of the interest earned as a fee and pays
the rest to PoolTogether.
Contributors using the PoolTogether protocol do not receive that
interest directly. Instead, they receive a "ticket" for every
dollar's worth of cryptocurrency they contribute. PoolTogether then
randomly selects a predetermined number of tickets and, after
retaining a percentage of the interest received as a reserve,
distributes the balance among the holders of the winning tickets.
In sum, contributors forgo a guaranteed interest rate in exchange
for a chance at a greater return on their investment. Since its
inception, PoolTogether has received about $122 million in
contributions and paid approximately $4.3 million in prizes.
Contributions to PoolTogether may be withdrawn at any time.
However, blockchains like Ethereum are labor- and
resource-intensive. To recoup its operating costs, Ethereum charges
what is colloquially referred to as a "gas fee" for every
transaction. Such fees can be significant and only large
contributions generate enough returns to offset them. To encourage
smaller contributions, PoolTogether allows users to pool their
contributions into "pods" that share the gas fees (but also the
potential winnings).
Cusack and the other developers of the PoolTogether protocol formed
Defendant PoolTogether, Inc., in September 2019, but the
corporation and the protocol remain separate entities. While
PoolTogether, Inc., is run as a traditional corporation, the
protocol itself is governed by a decentralized autonomous
organization ("DAO"), which initially consisted of Cusack and his
team, investors in PoolTogether, Inc., and early users of the
protocol.
In May 2021, Investor Defendants Dragonfly Digital Management, LLC,
Nascent US, LLC, Nascent Limited Partnership, Stichting Maven 11
Funds, Galaxy Digital Trading HK Limited, LP, and ParaFi Capital,
LP acquired ownership "tokens" (apparently akin to shares of stock)
in exchange for $5.95 million. According to the complaint, the DAO
can do with the protocol whatever a holder of a majority of tokens
wishes to do.
Contributors can access PoolTogether on a website and through
various smartphone apps. Defendant Dharma Labs, Inc., operated one
such app, which prominently advertised PoolTogether. Although it
charged its own user fees, Dharma could offer discounted "gas fees"
by executing transactions collectively. In January 2022, Dharma was
acquired by Defendant Ozone Networks, Inc.
Kent is gravely concerned that the cryptocurrency ecosystem --
which requires the use of enormous amounts of electricity -- is
accelerating climate change and allowing people to evade financial
regulations and scam consumers. He nevertheless chose to
participate in that ecosystem. On Oct. 21, 2021, Kent visited the
website "app.pooltogether.com" and delivered ten dollars' worth of
cryptocurrency to the protocol. In exchange, he received 10 tickets
for a PoolTogether lottery with a prize of $778 and odds of
1:2,303. The transaction incurred a "gas fee" of $265.60.
On Jan. 17, 2022, Kent used the Dharma app to deliver another two
dollars' worth of cryptocurrency to PoolTogether in exchange for
two tickets in another lottery. The complaint does not allege the
prize or odds of that lottery but the transaction incurred a "gas
fee" of $99.87 and a user fee of $2.70.
The complaint frankly admits that Kent's main objections to
PoolTogether are its environmental impact and lack of regulatory
oversight. His lawsuit, however, is based on an entirely different
premise. Under New York law, any person who will purchase any
share, interest, ticket, certificate of any share or interest, or
part of a ticket, or any paper or instrument purporting to be a
ticket or share or interest in any portion of any lottery, may sue
for and recover double the sum of money, and double the value of
goods or things in action, which he may have paid or delivered in
consideration of such purchase, with double costs of suit. Any
person who will have paid any money, or valuable thing, for a
chance or interest in any lottery or distribution, prohibited by
the penal law, may sue for and recover the same of the person to
whom such payment or delivery was made.
Invoking that statute, Kent demands -- on behalf of himself and a
proposed class of thousands of other contributors to the
PoolTogether protocol -- an award of compensatory damages against
all Defendants jointly and severally in the amount of double the
value of cryptocurrency that the class members delivered to
PoolTogether or the PoolTogether protocol, plus double the amount
of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of this Action.
Thus, Judge Block states that the central question on the merits of
the lawsuit is whether the PoolTogether protocol constitutes an
illegal lottery. The Defendants' motions to dismiss raise other
ancillary issues, such as who is liable for a violation of the
statute and whether the statute contemplates secondary liability
for aiding and abetting or conspiracy. Those questions are thorny
and unanswered and should probably be resolved by the New York
Court of Appeals, according to Judge Block.
Kent acknowledges that he voluntarily contributed cryptocurrency to
the PoolTogether protocol and, further, that he could have
withdrawn (and, indeed, can still withdraw) his contributions. He
argues, however, that his contributions earned interest and that
the loss of that interest is sufficient to confer standing.
Judge Block explains that the requirement of an actual injury
caused by the Defendant and redressable by the Court exists to
assure that the legal questions presented to the Court will be
resolved, not in the rarified atmosphere of a debating society, but
in a concrete factual context conducive to a realistic appreciation
of the consequences of judicial action. As the Supreme Court has
recently reiterated, Article III grants federal courts the power to
redress harms that defendants cause plaintiffs, not a freewheeling
power to hold defendants accountable for legal infractions. While
Kent no doubt has genuine concerns about PoolTogether -- including
its legality under New York law -- a suit in federal court is not
an appropriate way to address them.
Therefore, Judge Block holds that Kent lacks standing to sue and,
accordingly, grants the Defendants' motions to dismiss on that
ground. The alternative motions to compel arbitration are denied as
moot. Kent is free to pursue his claims in state court, where
Article III's limitations on standing do not apply.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yckh5jx9 from Leagle.com.
CHARLES GERSTEIN -- charlie@gerstein-harrow.com -- Gerstein Harrow
LLP, Washington, DC.
JAMES CROOKS -- jamie@fairmarklaw.com -- Fairmark Partners, LLP,
Washington, DC.
JASON HARROW -- jason@gerstein-harrow.com -- Gerstein Harrow LLP,
Los Angeles, California, for the Plaintiff.
KEVIN P. BROUGHEL -- kevinbroughel@paulhastings.com -- Paul
Hastings LLP, New York, New York, for Defendant PoolTogether, Inc.
JOHN P. AMATO -- jamato@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thomas Coburn Hahn &
Hessen LLP, New York, New York, For Defendants Dharma Labs, Inc.,
and Ozone Networks, Inc.
ANDREW W. BLACKWELL, St. Louis, Missouri, for Defendant Leighton
Cusack.
JASON GOTTLIEB -- jgottlieb@morrisoncohen.com -- Morrison Cohen
LLP, New York, New York, for Defendants Dragonfly Digital
Management, LLC, and Compound Labs, Inc.
BRIAN E. KLEIN -- bklein@waymakerlaw.com -- Waymaker LLP, Los
Angeles, California, for Defendants Nascent US, LLC, and Nascent
Limited Partnership.
SEAN HECKER -- shecker@kaplanhecker.com -- Kaplan Hecker & Fink
LLP, New York, New York, for Defendants Stichting Maven 11 Funds,
Galaxy Digital Trading HK Limited, LP, and ParaFi Capital, LP.
RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: June 30 Extension for Class Cert Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stephanie Powers, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Receivables
Performance Management, L.L.C., Case No. 4:21-cv-12125-MRG (D.
Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending
the time within which she must move for class certification from
June 2, 2023, to June 30, 2023.
The reason for her request is to allow the completion her
deposition before the filing of the class certification motion. The
requested extension will not impact the close of discovery
deadline, the trial date or any other case deadlines.
On April 21, 2023, the Court granted the Plaintiff's consent motion
to extend the time within which she may move for class
certification.
Since then, the parties have worked in good faith to schedule the
Plaintiff's deposition but have been unable to do so due to
intervening trial, mediation, vacation/holiday, and travel
schedules.
Receivables Performance provides financial and accounts receivables
management services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 2, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pdML4k at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
Stephen Taylor, Esq.
LEMBERG LAW, L.L.C.
43 Danbury Road
Wilton, CT 06897
Telephone: (203) 653-2250
Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Seventh Cir. Flips Dismissal of Mack FDCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, YVONNE MACK, Plaintiff-Appellant v. RESURGENT CAPITAL
SERVICES, L.P. and LVNV FUNDING, LLC, Defendants-Appellees, Case
No. 21-2792 (7th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit reverses the dismissal of Mack's claims for lack of
standing in this Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case.
Mack appeals from the dismissal of her claims for lack of standing
in this FDCPA case. The district court concluded that Mack failed
to demonstrate that she had suffered an injury in fact sufficient
to support her standing to bring suit.
Mack had a US Bank credit card that she used to make household
purchases. After she allegedly defaulted on that account, LVNV
purchased the debt. Debts purchased by LVNV are serviced by a
related entity, Resurgent. In this instance, Resurgent engaged
Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC to collect on the debt. In a letter
dated April 27, 2018, Frontline informed Mack that her account had
been placed for collection, and that she owed $7,179.87. The letter
provided a website and a phone number that Mack could use to pay
the debt. It listed US Bank as the "Original Creditor," and LVNV as
the "Current Creditor."
Although Mack was aware of her debt to US Bank, she was uncertain
about the amount claimed in the letter, which seemed high to her,
and her obligations to LVNV, an entity with which she was not
familiar. Within 30 days of receiving this letter, Mack researched
her options using her cell phone, drafted a validation request by
hand, traveled to her local library to type and print the letter on
the library's computer, and then went to the post office where she
paid $6.70 in postage and $3.45 for a certified mail fee (for a
total of $10.15) to send the letter to Frontline. Her letter,
postmarked June 5, 2018, was received by Frontline on June 7,
2018.
Mack did not receive the validation that she requested. Instead,
she received a second letter, this one from Resurgent. The letter
identified US Bank as the "Original Creditor," LVNV as the "Current
Owner," and listed the balance of $7,179.87. The bottom of the
Resurgent Letter listed hours of operation, an address, phone and
fax numbers, and a "Customer Portal" website address.
Mack was confused and alarmed by the Resurgent Letter. She had
already requested validation within 30 days of receiving the
Frontline Letter and had not received the requested validation.
More than 30 days had passed since receiving the Frontline Letter
and she was now being told that she would have to request
validation again from a different company or the creditor would
assume the debt was valid. She was even more confused regarding who
owned the debt, now believing that Resurgent might own it. She
concluded that she needed to send a second validation request, this
time to Resurgent, so that the creditor would not assume that the
debt was valid. She once again took the steps necessary to write up
her draft letter by hand. She returned to the library to type it
into the library computer, printed it, and returned to the post
office where she once again paid for postage and a certified letter
fee (this time totaling $3.95) to send her July 17, 2018 validation
request.
None of this was easy for Mack. She had been unemployed for some
time and spent her days caring for family members with serious
health problems. Trips to the library and post office meant that
she was away from the family members who needed her assistance. The
$3.95 postage fee for the second letter was also problematic for
Mack.
Mack never received validation of the debt from Frontline,
Resurgent or LVNV. Approximately three months after sending her
second request for validation, Mack filed a class action suit
against Resurgent and LVNV, claiming violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). Mack asserted in her Complaint
that the Resurgent Letter would cause any consumer, let alone the
unsophisticated consumer, to believe that she must yet again
dispute the Debt despite the fact that such consumer had already
submitted a valid dispute of the Debt.
Mack alleged that the Resurgent Letter violated the FDCPA in a
number of ways, including that it used false, deceptive, misleading
and unfair or unconscionable means to collect or to attempt to
collect a debt in violation of sections 1692e, 1692e(10), and
1692f; it failed to adequately state the name of the creditor to
whom the debt was owed in violation of section 1692g(a)(2); and it
was otherwise deceptive and failed to comply with the FDCPA.
Mack again asserted that these material violations of the FDCPA
would lead a consumer to believe that their dispute had not been
effective and that they had to re-dispute the debt, or that they
did not have the rights that Congress gave them under the FDCPA. In
fact, the Defendants' letter confused and alarmed her. She also
pled allegations in support of a class action.
The Defendants ultimately moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for
lack of standing. They asserted that Mack failed to allege an
injury in fact from the Resurgent Letter, claiming only that the
Letter confused and alarmed her. They faulted Mack for not pleading
that the confusion caused her to take any action to her detriment
on account of her confusion. Mack countered that she did in fact
plead and demonstrate that the Resurgent Letter caused her to act
to her detriment: it caused her to spend both time and money
sending a second request for validation to preserve her rights.
The district court ultimately agreed with the Defendants that Mack
had failed to establish standing. It found that the time and money
spent to send the second validation request did not rise to the
level of detriment required for standing in FDCPA cases because the
Resurgent Letter did not adversely affect any interests Congress
sought to protect through the FDCPA and instead effectively
provided Mack with another opportunity to dispute her debt if she
had failed to properly do so upon receipt of the first letter. The
court characterized Mack's second validation request as an "attempt
to clear up her confusion," and compared this to injuries arising
from consulting a lawyer or filing suit, which the court said were
insufficient to establish standing.
Mack appeals. On appeal, she asserts that the district court erred
when it found that the time, effort, and out-of-pocket costs
expended in sending a second validation request were not adequate
to establish standing.
The Seventh Circuit holds that Mack adequately alleged an injury in
fact, and supported her allegations with evidence that the
Defendants' violation of the statute caused her to suffer monetary
damages, albeit of modest size. It finds that it is reasonable to
infer that Mack re-disputed the debt, and in doing so suffered a
concrete injury at least in the form of postage paid to send the
second validation request. Mack's deposition testimony "illuminated
these allegations." She clarified that she went through the same
process to mail the second letter as she did for the first,
spending time, effort, and money for postage and certified mail
fees. The Resurgent Letter thus caused her to suffer a concrete
detriment to her debt-management choices in the form of the
expenditure of additional money to preserve rights that she had
already preserved.
Moreover, the Seventh Circuit finds that Mack spent extra money not
to clear up her confusion but to preserve her right to seek
validation, which she had been misled to believe she failed to do
the first time. Mack had already preserved her rights, and it was
only because of the misleading Resurgent Letter that Mack went to
the trouble and expense of asserting her rights a second time. This
did not benefit Mack in any way as her testimony reveals. Fixing
the problem that the Resurgent Letter created caused Mack to again
leave her home where she was caring for ill relatives, travel to
the library, type and print the letter, go to the post office, and
again pay to mail the letter to the Defendants. That the dollar
cost was modest is irrelevant; she was misled to her financial
detriment.
Mack's injury was also particular to her. That is, the money she
spent fixing the problem created by the Resurgent Letter came out
of her own pocket. The time and effort she spent reasserting her
rights were specific to her. These injuries affected Mack in a
personal and individual way. Thus, Mack has adequately demonstrated
an injury in fact. That injury is also traceable to the challenged
conduct of the Defendants. Mack would not have gone to the trouble
and expense of sending a second request for validation if she had
not been misled by the Resurgent Letter.
Finally, the Seventh Circuit finds that Mack's injury is likely to
be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. Construing the
evidence in Mack's favor for the purposes of the motion to dismiss,
this was not a concession that Mack was not seeking actual damages
but only a concession that the complaint did not use that express
term.
The Seventh Circuit declines to address Mack's additional argument
that standing is supported by a theory that the Resurgent Letter
intruded upon her seclusion or invaded her privacy, or that it
resembled common-law fraud. Lastly, when the district court
dismissed the case, it also vacated its order certifying the class.
Mack notes that, on remand, it will be necessary to re-define the
previously certified class to include only those persons who
submitted a second dispute. The Seventh Circuit agrees that the
class definition should be modified to limit the class to persons
who acted to their detriment upon receiving the second letter.
The Seventh Circuit, therefore, reverses and remands for further
proceedings.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3m3zbp63 from Leagle.com.
RHAPSODY INT'L: 9th Cir. Reverses $1.7MM Fee Award in Lowery Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID LOWERY; VICTOR KRUMMENACHER; GREG LISHER; DAVID
FARAGHER, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. RHAPSODY INTERNATIONAL,
INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellant, Case No.
22-15162 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reverses the district court's attorneys' fees award of $1.7
million.
The Plaintiffs' lawyers filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
copyright holders of musical compositions and ended up recovering a
little over $50,000 for the class members. The lawyers then asked
the court to award them $6 million in legal fees. And the court
authorized $1.7 million in legal fees -- more than thirty times the
amount that the class received.
Rhapsody (now rebranded as Napster) offers music for digital
streaming. Rhapsody -- like other online music services such as
Apple Music or Spotify -- must pay royalties both to the owners of
the copyrighted musical compositions (as in this case) and to the
owners of the copyright in the sound recording of that
composition.
Before 2018, Rhapsody had two paths to get a license to play (or
"copy and distribute" in copyright parlance) copyrighted music: (1)
it could directly negotiate a voluntary license from the copyright
owner, or (2) it could obtain a "compulsory license" through the
procedures set by the Copyright Act. This compulsory licensing
scheme required Rhapsody to serve a "notice of intention" on the
copyright owner within 30 days after copying the work and before
distributing it -- or, if the copyright owner could not be
identified, to file that notice with the Copyright Office.
But this compulsory licensing system became unworkable in the
digital music streaming era. Rhapsody and other streaming services
offer not only popular songs but also millions of other, often
obscure, copyrighted songs. They thus struggled to serve or file a
notice of intention for every one of the millions of works
available on their services.
In early 2016, Lowery and other named Plaintiffs sued Rhapsody on
behalf of a putative class of copyright owners whose musical
compositions were played on the streaming service. The Plaintiffs
asserted that Rhapsody had infringed their copyrights by
reproducing and distributing their musical compositions without
obtaining a voluntary or compulsory license to do so.
By the time the Plaintiffs sued, Rhapsody had been negotiating with
the National Music Publishers Association (NMPA) to resolve the
same copyright conundrum stemming from the antiquated compulsory
licensing system. Rhapsody and the NMPA eventually reached a
settlement. To receive payment under that settlement, copyright
owners had to waive their right to make claims in this lawsuit
against Rhapsody. Otherwise, the copyright holders would be
double-dipping and receiving compensation from two settlements.
By April 2018, Rhapsody had informed the Plaintiffs about this NMPA
settlement. It advised them that copyright holders of around 98% of
the musical works available on its streaming service had opted to
participate in the NMPA settlement, "effectively decimating" the
putative class in this lawsuit. In other words, it became clear by
April 2018 that this lawsuit would not yield much compensation,
even if the plaintiffs prevailed.
Within weeks after the Plaintiffs filed their complaint, the
parties stayed the litigation to pursue settlement. Except for a
handful of discovery disputes and a motion to dismiss that was
never decided, settlement talks dominated the parties' dealings. In
January 2019, Rhapsody and the Plaintiffs finally executed a
settlement agreement. Rhapsody denied liability for copyright
infringement but agreed to pay class members for musical
compositions played on its streaming service. In turn, the
Plaintiffs agreed that Rhapsody would pay a maximum of $20 million
on class members' claims. But probably because the NMPA settlement
had gutted the potential class, very few class members submitted
claims for this settlement. In the end, Rhapsody paid only
$52,841.05 to satisfy class members' claims.
The settlement agreement also required Rhapsody to establish an
Artist Advisory Board with an annual budget of at least $30,000 to
advance both parties' goals of protecting artists' rights and
promoting Rhapsody's business. The agreement did not require
Rhapsody to make any other changes to its licensing practices: the
Music Modernization Act (MMA) took care of that.
While the parties litigated this case, Congress altered the legal
landscape for licensing of copyrighted musical compositions when it
enacted the MMA in October 2018. Recognizing the cumbersome nature
of the compulsory licensing system, the MMA allows digital music
providers to obtain a blanket license. One blanket license allows
them to copy and distribute all musical compositions available for
compulsory licensing. No longer must they scamper to obtain
thousands or millions of compulsory licenses.
Under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, parties must
seek the court's approval of a class action settlement as well as
any request for attorneys' fees for class counsel. Here, the
Plaintiffs' counsel calculated their fee request using the lodestar
method and arrived at an approximately $2.1 million figure. They
then requested a 2.87 multiplier, claiming that they achieved
"exceptional" results in a "difficult" and "complex" case. In all,
the Plaintiffs' counsel asked the court to award them over $6
million in attorneys' fees.
The district court tasked the magistrate judge with evaluating the
fees request. The magistrate judge recommended awarding about
$860,000 in fees to the Plaintiffs' counsel. The district court
accepted the magistrate judge's lodestar calculation of $1.7
million but rejected her recommendation to apply a 0.5 negative
multiplier. It awarded over $1.7 million in attorneys' fees. The
appeal followed.
The Ninth Circuit holds that the district court's fee award is not
reasonable under Rule 23, given that the $1.7 million fee award is
more than 30 times larger than the amount paid to class members. It
opines that the touchstone for determining the reasonableness of
attorneys' fees in a class action is the benefit to the class. It
matters little that the plaintiffs' counsel may have poured their
blood, sweat, and tears into a case if they end up merely spinning
wheels on behalf of the class. What matters most is the result for
the class members. In the instant case, the Ninth Circuit opines
that the benefit from the litigation was minimal: the class
received a measly $52,841.05 and obtained no meaningful injunctive
or nonmonetary relief.
On remand, the district court should rigorously evaluate the actual
benefit provided to the class and award reasonable attorneys' fees
considering that benefit, the Ninth Circuit notes. In determining
the value of this "claims-made" class action settlement, the court
should consider its actual or anticipated value to the class
members, not the maximum amount that hypothetically could have been
paid to the class. The court should also consider engaging in a
"cross-check" analysis to ensure that the fees are reasonably
proportional to the benefit received by the class members.
In other words, on remand, the district court must justify any fee
award it makes by comparing it to the benefit provided to the
class. In evaluating the benefit to the class, the district court
must disregard the illusory $20 million settlement cap and focus
instead on the approximately $50,000 paid to the class members,
along with any other benefits to the class.
The Ninth Circuit also encourages the court to cross-check the fees
against the benefit to the class and ensure that the fees are
reasonably proportional to that benefit. That this is a copyright
case makes little difference -- attorneys' fees awarded under the
Copyright Act must still be reasonably proportional to the benefit
to the class.
For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit reverses the district court's
attorneys' fees award of $1.7 million. On remand, the district
court should determine the class action settlement's actual value
to the class members and then award attorneys' fees proportional
and reasonable to the benefit received by the class.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/33b97zsk from Leagle.com.
Karin Kramer -- karinkramer@quinnemanuel.com -- (argued), Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, San Francisco, California; William
B. Adams -- williamadams@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart
& Sullivan LLP, New York, New York; Thomas C. Rubin, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Seattle, Washington, for the
Defendant-Appellant.
Reuben A. Ginsburg -- rginsburg@mrllp.com -- (argued), Sanford L.
Michelman -- smichelman@mrllp.com -- Mona Z. Hanna --
mhanna@mrllp.com -- and Jennifer A. Mauri -- jmauri@mrllp.com --
Michelman & Robinson LLP, Los Angeles, California, for the
Plaintiffs-Appellees.
ROGER WILLIAMS: Smith Appeals Court Orders in Civil Rights Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
JIMMY SMITH is taking an appeal from court orders in his lawsuit
entitled Jimmy Smith, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Roger Williams University School of Law, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00133-PJB, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Rhode Island.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 15, 2021, the
lawsuit arose after Roger Williams Law School (RWU) purposely gave
the Plaintiff an unfair hearing and edited the Zoom hearing video
so that his rights on appeal were not as live.
Mr. Smith says that Roger Williams did not provide a fair hearing
to him during the honor board process and subjected him to
expulsion without an adequate opportunity to defend himself. His
complaints were dismissed arbitrarily.
On Apr. 10, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, which the Court granted in part and
denied in part through an Order entered by Judge Paul J. Barbadoro
on Feb. 16, 2023. Accepting all of Mr. Smith's well pleaded facts
as true, the Court found that Mr. Smith failed to state a claim for
racial discrimination but has adequately set forth facts to support
a claim for breach of contract. The Defendant's motion to dismiss
was granted as to the Plaintiff's racial discrimination claims and
denied as to Plaintiff's breach of contract claim.
On Mar. 21, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack
of jurisdiction, which Judge Barbadoro granted on May 8, 2023. On
May 9, 2023, the Clerk of Court entered judgment in favor of the
Defendant.
The appellate case is captioned Smith v. Roger Williams University
School of Law, et al., Case No. 23-1491, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on June 12, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JIMMY SMITH, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated, appears pro se.
Defendants-Appellees ROGER WILLIAMS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, et
al. are represented by:
Steven M. Richard, Esq.
NIXON PEABODY LLP
1 Citizens Plaza, 5th Fl.
Providence, RI 02903
Telephone: (401) 454-1020
- and -
Bethany N. Wong, Esq.
Lauren S. Zurier, Esq.
US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
1 Financial Plaza, 17th Fl.
Providence, RI 02903
Telephone: (401) 709-5030
ROMARAK JANITORIAL: Gudiel Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Antonio Oporta Gudiel, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Romarak Janitorial, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00643 (W.D. Tex., June 7, 2023) is a
collective action that seeks redress for Defendant's willful
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and to recover unpaid
overtime and/or minimum wages owed to Plaintiffs who were employed
by Romarak within the past three years.
The complaint asserts that Plaintiff Oporta is similarly situated
to the putative collective Plaintiffs with regards to his job
duties. They were subject to Defendants' common practice, policy,
or plan of refusing to pay employees overtime in violation the
FLSA. The Plaintiff and the putative collective plaintiffs were
victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law, says the
suit.
Romarak Janitorial, LLC operates a janitorial business in the state
of Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James M. Dore, Esq.
JUSTICIA LABORAL LLC
6232 N. Pulaski Road, Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60646
Telephone: (773) 415-4898
E-mail: jdore@justicialaboral.com
RUBY TUESDAY: Fails to Properly Pay Restaurant Staff, Hayes Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM HAYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RUBY TUESDAY OPERATIONS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:23-cv-00035 (M.D. Tenn., June 14, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for unpaid minimum wages and overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly-paid tipped employee at the
Defendant's Ruby Tuesday's restaurant in Crossville, Tennessee.
Ruby Tuesday Operations, LLC is an owner and operator of
restaurants, with its principal offices at 333 E. Broadway Ave.,
Maryville, Tennessee. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
jholt@jsyc.com
RUTGERS UNIVERSITY: J.C. Appeals Reconsideration Bid Denial
-----------------------------------------------------------
J.C. is taking an appeal from a court order denying his motion for
reconsideration in the lawsuit entitled J.C., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. David Locha,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 1-21-cv-12361, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.
On June 9, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a complaint on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, against the Defendants
under Section 1983 and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act.
On Aug. 13, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion for recusal, which
the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge Noel L. Hillman
on Mar. 9, 2022.
On Apr. 7, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration
of the recusal ruling with supplement, which Judge Hillman also
denied on June 3, 2022. The Court also directed the Plaintiff to
properly serve the Defendants in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and
to file a Proof of Service with the Clerk of Court within 30 days.
The Plaintiff timely filed a Response to the Show Cause Order, as
well as what he deemed to be an "Affidavit of Service."
On July 14, 2022, the Court determined service had not been
properly executed, provided the Plaintiff with another 30 days to
do so, and warned the Plaintiff that failure to properly execute
service within the specified time would result in dismissal of his
case without prejudice.
On Aug. 10, 2022, the Plaintiff filed another purported "Affidavit
of Service," followed by a motion for expedited discovery on Aug.
26, 2022.
On Feb. 8, 2023, the Court determined the "Affidavit of Service"
was not in compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and dismissed the matter
without prejudice, thereby rendering the Plaintiff's motion for
expedited discovery moot.
On Apr. 5, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration
under Rule 59(e) and another motion for expedited discovery, which
the Court denied on May 4, 2023. The Plaintiff's motion for
expedited discovery was also denied as moot.
The appellate case is captioned J.C. v. David Locha, et al., Case
No. 23-2013, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, filed on June 12, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant J.C., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, appears pro se.
SANTA MONICA, CA: Class Certification Bid Cutoff Moved to Sept. 18
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLACK LIVES MATTER LOS
ANGELES, an organization, DAVID BROWN, DAVID CLENNON, and KERRY
HOGAN, all individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons, v. CITY OF SANTA MONICA, a municipal entity,
CHIEF CYNTHIA RENAUD, and DOES 1 TO 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:21-cv-05253-CAS-AFM (C.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order
modifying the following particular dates:
-- Class Certification motion Cutoff be moved from July 24, 2023,
to
September 18, 2023;
-- Opposition to Class Certification motion Cutoff be moved from
September 5, 2023, until October 30, 2023; and
-- Hearing on Class Certification motion be moved from October 2,
2023, until November 27, 2023.
Santa Monica is a coastal city west of downtown Los Angeles.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NAvCvb at no extra charge.[CC]
SEA WORLD: Written Discovery Must be Served by August 18
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FERNANDO COPPEL, et al.,
v. SEA WORLD PARKS & ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et al., Case No.
3:21-cv-01430-RSH-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge David D. Leshner
entered a scheduling order as follows:
1. Any joint motion for entry of a June 23, 2023
stipulated protective order or
stipulated ESI protocol must be
filed by not later than:
2. Any motion to join other parties, June 30, 2023
to amend the pleadings, or to file
additional pleadings must be filed
on or before:
3. All written discovery requests must be Aug. 18, 2023
served by all parties by:
4. All parties must substantially complete Sept. 20, 2023
the production of documents responsive
to any other party's document requests
by:
5. Any motion for class certification must Nov. 1, 2023
be filed by not later than:
SeaWorld Parks is an American theme park and entertainment
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 1, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/447fuXD at no extra charge.[CC]
SPACE COAST: Merritt Island Sues Over Fee Overcharges
-----------------------------------------------------
MERRITT ISLAND WOODWERX LLC and TRUE TOUCH SERVICES LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. SPACE COAST CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No.
6:23-cv-01066 (M.D. Fla., June 7, 2023) arises from the Defendant's
unlawful business practice of assessing $30 overdraft fees on debit
card transactions authorized on sufficient funds and $30 fees where
another fee overdraws the account in violation of the Electronic
Fund Transfers Act.
According to the complaint, the moment debit card transactions are
authorized on an account with positive funds to cover the
transaction, Defendant immediately reduces consumers' checking
accounts for the amount of the purchase, sets aside funds in the
checking account to cover that transaction, and adjusts the
consumer's displayed "available balance" to reflect that subtracted
amount. As a result, customers' accounts will always have
sufficient funds available to cover these transactions because
Defendant has already held the funds for payment. However,
Defendant still assesses $30 overdraft fees on many of these
transactions and misrepresents its practices in the contract, says
the suit.
Space Coast Credit Union is a credit union with nearly $9 billion
in assets with principal place of business in Hiram, Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jacob Phillips, Esq.
NORMAND PLLC
3165 McCrory Place Suite 175
Orlando, FL 32803
Telephone: (407) 603-6031
Facsimile: (888) 974-2175
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 4204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Ave. Ste. 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
JOHNSON FIRM
610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 372-1300
E-mail: chris@yourattorney.com
T-MOBILE US: Fails to Timely Notify About Data Breach, Lashin Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
WALEED LASHIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. T-MOBILE US, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:23-cv-00393-DGK (W.D. Mo., June 8, 2023) arises out of the
Defendant's negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment and,
breach of implied contract in connection with the data breach that
occurred between February 24, 2023, to March 30, 2023.
The Plaintiff received a Notice of Data Breach letter from
Defendant on or about the beginning of May of 2023. Then, after the
Data Breach, Defendant failed to provide timely notice to the
affected Plaintiff and Class Members--thereby exacerbating their
injuries. In addition, Defendant failed to adequately describe the
Data Breach and its effects. Further, Plaintiff seeks remedies
including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, treble
damages, punitive damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs,
and injunctive relief--including improvements to Defendant's data
security systems, future annual audits, and adequate credit
monitoring services funded by Defendant.
T-Mobile US, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business in Bellevue, Washington, is a telecommunications
company that provides wireless voice, messaging, and data services
along with mobile phones and accessories. It operates its business
nationwide offering various types of technological products and
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Marcio W. Valladares, Esq.
Ra O. Amen, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
E-mail: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com
MValladares@forthepeople.com
RAmen@forthepeople.com
- and -
Alexander A. Wolff, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
200 N. Broadway Suite 720
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 955-1045
Facsimile: (314) 955-1069
E-mail: AWolff@forthepeople.com
- and -
Steven W. Teppler, Esq.
MANDELBAUM BARRET, P.C.
3 Becker Farm Road, Suite 105
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (646) 946-5659
Facsimile: (973) 325-7467
E-mail: steppler@mblawfirm.com
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Painters Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, et al., filed an appeal from
the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated May 24,
2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES
DISTRICT COUNCIL 82 HEALTH CARE FUND, third-party healthcare payor
fund; ANNIE M. SNYDER, a California consumer; RICKEY D. ROSE, a
Missouri consumer; JOHN CARDARELLI, a New Jersey consumer; MARLYON
K. BUCKNER, a Florida consumer; SYLVIE BIGORD, a Massachusetts
consumer, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS COMPANY LIMITED, a
Japanese Corporation; TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., FKA Takeda
Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc., an Illinois corporation; ELI
LILLY AND COMPANY, an Indiana corporation, Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-07223-JWH-AS, in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, Los Angeles.
This putative class action was originally filed as part of a
multi-district litigation pending in the Western District of
Louisiana, MDL No. 6:11-md-2299. The MDL Court consolidated various
claims asserted across the country related to the drug Actos. This
case differs from the MDL cases because Plaintiffs here do not
assert personal injury or product liability claims. Rather, they
allege that Takeda and Lilly conspired to market Actos fraudulently
by concealing the association between its use and its users'
subsequent development of bladder cancer. In September 2017, the
MDL Court ordered this case transferred to this district. Three
months later, Plaintiffs filed the presently operative pleading --
the Amended Complaint -- in which they assert claims for relief
under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and
state consumer fraud laws.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District Court
unsealed an order on May 24, 2023 that certified a national
multi-billion dollar class action against Takeda Pharmaceutical and
Eli Lilly and Company. The Hon. John W. Holcomb appointed R. Brent
Wisner and Michael L. Baum of Wisner Baum, LLP and Christopher L.
Coffin of Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP as national class counsel.
The class consists of third-party payers in the United States that
purchased Actos prescriptions between July 1, 1999 and September
17, 2010.
The Court GRANTED in part and DENIED in part the Plaintiffs' motion
to certify class. Specifically, the Court certified the National
TPP Class, and declined to certify the California Consumer Class.
The appellate case is captioned as Painters & Allied Trades
District Council 82 Healt, et al. v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company
Limited, et al., Case No. 23-80051, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 7, 2023.[BN]
Defendants-Petitioners TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LIMITED, a
Japanese Corporation, and ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, an Indiana
corporation, are represented by:
Darryl Anderson, Esq.
Geraldine Young, Esq.
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 McKinney Street, Suite 5100
Houston, TX 77010-3095
Telephone: (713) 651-5562
- and -
Jonathan S. Franklin, Esq.
Peter Bert Siegal, Esq.
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
799 9th Street, NW Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20001-4501
Telephone: (202) 662-0466
- and -
Michael X. Imbroscio, Esq.
Henry B. Liu, Esq.
Andrew James Soukup, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP
850 Tenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001-4956
Telephone: (202) 662-5536
- and -
Susan E. Burnett, Esq.
Randall L. Christian, Esq.
BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP
2901 Via Fortuna Drive
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (512) 874-3844
- and -
Robert B. Ellis, Esq.
Ryan Moorman, Esq.
KIRKLAND AND ELLIS, LLP
300 N. LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 861-2000
- and -
John C. O'Quinn, Esq.
Jason M. Wilcox, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 389-5191
TOPCO ASSOCIATES: Court Has Diversity Jurisdiction in Calchi Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NANCY CALCHI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOPCO ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 22-cv-747 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Steven C. Seeger of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, issued his Opinion to pin down the existence of subject
matter jurisdiction and answers the question that the Court posed
at the beginning of the jurisdictional detour.
The case is about non-drowsy cold medicine that allegedly made
people drowsy. In August 2021, Calchi bought a bottle of TopCare
Non-Drowsy Tussin CF Multi-Symptom Cold Medication. The package
said 'Non-Drowsy' prominently on the label, and she read and relied
on those statements when purchasing the product.
Calchi alleges that she took the medication as directed but became
unexpectedly drowsy. So, she sued the medicine's manufacturer,
TopCo, for a violation of state consumer-protection laws, breach of
express warranty, a violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
and intentional misrepresentation.
Calchi believes that she is not the only purchaser of the TopCare
cold medicine who was duped. So, she brings the case as a class
action, hoping to represent "all persons who purchased a Non-Drowsy
TopCare Product in the United States during the applicable statute
of limitations." She also seeks to represent a subclass of
consumers "who live in certain identified states" and, in the
alternative, who live in New York.
Calchi's complaint invoked the Court's diversity jurisdiction under
the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). The
complaint then provided information about the citizenship of the
parties.
Specifically, the complaint alleged that Calchi is a citizen of New
York. It also alleged that TopCo is a limited liability company
organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware,
with its principal place of business in Elk Grove, Illinois, and
has been doing business in the State of Illinois during all
relevant times. The complaint stated that "TopCo LLC has 'nearly 45
member-owners' that are supermarkets, wholesalers, and
distributors, including members based in Michigan, New York,
California, Texas, and other states."
TopCo, in turn, moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. When
working on the motion to dismiss, the Court took another look at
the complaint's jurisdictional allegations. Based on a preliminary
look, it determined that the complaint's jurisdictional allegations
left something to be desired. So, it dismissed Calchi's complaint
with leave to amend.
Calchi's complaint included allegations about where TopCo is
organized and where it has its principal place of business. That
is, it seemingly provided the citizenship allegations for a
corporation, not an LLC.
The Court required the parties to provide two pieces of
information. First, the Court does not know the citizenship of the
Defendant, because it does not know who its members are, or where
they are citizens, or even how many members there are. It cannot
determine the diversity of citizenship -- even for minimal
diversity -- without knowing the Defendant's citizenship. Second,
the Court does not know who, exactly, from the putative class is
diverse from the Defendant. Maybe Calchi -- as a citizen of New
York -- was diverse from the Defendant. But maybe not. The Court
could not determine if minimal diversity existed without knowing
TopCo's citizenship.
After the Court dismissed the complaint and requested additional
information, the parties filed a Joint Response to Court's Order on
Jurisdiction/Motion for Reconsideration. They expressed the view
that the complaint did, in fact, contain enough information to
establish the existence of diversity jurisdiction. Although an
LLC's citizenship is the citizenship of its members for purposes of
diversity jurisdiction, this rule does not apply to jurisdiction
under CAFA.
After filing the joint motion, Calchi filed a first amended
complaint. The amended complaint expressly cites section
1332(d)(10), meaning the section of the Class Action Fairness Act
that defines the citizenship of unincorporated associations. The
amended complaint alleges that the Defendant is an unincorporated
association (an LLC) and therefore is a citizen of the state where
it has its principal place of business (Illinois) and the State
under whose laws it is organized (Delaware).
In the meantime, the Court noted that the parties' joint filing was
labeled a "response/motion," which "isn't a thing." So, it denied
the joint motion without prejudice to the extent that the filing is
a motion. But the Court stated that it would consider the
statements in the filing about the jurisdictional requirements
under CAFA.
Given the lack of contrary guidance from the Seventh Circuit, and
given the weight of authority holding that section 1332(d)(10)
applies to LLCs, Judge Seeger concludes that an LLC is an
unincorporated association under section 1332(d)(10). He opines
that when it comes to diversity jurisdiction, courts use different
equations to determine the citizenship of LLCs. It all depends on
the type of case at issue. In the ordinary case, an LLC's
citizenship is determined by the citizenship of each of its
members. But in a CAFA case, an LLC's citizenship is determined by
its state of organization and its principal place of business.
As things stand, Judge Seeger says an LLC is a bit of a
jurisdictional platypus. It's an odd creature, and it seems to fall
within a few different categories. In a non-CAFA case, an LLC is a
citizen where its members are citizens. But in a CAFA case, an LLC
is a citizen of its state of organization and the state where it
has its principal place of business. Sometimes an LLC is like a
corporation, and sometimes it isn't.
Judge Seeger adds that it is an odd thing that the citizenship of
an entity should depend on the type of case at issue. He says,
under current law, a court cannot know the citizenship of an LLC
without knowing what type of case it is. That's a strange thing,
perhaps without parallel in the law. But at the end of the day,
Congress sets the rules for defining citizenship, and Congress can
use different measuring sticks in different cases if it wants.
Tying it all together, Judge Seeger concludes that the Court has
diversity jurisdiction. Calchi is a citizen of New York. TopCo is a
citizen of Delaware (where it is registered) and Illinois (where it
has its principal place of business). There is diversity of
citizenship, and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.
That's enough for diversity jurisdiction under CAFA.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/k2n6yjwc from
Leagle.com.
TRUMAN MEARS: Erskine Bid to Amend Complaint OK'd
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN ERSKINE, et al., v.
TRUMAN MEARS, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00381-GBW (D. Del.), the
Court entered an order:
1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion to amend complaint; and
2. denying without prejudice to renew the Plaintiff Erskine's
request for appointed counsel.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42HdkwE at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Johnson Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling
----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Catherine Johnson, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated April 5, 2023
entered in the lawsuit entitled CATHERINE JOHNSON, KATHERINE VACZI,
and CARA BUNNELL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, and NATIONAL MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY, v. XAVIER
BECERRA, in his official capacity as Secretary of Health and Human
Services, U.S. Department of Health Human Services, Case No.
1:22-cv-03024, in the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action to challenge the Secretary
of Health and Human Services' violation of their rights under the
Medicare Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs challenge the Secretary's policies and
practices that impede and restrict the availability, accessibility,
and coverage of home health aide services for individuals with
chronic, disabling conditions who qualify for such services under
Medicare law.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Trevor N. McFadden
of the District of Columbia entered a Memorandum Opinion on April
5, 2023 granting Becerra's motion to dismiss. Judge McFadden agreed
that the Plaintiffs have at minimum failed to plausibly allege
redressability. Thus, they lack standing to sue. He opined that the
Plaintiffs have alleged no facts suggesting that it is likely, as
opposed to merely speculative, that HHAs would behave any
differently with respect to aide services if they prevail. While
the Secretary's policies might have contributed to an HHA's
decision not to provide aide services, so, too, might Medicare's
reimbursement scheme and labor market. The Plaintiffs concede that
the shortage of aide care is longstanding, that it is "a complex
situation," and that there are multiple factors at work. And when
conjecture is necessary, redressability is lacking, Judge McFadden
held.
Furthermore, Judge McFadden noted that it is purely speculative
that a decision in the Plaintiffs' favor would meaningfully alter
the economic calculus by which HHAs determine whether to offer aide
services. He says where predictions are so uncertain, the Court is
prohibited from finding standing.
The appellate case is captioned as Catherine Johnson, et al. v.
Xavier Becerra, Case No. 23-5128, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on June 7,
2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- APPELLANTS' docketing statement, certificate as to parties,
statement of issues, underlying decision, deferred appendix
statement, entry of appearance, transcript status report, and
procedural motions are due on July 7, 2023;
-- APPELLANTS' dispositive motions are due on July 24, 2023;
-- APPELLEE'S certificate as to parties, entry of appearance and
procedural motions are due on July 7, 2023; and
-- APPELLEE dispositive motions are due on July 24, 2023.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Catherine Johnson and Cara Bunnell, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated; National Multiple
Sclerosis Society, and Team Gleason are represented by:
Alice Bers, Esq.
CENTER FOR MEDICARE ADVOCACY, INC.
PO Box 350
Willimantic, CT 06226
Telephone: (860) 456-7790
Defendant-Appellee Xavier Becerra, in his official capacity as
Secretary of Health and Human Services, is represented by:
DOJ Appellate Counsel
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 514-2000
WESTMORELAND SANITARY: Bid for More Time to Complete Discovery OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHILDS, et al., v.
WESTMORELAND SANITARY LANDFILL LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01100
(W.D. Pa., Filed Aug. 19, 2021), the Hon. Judge Cathy Bissoon
entered an order granting joint motion for extension of time to
complete discovery and related deadlines, as follows:
-- The parties' revised deadlines, of until July 5, 2023, for the
Defendant's expert disclosures, and until July 26, 2023, for
the
close of all discovery (including all depositions), are
accepted,
and the Court does not anticipate granting further extensions.
-- As to the parties' proposed amended deadline to engage in ADR,
they request that ADR be completed after briefing closes on
class
certification.
-- The Court, however, believes that ADR should be completed
before
the parties invest the time and expense associated with class
certification briefing.
-- Accordingly, the ADR deadline is reset for Aug. 31, 2023, and
by
Sept. 7, 2023, the parties shall file a joint status report
regarding their efforts in ADR.
-- If it is determined that settlement cannot be reached, the
Court
will enter an order resetting the class certification briefing
deadlines.
The nature of suit states Real Property -- Torts to Land.
Westmoreland owns and operates a residual/municipal landfill in
Rostraver Township, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania.[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 ***