/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230630.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, June 30, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 131
Headlines
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due May 9, 2024
ACCENTURE PLC: Continues to Defend Data Breach Class Suit
ADVANCE AUTO: Court Grants Bid to Certify Class in Sweet ERISA Suit
AEROPOSTALE INC: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
AETNA INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Banks Alleges
AETNA INTERNATIONAL: T. E. Files Suit in W.D. North Carolina
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Alberto Files Suit in D. Idaho
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Policyholders
ALTUS DIRECT: PHRC Files Placeholder Bid for Class Certification
AMAZON LOGISTICS: Young Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometrics
AMAZON.COM INC: Court Refuses to Consolidate 4 Wage Claim Suits
AMERICAN TUNA: Parties Seek to Move Class Cert Filing to August 7
AMERICOLD REALTY: 11th Circuit Vacates Dismissal of Sheffler Suit
APCO INSULATION: Carabajo's Bid for Conditional Cert. Partly OK'd
APPLIED MATERIALS: Faces James Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Depinto Says
ARYEH HOSPITALITY: Hassan Sues Over Failure to Refund Monies
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Laskey Allowed Leave to File Reply Under Seal
BOTH INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dail Suit Alleges
BRIGHTON BEST INTERNATIONAL: Durham Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
C3.AI: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Reckstin Suit Set for August 17
CANOPY GROWTH: Continues to Defend Asmara Class Suit
CANOPY GROWTH: Continues to Defend Consumer Protection Class Suit
CANOPY GROWTH: Continues to Defend Turpel Class Suit
CANOPY GROWTH: Continues to Defend Twidale Class Suit in Ontario
CITY VIEW MULTICARE: Gamble Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Illinois
CONTRACT LAND: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Crager Alleges
CONTRACT LAND: Weinmann Bid for Conditional Status Partly OK'd
CREDIT UNION: Lopez Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
CRUNCHBASE INC: Parties Seek More Time to File Responsive Pleading
DEUTSCHE BANK: Conspires to Control Price of Gilt Bonds, Suit Says
EFG GENERAL: Court Junks Racca Bid to Remand Case
EMERSON ELECTRIC: Miller Sues Over Defective InSinkErator Badgers
ENZO BIOCHEM: Netrosio Sues Over Failure to Secure Patients' Info
ENZO BIOCHEM: Weinman Sues Over Failure to Secure Patients' Info
ESTES FORWARDING: Villalobos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
FELTON INSTITUTE: Cofield Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
FOWLER PACKING: Class Settlement in Aldapa Gets Final Nod
FRC BALANCE LLC: Durham Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
G.D. BARRI: Enriquez Seeks Conditional Class Certification
GALE HEALTHCARE: Perez Suit Alleges Unlawful Payroll Card Charges
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Clarifies Class Definition in Siqueiros Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Tosses Bid to Certify Interlocutory Appeal
GESICK CONCRETE: Court Sends Claims in Cashpal Suit to Arbitration
GLENN HAWBAKER: Court OK's Packer Bid for Class Certification
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Filing for Class Cert. Continued to Sept. 29
HACKENSACK, NJ: Pays Unfair Wages Based on Race, Ramirez Says
HAPPY GROUP: Seeks to File Documents Under Seal
HOME DEPOT INC: Chang Suit Removed to C.D. California
HUNTINGTON INGALLS: Beadle Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
ICON HEALTH: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Nov. 14
JEA SENIOR: Class Settlement in Bowen Suit Gets Initial Nod
JOHNS MANVILLE: Moore Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
KAREN TIMBERLAKE: Court Dismisses Peshek Case w/o Prejudice
LEOPOLD & ASSOCIATES: McDonough Amended Complaint Tossed
LONELY PLANET: Initial Conference in McGucken Suit Set for July 17
LOWE'S HOME: Court Consolidates Azizpor and Rodriguez Class Suits
MAGNA INTERNATIONAL: Summary Judgment Bid vs Davis Partly OK'd
MAHARAJA PALACE: General Pretrial Management Order Entered
MARYLAND: Seeks August 4 Extension to File Class Cert Response
MDL 2918: End-User Plaintiffs Seek Class Status in Antitrust Suit
MERIT ENERGY COMPANY: Cooper-Clark Suit Removed to D. Kansas
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Filing for Class Cert Extended to April 8, 2024
MICHIGAN: Clerk to Schedule Hearing on Bid to Appeal in Hathon Suit
MIDLAND FUNDING: Putative Class Claims in Sandoval Suit Tossed
MIDWEST PHYSICIAN: Mayer Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC: Completion of Mediation in Confer Due August 1
MODERN BROKERS: Bid to Bifurcate Discovery Tossed in Kerswill Suit
MODERN BROKERS: Loses Bid for Protection From Class Discovery
MONTANA UNIVERSITY: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Extended to Nov. 1
NATIONAL GENERAL: August 3 Extension for Class Cert Filing Sought
NATIONAL GENERAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to July 6
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Bid to Modify May 16, 2022 Order OK'd
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Plaintiffs Seek to File Exhibit Under Seal
NEW YORK: Asks More Time to File Class Cert. Reply
NORTH CAROLINA: Faces Suit Over Violation of Rights to Due Process
NORTH CAROLINA: Hodge Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
NY PASTRY: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Sanchez Suit Claims
ONIX GROUP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Owens Suit Alleges
OREGON: Court Compels Deposition of Former Governor
OREGON: Court Compels Deposition of Kevin Gleim
P.C. RICHARD: Douglass Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement
PACIFICORP: Continues to Defend James Class Suit in Oregon
PARKASH 2125: Underpays Building Superintendents, Martinez Claims
PELICIA E. HALL: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due Jan. 25, 2024
PEOPLECONNECT INC: Nolen Suit Seeks to Certify Class
PERFECT CORP: Thomas Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometric
PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Extended to July 7
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Court Junks Bennett Class Cert. Bid
QWP HOLDINGS: Extension to File Class Cert Reply Sought
REGULATORY DATACORP: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by June 30
RELIGIOUS PRACTICE: Reconsideration Bid Denial in Zirus Appealed
RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to July 5
RUDI'S ORGANIC: Lowe Sues Over Baked Goods' False Protein Claims
RXO LAST: Compelled to Provide Notice List
SAN DIEGO, CA: Bid to File Documents Under Seal OK'd in Dunsmore
SAN DIEGO, CA: Dunsmore Seeks to File Errata on Memorandum
SENTINELONE INC: Artificially Inflated Stock Price, Nyren Alleges
SHARPSPRING INC: Munoz Sues Over Disclosed Video Viewing Habits
SIDWELL AIR: Deadline for Amending Pleadings Set for July 17
SIG SAUER: Class Certification Discovery in Glasscock Due Sept. 11
SINGER HOLDING: Manis Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Account Managers
SOCIAL FINANCE: Class Action Settlement in Juarez Gets Final Nod
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH: Mismanages Retirement Funds, Drust Alleges
SPACE COAST: Parties in Merritt Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines
STATE FARM: Chadwick Seeks Class Certification in Insurance Suit
STELLANTIS NV: Wiater Sues Over Defective, Unsafe Vehicles
STUPP BROS: Filing for Conditional Class Status Extended to Oct. 9
SUPERCELL INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Feb. 20, 2024
SUTTER HEALTH: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 22
SYFS INTERMEDIATE: Potts Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
SYSCO ATLANTA: Bid for Conditional Certification Stayed in Madison
T&T FARMS: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 19, 2024
TEXAS: Claims in Alexander v. Linthicum Dismissed With Prejudice
THINX INC: Class Action Settlement in Dickens Gets Final Nod
THOSE CERTAIN: LAL Seeks to Certify Class
TIVITY HEALTH: Strougo Suit Seeks to Certify Class
TMX FINANCE: Plaintiffs Seek to Suspend Class Cert. Filing Deadline
TRANS UNION: Filing of Class Certification Bid Extended to Jan. 26
TRANSPERFECT TRANSLATIONS: Opposition Brief Due August 10
TRAVEL INSURED: July 11 Extension to File Class Cert Reply Sought
TRINITY HEALTH: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Medenblik Says
TRIPLEPOINT VENTURE: Petersen Sues Over 9.98% Drop of Stock Price
TULA LIFE INC: Schultz Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Allowed to Seal Class Cert Declarations
USAA FEDERAL: Parties Seek More Time to Submit Class Cert. Reply
VIATRIS INC: Faces McCord Suit Over Drop in Share Price
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Must Produce Abarca's Requested Drivers' Data
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Must Produce Bryant's Requested Drivers' Data
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Must Produce Smith's Requested Drivers' Data
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Must Produce Vester's Requested Drivers' Data
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Ordered to Produce Drivers' Data in Abarca Suit
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Goldstein Sues Over Defective Gas Stoves
WHOLE FOODS: Collects Sales Tax on Nontaxable Foods, Willman Says
WILCO LIFE: July 28 Extension for Class Cert. Hearing Sought
XPRESS GLOBAL: Vasquez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
YVONNE HAO: Small Business Owners Seek Class Certification
Asbestos Litigation
*********
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due May 9, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONDALISA LEGRAND, et al.,
v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Case No. 3:22-cv-05815-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Thomas S. Hixson entered a case management order as
follows:
Deadline to Seek Leave to Amend Pleadings Sept. 30,
2023
Deadline to Move for Class Certification May 9, 2024
Deadline to File Opposition to Class Aug. 8, 2024
Certification Motion
Deadline to File Reply in Support of Sept. 19,
2024
Class Certification Motion
Hearing on Class Certification Motion Oct. 17,
2024
Deadline to File Updated Joint Case Dec. 5, 2024
Management Conference Statement
Further Case Management Conference Dec. 12,
2024
Abbott is an American multinational medical devices and health care
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PqzK26 at no extra charge.[CC]
ACCENTURE PLC: Continues to Defend Data Breach Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Accenture PLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending May 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 22, 2023, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the data breach-related putative class suit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland.
On July 24, 2019, Accenture was named in a putative class action
lawsuit filed by consumers of Marriott International, Inc.
("Marriott") in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland. The complaint alleges negligence by the Company, and
seeks monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees and other related
relief, relating to a data security incident involving unauthorized
access to the reservations database of Starwood Worldwide Resorts,
Inc., which was acquired by Marriott on September 23, 2016.
Since 2009, the Company had provided certain IT infrastructure
outsourcing services to Starwood.
On October 27, 2020, the court issued an order largely denying
Accenture's motion to dismiss the claims against the Company.
On May 3, 2022, the court issued an order granting in part the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which the Company is
appealing.
Oral argument on the appeal was held on May 3, 2023.
The Company continues to believe the lawsuit is without merit and
will vigorously defend it.
Accenture PLC is a professional services company based in Ireland.
ADVANCE AUTO: Court Grants Bid to Certify Class in Sweet ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JANET SWEET, et al., Plaintiffs v. ADVANCE AUTO STORES
COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 7:21-cv-549 (W.D. Va.),
Judge Michael F. Urbanski of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Virginia, Roanoke Division, grants the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class.
The Plaintiffs brought the action pursuant to sections 409 and 502
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"),
29 U.S.C. Sections 1109 and 1132. They brought the suit on behalf
of the Advance Auto Parts, Inc. 401(k) Plan, themselves, and all
others similarly situated against the Plan's fiduciaries, including
Advance, the Board of Directors of Advance and its members during
the Class Period ("Board") and the Retirement Committee of
Advance's 401(k) plan and its members during the Class Period for
breaches of their fiduciary duties.
The Plaintiffs allege that during the Class Period -- which
stretches from Oct. 20, 2015 through the date of judgment -- the
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty,
in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 1104. Specifically, they claim
that the Defendants (1) failed to review the Plan's investment
portfolio objectively and adequately with due care to ensure that
each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost; (2) maintain
certain funds in the Plan despite the availability of identical or
similar investment options with lower costs and/or better
performance histories; and (3) failed to control the Plan's
recordkeeping costs.
The Plan at issue is a defined contribution plan in which nearly
all salaried employees are eligible to participate. Participants
are able to contribute between 1% and 80% of their eligible
compensation to the Plan, subject to a match by Advance of 100%
match on the first 3% and 50% on each additional 1% of each
participant's contribution, up to 5%. The Plan is administered by
the Committee, which is responsible for determining the
appropriateness of the Plan's investments and monitoring investment
performance. Plan participants can choose where to direct their
contributions among investment funds determined by the Committee.
The Plaintiffs claim that the Plan's fees were unreasonable during
the Class Period in six ways: (1) the Plan's total costs were
higher than that of its peers; (2) the Plan's recordkeeping and
administrative costs were excessive; (3) the Plan's funds often had
higher management fees than funds in other, similarly-sized plans;
(4) several Plan funds were not in the lowest fee share class
available; (5) the Plan failed to replace higher cost and
underperforming funds with nearly identical lower cost and better
performing alternatives; and (6) the Defendants failed to diversify
the Plan.
Five Plaintiffs currently seek to represent the class: Janet Sweet
of Roanoke, Virginia; Safi Riaz, of Macomb, Michigan; Bessie
McAdams of Surprise, Arizona; Keith Edwards of Cusseta, Alabama;
and Peter Dargel of Succasunna. All five Plaintiffs allege that
they participated in the Plan, were subject to the excessive
administration and recordkeeping costs and were injured by
overpaying for their share of administration and recordkeeping
costs. Riaz, Edwards, Dargel, and Sweet (all the named Plaintiffs
except McAdams) invested in the BlackRock LifePath target date
funds "complained of in this matter." Sweet invested in the Wells
Fargo Stable Value Fund Class M, which paid revenue sharing to
Fidelity to pay for the excessive administration and recordkeeping
costs.
Following a May 12, 2023, hearing on the question of class
certification, the parties submitted a revised joint stipulation
proposing a single class: All persons, except individual Defendants
and their immediate family members, who were participants in or
beneficiaries of the Plan, at any time between Oct. 20, 2015
through the date of judgment (the Class Period), excluding any
class member who executed an applicable release.
Judge Urbanski considers only the class as proposed in the Second
Joint Stipulation.
The named Plaintiffs further seek appointment of their counsel as
class counsel. All the proposed class counsel have at least some
experience serving as class counsel in similar cases. Mark K.
Gyandoh states that he has 18 years of experience litigating ERISA
breach of fiduciary duty claims and is currently the chair of the
Fiduciary Practice Group with his firm. Donald Reavey has several
years of experience in litigating "dozens" of ERISA breach of
fiduciary duty claims. Aaron B. Houchens has previously defended a
class action lawsuit in the Western District of Virginia and is
currently involved in a similar ERISA class action in another
district. Andrew L. Fitzgerald has approximately 20 years of
experience in ERISA class action litigation. Further, each proposed
counsel states that they and their respective firms have
investigated the case before filing the complaint.
Judge Urbanski states that to be certified, a proposed class must
satisfy Rule 23(a) and one of the three sub-parts of Rule 23(b).
Rule 23(a) lists four prerequisites: (1) numerosity of parties, (2)
commonality of factual or legal issues, (3) typicality of claims
and defenses of class representatives, and (4) adequacy of
representation.
Rule 23(b) provides for three types of class actions. First, Rule
23(b)(1) applies where separate actions by or against individual
class members would create a risk of establishing incompatible
standards of conduct for the party opposing the class. Rule
23(b)(2) allows class treatment when the party opposing the class
has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the
class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory
relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole. Rule
23(b)(3) applies to "individualized monetary claims" and requires
that questions of law or fact common to class members predominate
over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a
class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy.
The class definition proposed in the Second Joint Stipulation meets
the requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23,
Judge Urbanski opines. He finds that (i) there were over 22,000
participants during the Class Period; (ii) there are several common
issues related to the Class claims; (iii) the named Plaintiffs'
claims are typical of that of the Class; and (iv) the parties have
stipulated that the named Plaintiffs are adequate to represent the
class and have no known conflicts with other members of the class.
The parties stipulate to class certification under either Rule
23(b)(1)(A) or (b)(1)(B). Judge Urbanski finds that certification
under Rule 23(b)(1) is appropriate, as breach of fiduciary duty
claims brought under Section 502(a)(2) of paradigmatic examples of
claims appropriate for certification as a Rule 23(b)(1) class.
For these reasons, Judge Urbanski grants the Motion to Certify
class, with the following class definition, as stipulated: All
persons, except individual Defendants and their immediate family
members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan, at
any time between Oct. 20, 2015 through the date of judgment (the
Class Period), excluding any class member who executed an
applicable release.
Attorneys Gyandoh, Reavey, Houchens, and Fitzgerald are appointed
the class counsel.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/46hk8wym from Leagle.com.
AEROPOSTALE INC: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Herrera, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. AEROPOSTALE, INC., Case No. HUD-L-001798-23 (N.J. Sup.
Ct., Hudson Cty., May 23, 2023), is brought against Defendant for
its violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") by
failing to make its website fully accessible for the Plaintiff and
for other blind or visually-impaired people.
Upon visiting Defendant's website, www.aeropostale.com, Plaintiff
quickly became aware of Defendant's failure to maintain and operate
its website in a way to make it fully accessible for himself and
for other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial
of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of
its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person.
The Defendant is a company doing business and marketing to New
Jersey customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Zemel, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW LLC
660 Broadway
Paterson, NJ 07514
Phone: (862) 227-3106
Fax: (973) 282-8603
Email: dz@zemellawllc.com
AETNA INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Banks Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
BEVERLY BANKS; ANGELA BRODRICK; TRACY BUSSELL; RANDALL CARTER;
JAMES CRAIG; JOHN DAVIS; DENISE EMERY; BRENDA GILPATRICK; WILLIAM
S. HENRY; KIMBERLY HOFFMAN; ROGER JACKSON; PAMELA LAZAROFF; STEPHEN
LAZAROFF; NANCY PATERSON; ROBERTA PLATT; MICHELLE RONNE; KEVIN
STONE; RODERICK VEAZEY; NICOLAS VENEZIA; VALARIE VENEZIA; CYNTHIA
WHITES; and RICHARD XAVAR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AETNA INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-00779-JCH (D. Conn., June 15, 2023) is an action alleging
the Defendant's failure to adequately safeguard the sensitive,
valuable Private Information of the Plaintiffs and the Class
between January 28, 2023 and January 30, 2023, which was accessed
and exfiltrated by an unauthorized third-party (the "Data
Breach").
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs filed the action against
Defendant Aetna for its (i) failure to properly secure and
safeguard highly valuable, protected personally identifiable
information, including without limitation, names, addresses,
emails, phone numbers, health plan account and ID numbers, date of
birth, Medicare numbers, and private health information
(collectively "Private Information"); (ii) failure to comply with
industry standards to protect information systems that contain
Private Information; (iii) unlawful disclosure of the Private
Information of Plaintiffs and other members of the class; and (iv)
failure to provide adequate notice to Plaintiffs and other members
of the class that their Private Information had been disclosed and
compromised.
As a result, the Plaintiffs and Class Members are at a
substantially increased risk of identity theft, both currently and
for the indefinite future. Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private
Information—including their names linked with their dates of
birth, health plan identification numbers, and Medicare
identification numbers which were compromised by cyber criminals in
the Data Breach—is highly valuable to bad actors who may seek to
commit fraud and identity theft, says the suit.
AETNA INC. provides health care services. The Company offers
medical, pharmacy, dental, behavioral health, group life,
disability, and health care management services. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steven L. Bloch, Esq.
Johnathan Seredynski, Esq.
Brett Burgs, Esq.
SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
One Landmark Square, Floor 15
Stamford, CT 06901
Telephone: (203) 325-4491
Facsimile: (203) 325-3769
Email: isloss@sgtlaw.com
sbloch@sgtlaw.com
jseredynski@sgtlaw.com
bburgs@sgtlaw.com
- and -
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
Erin G. Comite, 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
Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
ecomite@scott-scott.com
AETNA INTERNATIONAL: T. E. Files Suit in W.D. North Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aetna International,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as T. E., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Aetna International, LLC, Aetna
Health Management, Inc., Aetna, Inc., Aetna Health, Inc., Aetna
Corporate Services, LLC, Aetna Resources, LLC, NationsBenefits
Holdings, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00303-RJC-DCK (E.D.N.Y., May 20,
2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Aetna International -- http://www.aetnainternational.com/--
provides quality health care and well-being benefits to your
members living and working abroad.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John A. Love, Esq.
LOVE CONSUMER LAW
2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 330
30009, Suite 330
Alpharetta, GA 30009
Phone: (404) 855-3600
Email: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com
- and -
Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC
1656 Washington St., Suite 120
Kansas City, MO 64108
Phone: (816) 888-8010
Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com
- and -
Sharon J. Zinns, Esq.
LEVY KONIGSBERG, LLP
1800 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 748-1600
Fax: (404) 745-8624
Email: szinns@levylaw.com
- and -
Emily Jeanette Beeson, Esq.
WARD BLACK LAW
208 W. Wendover Ave.
Greensboro, NC 27401
Phone: (336) 502-6208
Email: ebeeson@wardblacklaw.com
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon C.E. Springer, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
1120 South Tryon Street, Suite 300
Charlotte, NC 28203-6818
Phone: (704) 444-1007
Fax: (704) 444-1111
Email: brandon.springer@alston.com
- and -
Mark W. Ishman, Esq.
GORDON & REES, LLP
421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 330
Raleigh, NC 27601
Phone: (919) 468-3266
Fax: (919) 882-1466
Email: mishman@ishmanlaw.com
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Alberto Files Suit in D. Idaho
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Albertsons Companies,
Inc. The case is styled as Maryelin Alberto, on behalf of herself
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Albertsons Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00251-DKG (D. Idaho,
May 17, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Property Damage.
Albertsons Companies, Inc. --
https://www.albertsonscompanies.com/home/default.aspx -- is one of
the largest food and drug retailers in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN PHILLPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Jaren Nichole Wieland, Esq.
MOONEY WIELAND WARREN
512 W. Idaho St., Suite 103
Boise, ID 83702
Phone: (208) 401-9219
Email: jaren.wieland.service@mooneywieland.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Erik F. Stidham, Esq.
HOLLAND & HART LLP
W. Main Street, Suite 1750
Boise, ID 83702
Phone: (208) 342-5000
Fax: (208) 343-8869
Email: efstidham@hollandhart.com
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Policyholders
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARA SHANNON and ROSA
PALACIOS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
1:20-cv-00448-ADA-ML (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
(a) certify the following Class pursuant to Rule 23(a) and
(b)(3):
"All Texas Allstate policyholders who had one or more
Allstate
Fire & Casualty Insurance Company automobile insurance
policy
renewal between July 27, 2014, and September 9, 2020";
(b) appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel (John R. Davis and
Michael L. Slack of Slack Davis Sanger, LLP; Joe K. Longley
of
the Law Offices of Joe K. Longley, and Roger N. Heller,
Jalle
H. Dafa, and Kenneth S. Byrd of Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP) as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g); and
(c) appointing Plaintiffs Sara Shannon and Rosa Palacios as
class
representatives.
The Plaintiffs filed this action on April 28, 2020, and filed their
operative First Amended Complaint on August 5, 2020. Allstate moved
to dismiss on multiple grounds. On May 24, 2021, following a
hearing, Magistrate Judge Lane issued a Report & Recommendation
recommending that Allstate's motion be denied in all respects
except that it be granted regarding the issue of lack of personal
jurisdiction over defendant The Allstate Corporation.
On August 6, 2021, Judge Yeakel adopted the Report and
Recommendation over Allstate's objection. On February 15, 2023, the
parties filed a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice of the
Plaintiff Debra Corbello and the First Cause of Action (the
"Open-Closed" claim), which the Court approved on February 21,
2023, leaving the Second Cause of Action.
Allstate offers auto, home life insurances policies.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 12, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CLPaXm at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John R. Davis, Esq.
Michael L. Slack, Esq.
SLACK DAVIS SANGER, LLP
6001 Bold Ruler Way, Suite 100
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (512) 795-8686
Facsimile: (512) 795-8787
E-mail: jdavis@slackdavis.com
mslack@slackdavis.com
- and –
Joe K. Longley, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JOE K. LONGLEY
3104 Highland Terr W
Austin, TX 78731
Telephone: (512) 689-0329
E-mail: Joe@joelongley.com
- and –
Roger N. Heller, Esq.
Jallé H. Dafa, Esq.
Kenneth S. Byrd, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
E-mail: rheller@lchb.com
kbyrd@lchb.com
ALTUS DIRECT: PHRC Files Placeholder Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PROGRESSIVE HEALTH AND
REHAB CORP., an Ohio corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, v. ALTUS
DIRECT HEALTHCARE LLC, an Ohio limited liability company, Case No.
1:23-cv-00360-DRC (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff files a "placeholder"
motion for class certification to protect against any potential
attempt by the Defendant to moot its claims through the tendering
of individual relief.
The Plaintiff files the motion to prevent a "pick-off" of its
claims. Whether the Court should allow the Plaintiff to keep a
motion for class certification on file to protect against any
attempt by Altus to "pick-off" its individual claims in order to
"moot" the case before the Court can decide the issue of class
certification.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held that "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff’s case, " and "a would-be
class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded
a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The
Sixth Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in
Family Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., 632
Fed. Appx. 259, 260 (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, 822 F.3d 934, 941 (6th Cir. 2016), the named
plaintiffs filed a class action complaint and a "contemporaneous"
motion for class certification on the same day. The defendants
subsequently provided the relief sought by the plaintiffs in their
complaint and, on appeal, argued that the plaintiffs' claims were
moot. In rejecting defendants' argument, the Sixth Circuit held
that even where "the parties did not dispute that all eleven named
Plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the district court
certified the class," the "picking-off" exception applied and
allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual claims to pursue
class certification, which would "relate back" to the filing of the
complaint, applying Deposit Guar.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 12, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NmOrR7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy C. Ammer, Esq.
MONTGOMERY JONSON LLP
600 Vine Street, Suite 2650
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 241-4722
Facsimile: (513) 786-9227
E-mail: tammer@mojolaw.com
- and -
Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
ANDERSON + WANCA
3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Telephone: (847) 368-1500
Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com
AMAZON LOGISTICS: Young Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometrics
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Young, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Amazon Logistics, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03186 (N.D.
Ill., May 19, 2023), is brought against the Defendant to redress
and curtail Defendant's unlawful collections, obtainments, use,
storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's sensitive and
proprietary biometric identifiers and/or biometric information
(collectively referred to herein as "biometric data" and/or
"biometrics"), in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act ("BIPA").
In April 2019, Amazon Flex began requiring its Drivers, including
Plaintiff to undergo routine identity checks. As part of this
process, Amazon Flex requires its Drivers, including Plaintiff, to
upload photos of their driver's licenses and Amazon Flex performs a
facial geometry analysis on said driver's licenses.
Amazon Flex then requires its Drivers, including Plaintiff, to
routinely take "selfie" photographs when they log in to the Amazon
Flex app to being working. Amazon Flex will then perform a facial
geometry analysis on the selfie and compare it against the facial
geometry analysis on the driver's license to ensure that they
match, and that the driver of the vehicle is in fact the holder of
the Amazon Flex account.
Amazon Flex collects, stores, possesses, otherwise obtains, uses,
and disseminates Plaintiff's and the Class Members' biometric data
to, amongst other things, further enhance Amazon Flex and its
online shopping and shipping business model. Amazon Flex wrongfully
profits from the facial scans it has collected or otherwise
obtained from Amazon Flex Drivers.
Facial geometry is a unique, permanent biometric identifier
associated with each Shopper that cannot be changed or replaced if
stolen or compromised. Amazon Flex's unlawful collection,
obtainment, storage, and use of its Drivers' biometric data exposes
them to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if
Amazon Flex's database containing facial geometry scans or other
sensitive, proprietary biometric data is hacked, breached, or
otherwise exposed, Amazon Flex Divers have no means by which to
prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking or other unlawful or
improper use of this highly personal and private information.
Amazon Flex has created, collected, and stored thousands of "face
templates"--highly detailed geometric maps of the face--from
thousands of Illinois residents whose verification photos and
state-issued ID's were collected by Defendant. Each face template
that Amazon Flex extracts is unique to a particular individual in
the same way that a fingerprint or voiceprint uniquely identifies a
particular individual, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has worked for Amazon Flex as a Driver since 2019.
Amazon Logistics, Inc. is a Delaware corporation which operates as
Amazon Flex.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
FRADIN LAW
8 N. Court St. Suite 403
Athens, OH 45701
Phone: 847-986-5889
Facsimile: 847-673-1228
Email: mike@fradinlaw.com
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
SIMON LAW CO.
5000 Rockside Road
Liberty Plaza – Suite 520
Independence, OH 44131
Phone: (216) 816-8696
Email: james@simonsayspay.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Court Refuses to Consolidate 4 Wage Claim Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: AMAZON WAGE CLAIM LITIGATION, Case No.
C16-1554-JCC, No. C19-1320-JCC., C23-0161-JCC, C23-0178-JCC (W.D.
Wash.), Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, refuses to consolidate
these matters:
(1) Rittmann, et al. v. Amazon.com Inc., et al., C16-1554-JCC,
Dkt. No. 282 (W.D. Wash. 2016);
(2) Waithaka v. Amazon.com Inc., et al., C19-1320-JCC, Dkt.
No. 155 (W.D. Wash. 2019);
(3) Marcelo, et al. v. Amazon.com Inc., et al., C23-0161-JCC;
and
(4) Sitaca, et al. v. Amazon.com Inc., et al., C23-0178-JCC
(W.D. Wash. 2023).
The matter comes before the Court on the parties' responses to the
Court's order to show cause why these matters should not be
consolidated for further proceedings. Based on the reasoning
provided in the Rittman Plaintiffs' response, which the Court
incorporates as its own, Judge Coughenour refuses to further
consolidate these matters.
Given the chronology of the Marcelo and Sitaca actions, and the
similarity of their parties and issues with Rittman, Judge
Coughenour stays Marcelo and Sitaca pending a final ruling on the
merits in Rittman. He says this is consistent with the first to
file rule, as well as the Court's inherent authority to control
cases on its docket. Doing so will eliminate the risk of
inconsistent rulings between each case and avoid duplicative
putative class action litigation involving the same parties and
claims. Moreover, the possibility of prejudice to the Marcelo and
Sitaca plaintiffs is low. If Rittman is certified, they may elect
to participate as members in Rittman. And if not, at a minimum,
many of the legal determinations made in Rittman would apply with
equal force to Marcelo and Sitaca.
In contrast, Waithaka is not appropriate for consolidation based on
its case development and the dissimilar claims to that of Rittman.
However, given the current pendency of rulings from the Ninth
Circuit in Carmona v. Domino's Pizza LLC, No. 21-55009 (9th Cir.),
and Miller v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 21-36048 (9th Cir.), Judge
Coughenour extends the stay in Waithaka and again stays Rittman
pending the Ninth Circuit's mandate in Carmona or Miller, whichever
is issued later. This stay applies to all putative plaintiffs in
both Rittman and Waithaka, including non-arbitration opt-in
plaintiffs.
While Judge Coughenour appreciates the impact of this ruling on
those plaintiffs, he must balance this with considerations of
judicial efficiency and the need for consistent rulings for all
plaintiffs on shared issues. He says this would be difficult to
accomplish were the Court to allow Rittman to proceed for the
non-arbitration plaintiffs but not for the plaintiffs potentially
impacted by potential Ninth Circuit rulings in Carmona and/or
Miller. Moreover, he notes that Rittman was filed many years ago.
At this point, a short delay would not materially prejudice any of
its plaintiffs.
The parties in Waithaka are ordered, within 14 days of the
later-filed Ninth Circuit mandate in Carmona or Miller, to provide
the Court with a joint status report containing proposed case
management schedules for their respective cases through class
certification, with due consideration given to possible renewed
motions from the Defendants in each case to compel arbitration
and/or to dismiss and the Plaintiffs' motions in each case for
class certification. If the parties are unable to agree on a
schedule, they may provide the Court with individual proposals, but
must do so within a single joint status report for each case.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4x54bp4u from Leagle.com.
AMERICAN TUNA: Parties Seek to Move Class Cert Filing to August 7
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY CRAIG, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN TUNA,
INC. AND WORLD WISE FOODS, LTD., Case No. 3:22-cv-00473-RSH-MSB
(S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order to
postpone the deadline for the Plaintiffs to file the motion for
class certification by seven days.
Accordingly, Keith has proposed that the parties resolve this
scheduling issue by asking the Court to postpone the deadline for
the Plaintiffs to file the motion for class certification for seven
days, from July 31, 2023, to August 7, 2023, the Plaintiffs agree
with this solution.
American Tuna supplies one-by-one wild caught tuna and other
sustainably sourced seafood products to grocery aisles, delis,
restaurants and homes across the United States.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/449amSz at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L.
KRASELNIK, PLLC
10 Byron Place, No. 402
Larchmont, NY 10538
Telephone: 646-342-2019
E-mail: robert@kraselnik.com.
The Defendants are represented by:
William P. Keith, Esq.
Hannah B. Stetson, Esq.
KLEIN & WILSON
4770 Von Karman Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 631-3300;
Facsimile (949) 631-3703
E-mail: wkeith@kleinandwilson.com
hstetson@kleinandwilson.com
- and -
Scott L. Metzger, Esq.
DUCKOR METZGER & WYNNE
101 West Broadway, Suite 1700
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 209-3000;
Facsimile: (619) 209-3043
E-mail: metzger@dmwplc.com
AMERICOLD REALTY: 11th Circuit Vacates Dismissal of Sheffler Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SEAN SHEFFLER, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, TY BAUGH, BELINDA GOSS, TRAVIS ROGERS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. AMERICOLD REALTY TRUST, a Maryland
corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 22-11789 (11th Cir.), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacates the district
court's order granting Americold's motion to dismiss and remands so
the Plaintiffs can proceed on their second amended complaint.
The Plaintiffs appeal from the district court's order granting
Americold's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and the court's order
denying their post-dismissal Rule 59(e) motion seeking leave to
file a second amended complaint. The Plaintiffs' sensitive
personally identifiable information (PII) was allegedly exposed in
a data breach incident, and the Plaintiffs brought claims for
negligence and breach of implied contract. The Elventh Circuit
recently reversed the dismissal of a similar negligence claim in a
data breach class action, Ramirez v. The Paradies Shops, LLC, ___
F.4th ___, No. 22-12853 (11th Cir. June 5, 2023), but it does not
reach that issue in the instant case.
Sheffler sued Americold on behalf of himself and a class of other
current or former Americold employees who allegedly had their PII
improperly accessed during a ransomware attack on Americold's
systems. Shortly after Americold's first motion to dismiss,
Sheffler amended his complaint as of right, adding three named
plaintiffs.
Americold then renewed its Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss, arguing
that no relevant state had recognized a common law negligence duty
to safeguard PII, the Plaintiffs had not suffered a cognizable
injury, and the economic loss bar precluded recovery. It also
argued the Plaintiffs failed to allege a meeting of the minds to
establish an implied contract.
The Plaintiffs later requested leave to file a sur-reply to the
motion to dismiss to address Purvis v. Aveanna Healthcare, LLC, 563
F.Supp.3d 1360 (N.D. Ga. 2021), in which another district court had
recently discussed negligence and the duty to safeguard PII under
Georgia law. In opposing leave, Americold mentioned in a footnote
that the Plaintiffs had not included similar foreseeability
allegations to those in Purvis.
The district court permitted the Plaintiffs to file the sur-reply
but it granted Americold's motion to dismiss. It concluded that the
Plaintiffs' negligence claim failed because their foreseeability
allegations were less specific than those in Purvis. It also agreed
with Americold on the breach of implied contract claim.
The Plaintiffs timely moved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and
60(b) for an order vacating the dismissal and allowing them leave
to file a second amended complaint. They argued that leave to amend
should be granted liberally even after dismissal. The proposed
second amended complaint, which was attached, would have added more
specific allegations about the foreseeability of a data breach.
The district court noted there is some ambiguity regarding the
standard for a post-judgment motion for leave to amend but it
ultimately agreed with Americold that the Plaintiffs needed to meet
the stringent standards of Rules 59 and 60, not the more lenient
standard of Rule 15. Because the Plaintiffs failed to meet this
stringent standard, the court denied leave to amend.
On appeal, the Plaintiffs contend, among other things, that the
district court erred by using the stringent Rule 59(e) standard,
rather than the lenient Rule 15 standard.
The Eleventh Circuit explains that although Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15(a) provides that leave to amend will be freely given
when justice so requires, the right to amend under Rule 15
terminates once a complaint is finally dismissed. Instead, a
plaintiff may move for relief under Rule 59(e) by asking the
district court to vacate its judgment based on proposed amendments.
As the Plaintiffs argue, the Eleventh Circuit's earliest binding
precedent provides that the "same" liberal amendment standard also
applies to a Rule 59(e) motion seeking leave to file an amended
complaint.
Americold argues that policy considerations of finality and
judicial efficiency nevertheless weigh against allowing the
Plaintiffs to take a "wait and see" approach, that is, making a
tactical decision to wait to add factual allegations until after
the court ruled on the Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
When the Eleventh Circuit asked the Plaintiffs about this at oral
argument, they pointed out that the district court created a new
legal standard for data breach negligence claims that Americold had
not presented in its motion to dismiss. Indeed, they would have
been hard-pressed to predict that they might need to amend their
complaint to add more specific foreseeability allegations in
response to Americold's renewed motion to dismiss. Moreover, in
denying leave to amend, the district court did not find that the
proposed amendment would be futile, that there was undue delay, or
that Americold would be prejudiced by the amendment. And the
Eleventh Circuit's recent opinion in Ramirez has undermined the
dismissal of the Plaintiffs' negligence claim.
In light of the more liberal amendment standard, the unusual
procedural history of the case, and the Eleventh Circuit's
intervening Ramirez decision, the Eleventh Circuit vacates the
district court's dismissal of the action and remands with
instructions to grant the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mtk7u3uh from Leagle.com.
APCO INSULATION: Carabajo's Bid for Conditional Cert. Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MIGUEL CARABAJO, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APCO INSULATION CO INC., KRESCO
BEAMALINDRIC, Defendants, Case No. 22-CV-04175-PKC-SJB (E.D.N.Y.),
Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York grants in part and denies in part
the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification.
Carabajo commenced the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New
York Labor Law ("NYLL") case against Defendants APCO and
Bezmalinovic on July 15, 2022. He has moved for conditional
certification of a FLSA collective of all current and former
employees employed by the Defendants as non-exempt laborers or
similarly situated employees between July 15, 2016 and the present.
The Defendants oppose the motion and have moved to strike
Carabajo's declaration filed in support of his motion.
Carabajo resides in Queens, New York. APCO is a building insulation
and construction company with its principal place of business at
33-46 55th Street in Woodside, New York. Bezmalinovic is the VP of
APCO. From May 1, 2015 to Nov. 30, 2021, Carabajo worked for APCO
as an insulation prep and installer. He states that all employees
were required to work 50 hours per week.
Carabajo contends that he did not receive overtime pay for all the
hours worked over 40 hours per week. He was required to come into
work 15 minutes before he could clock-in and worked before he was
permitted to clock in but was not paid for that time. He also says
that 30 minutes per day were automatically subtracted from his
hours for a meal break, but his meal breaks were only 10 to 15
minutes. In March 2019, the Defendants instituted a written policy
that laborers would not be paid for a day if they did not clock in
or clock out properly, which resulted in Carabajo missing payment
for at least 8 overtime hours per month.
The Plaintiff also alleges that all APCO's laborers -- up to 50
such employees -- in New York were subject to these policies. To
demonstrate that the policies were common to other employees,
Carabajo alleges that he had conversations with at least 10 others
who performed similar work. Eight named laborers -- Felix, William,
Sandro, Vinicio, Roberto, Alfredo, Jesus, and Miguel -- told
Carabajo in January 2020 that it was the Defendants policy to take
out 30 minutes from their pay every day and that the Defendants did
not pay them all their overtime hours because of clock-in/out
issues. Carabajo only provides the first names of these workers.
The Defendants submitted declarations from eight employees with the
same or very similar first names as the eight individuals listed by
Carabajo. They contend that these are the eight co-workers that
Carabajo identified by first name only in his Declaration. The
declarations are virtually identical to each other and all but one
is dated Dec. 27, 2022.
Each declarant states that he worked as a mechanical insulator, a
position also known as an insulation prep and installer; that
Carabajo was employed by APCO during his employment; and he never
discussed with Carabajo that APCO failed to pay either of them some
or all of overtime wages that were due to them or being deprived of
their 30-minute meal break. Each also states that he has never been
underpaid by APCO and that to his knowledge, the same is true for
his coworkers. The eight add that they were not coerced or
threatened to make these declarations, were told that they did not
have to provide a written statement and were advised that there
would not be any consequence to not signing.
Carabajo asserts four causes of action: one FLSA claim, for failure
to pay overtime compensation, and three NYLL claims, for failure to
pay overtime wages, pay earned wages, and provide accurate wage
statements.
Carabajo seeks conditional certification of a collective of "all
current and former employees who worked for the Defendants as
non-exempt laborers, or similarly situated employees regardless of
job title and worked in the City of New York from July 15, 2016 to
the present."
The threshold issue in deciding whether to authorize collective
notice in an FLSA action is whether the Plaintiffs have
demonstrated that potential collective members are similarly
situated. FLSA requires employers to pay employees for all time
worked. The Defendants -- not contesting that their employees
worked overtime -- avers, in essence, their employees were never
refused pay.
Judge Bulsara finds that the merits of the Defendants' denials --
even if proven true in the end -- cannot be resolved at conditional
certification; the question is only whether Carabajo made his
modest factual showing that there was an illegal policy, applied to
him and others. He has done that, and as a result, it is
appropriate to grant the motion.
However, the notice to all non-exempt employees at APCO is not
appropriate. Judge Bulsara reasons that while the written policy of
docking overtime may have applied company-wide, Carabajo has only
demonstrated its enforcement to mechanical insulators. As such, the
collective and its attendant notice will be limited to non-exempt
mechanical insulators or individuals who worked as an insulation
installer.
Carabajo also requests a six-year notice period for the collective.
He offers no argument as to why such a period is appropriate, other
than to say courts reject requests to limit the notice period.
Judge Bulsara finds that it is appropriate to permit conditional
certification for a three-year period. Should Carabajo fail to
demonstrate that Defendants acted willfully, employee claims can be
limited. The three-year period solely for notice purposes should
commence from the date of the filing of the Complaint looking
backwards and not the date of the Court's order through the
present.
Carabajo then asks the Court to order the Defendants to produce the
names and contact information of potential collective members,
including names, titles, compensation rates, last known mailing
addresses, email addresses, all known telephone numbers (including
cell phone numbers), social security numbers, and dates of
employment.
Judge Bulsara holds that Carabajo has not yet demonstrated that
social security numbers are necessary to locate potential
collective members. Therefore, the Defendants will produce names,
titles, compensation rates, last known mailing addresses, email
addresses, all telephone numbers, and dates of employment for
potential collective members but will not produce social security
numbers at this time.
Carabajo further asks the Court to approve his proposed notice,
which includes a 60-day opt-in period. He requests that notice be
sent via mail, email, and text message. He also requests that the
Court requires the Defendants to post notice and the accompanying
consent forms at their business locations. The Defendants raise a
number of concerns regarding the Proposed Notice. These include the
fact that the notice language is "unnecessarily biased," the notice
contains the case caption, and the notice fails to fully explain
the consequences of joining to opt-in plaintiffs.
Judge Bulsara directs the parties to meet and confer to discuss any
changes to the proposed notice and provide a revised proposed
notice to the Court for review. Carabajo may also send a reminder
notice via mail, email, and text message halfway through the opt-in
period. It also appropriate to grant Carabajo's request for the
notice and reminder notice to be sent in both English and Spanish.
Carabajo argues that the FLSA statute of limitations should be
tolled until the opt-in notice can be sent to potential plaintiffs.
However, Judge Bulsara holds that equitable tolling is appropriate
only in rare and exceptional circumstances where a plaintiff has
been prevented in some extraordinary way from exercising his
rights. Carabajo's arguments do not conform to the equitable
tolling doctrine as described by the Supreme Court and the Second
Circuit because his generic request does not attempt to establish
any of the necessary factors for tolling and relies solely on a
vague allegation of "delay," which is insufficient. He also does
not demonstrate that any putative members' claims will be time
barred to substantiate his request for equitable tolling. As such,
his request is denied.
Along with opposing Carabajo's collective certification motion, the
Defendants filed a motion to strike Carabajo's declaration
submitted in support. In response, Carabajo submitted a revised
declaration that addressed the Defendants' concerns regarding a
reference to "security guards" and a lack of certification that the
declaration was translated into Carabajo's native Spanish.
Judge Bulsara says the Defendants do not seek to strike the revised
declaration. As such, the original declaration is no longer
operative, he has not relied on it in deciding this motion, and
therefore denies the motion to strike as moot.
For these reasons, Carabajo's motion to conditionally certify a
collective FLSA action is granted in part and denied in part. The
collective extends to current and former non-exempt mechanical
insulators or individuals, who worked as an insulation installer
for the Defendants in New York City for a three-year period. In
addition, the revised proposed notice to be sent to the potential
opt-in parties should be submitted to the Court for final approval.
Other requests regarding the notice form, distribution, and other
matters are resolved as detailed. The Defendants' motion to strike
is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2zxbz8ez from Leagle.com.
APPLIED MATERIALS: Faces James Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LARY MARTIN JAMES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.; and DOES
1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23CV417412 (Cal.
Super., Santa Clara Cty., June 13, 2023) alleges that the
Defendants engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour
violations under the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders, all of which contribute to Defendants'
deliberate unfair competition.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have increased their profits
by violating state wage and hour laws by, among other things: (a)
failing to pay all wages (including minimum wages and overtime
wages); (b) failing to provide lawful meal periods or compensation
in lieu thereof; (c) failing to authorize or permit lawful rest
breaks or provide compensation in lieu thereof; (d) failing to
reimburse necessary business-related costs; (e) failing to provide
accurate itemized wage statements; (f) failing to pay wages timely
during employment; and (g) failing to pay all wages due upon
separation of employment.
The Plaintiff and other California residents were employed by the
Defendants as non-exempt employees throughout the state.
Applied Materials, Inc. is an American corporation that supplies
equipment, services and software for the manufacture of
semiconductor chips for electronics, flat panel displays for
computers, smartphones, televisions, and solar products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
Kashif Haque, Esq.
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 379-6250
Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
E-mail: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Depinto Says
------------------------------------------------------------
LEONARDO DEPINTO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APRIA HEALTHCARE LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-01056-TWP-KMB (S.D. Ind., June 17, 2023) is a
class action against Apria for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated Apria patients'
sensitive information, including full names, addresses, financial
account information, and contact information as well as protected
health information, including medical information and treatment
information from criminal hackers.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members have
suffered and are at an imminent, immediate, and continuing
increased risk of suffering, ascertainable losses in the form of
harm from identity theft and other fraudulent misuse of their
Private Information, the loss of the benefit of their bargain,
out-of-pocket expenses incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects
of the Data Breach, and the value of their time reasonably incurred
to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach.
The Plaintiff seeks to address Apria's inadequate safeguarding of
Class Members' Private Information that it collected and
maintained, and its failure to provide timely and adequate notice
to Plaintiff and Class Members of the types of information that
were accessed, and that such information was subject to
unauthorized access by cybercriminals.
APRIA HEALTHCARE INC. provides medical equipment and clinical
services. The Company offers oxygen therapy, nebulized respiratory
medication, sleep management, negative pressure wound therapy, and
overnight oximetry testing services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
Milberg Coleman Bryson, Esq.
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
ARYEH HOSPITALITY: Hassan Sues Over Failure to Refund Monies
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Hassan and Cindy Hassan, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. ARYEH HOSPITALITY LLC, a New Jersey
limited liability company d/b/a ARYEH HOSPITALITY GROUP, HERSCH
GOLDSTEIN a/k/a HESHY GOLDSTEIN; JGOLD SUPREME SERVICES LLC, a New
York limited liability company and JOEL GOLDSTEIN, Case No.
BER-L-002666-23 (N.J. Super. Cty., Bergen Cty., May 19, 2023), is
brought on behalf of all other persons who paid monies to Defendant
to attend a Pesach, or Passover, Program at the Claridge Hotel in
Atlantic City, New Jersey from April 4, 2023 to April 14, 2023. The
Passover Program did not take place as advertised, and the
Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated, did not receive a
refund on the monies paid by them to attend the Passover Program.
Prior to the start of Passover in 2023, in late 2022, Defendant,
ARYEH, advertised in periodicals circulated in the observant Jewish
Community, that a Passover program was to at the Claridge Hotel in
be-held Atlantic City, New Jersey. The advertisements stated that
the Passover Program would take place at the historic and newly
renovated Claridge Hotel, and would include accommodations and
meals prepared by Executive Chef, Jerry Reiner, In addition, the
advertisements stated there would be Rabbis and other persons who
would be speakers and lecturers, music programs, and other forms of
entertainment. The advertisements by Defendant, ARYEH, promised a
full and self-contained Passover experience to those wishing to
attend.
On March 29,2023, Plaintiffs received an email from Defendant,
ARYEH, directed to its Passover guests stating that Defendant,
ARYEH, was the victim of a financial scam, was not sure if it could
continue, and was trying to find an alternative option. The
Plaintiffs received no further substantive communications from
Defendant, ARYEH, regarding continuation of the Passover Program or
the location of an alternate site for the Passover Program The
Passover Program advertised by Defendant, ARYEH, was not held at
the Claridge Hotel in April 2023, or at any other location. In
breach of its contractual obligations to Plaintiffs, HASSAN,
Defendant, ARYEH, has not refunded to Plaintiffs, HASSAN, the sum
of $23,000.00 paid by Plaintiffs, HASSAN, to attend the Passover
Program in April 2023. In breach of its contractual obligations to
Class Members, Defendant, ARYEH, has not refunded to Class Members
the monies paid by Class Members to attend the Passover Program in
April 2023, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs reside at 174 Cherry Lane, Teaneck, New Jersey.
ARYEH has a main business address of 193Ashdown Forest Lane, Toms
River, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles I. Epstein, Esq.
27 Warren Street, Suite 304
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: 201-489-7600
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Laskey Allowed Leave to File Reply Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Laskey, et al., v.
Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:22-cv-03194
(W.D. Mo., Filed July 29, 2022), the Hon. Judge M. Douglas Harpool
entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
leave to file under seal their reply in support of the motion for
class certification.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Fraud.
Bluegreen Vacations is a leisure, travel, and tourism company.[CC]
BOTH INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dail Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN DAIL; BRITTANY TURNER; KATHY TURNER; FERMIN MARTINEZ;
BARBARA ZEUCH; DANIELLE DAIL; MELISSA POWERS; ASHLEY PARRISH;
PATRICIA NEVILLE POPE; BRITTNEY MICHIE; KELLIE PIERCE; SHARON
PENDLETON; ESTEBAN FELICIANO; and SABRINA MILLER, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BOTH,
INC.; G.C. OF NEWPORT NEWS, L.L.C.; G.C. OF WILLIAMSBURG, L.L.C.;
G.C. OF CHESAPEAKE SQUARE, L.L.C.; G.C. OF CHESAPEAKE, INC.; G.C.
OF FREDERICKSBURG PARTNERS, L.L.C.; G.C. OF FREDERICKSBURG, L.L.C.;
G.C. OF MANASSAS, L.L.C.; G.C. OF VIRGINIA BEACH, L.L.C.; BOTH
DEVELOPMENT OF MARYLAND, INC.; G.C. OF FULLERTON, L.L.C.; G.C. OF
FULLERTON PARTNERS, L.L.C.; G.C. OF CAPITAL CENTRE, L.L.C.; G.C. OF
WALDORF, L.L.C.; and G.C. OF WALDORF PARTNERS, L.L.C., Defendants,
2:23-cv-00276 (E.D. Va., June 16, 2023) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as servers.
BOTH INC. owns and manages Golden Corral, an American restaurant
chain which offers an all-you-can-eat buffet and grill. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harris D. Butler, III, Esq.
Craig J. Curwood, Esq.
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
Samantha Galina, Esq.
BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
Email: harris@butlercurwood.com
craig@butlercurwood.com
zev@butlercurwood.com
samantha@butlercurwood.com
BRIGHTON BEST INTERNATIONAL: Durham Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brighton Best
International, Inc. The case is styled as Brandon Durham,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v.
Brighton Best International, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03221 (N.D.
Ill., May 22, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Brighton-Best International -- https://www.brightonbest.com/ -- is
the ultimate fasteners, screws and bolts supplier, servicing
distributors only.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith L. Gibson, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF KEITH L. GIBSON
490 Pennsylvania Avenue
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Phone: (630) 677-6745
Email: keith@keithgibsonlaw.com
- and -
Bogdan Enica, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF KEITH L. GIBSON
66 West Flagler, Ste. Unit # 937
Miami, FL 33130
Phone: (888) 252-7780
Email: bogdan@keithgibsonlaw.com
C3.AI: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Reckstin Suit Set for August 17
----------------------------------------------------------------
C3.ai, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period
ending April 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 21, 2023, that the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California will hear motions to dismiss the
putative Reckstin securities class suit on August 17, 2023.
On March 4, 2022, a putative securities class action complaint
(captioned The Reckstin Family Trust v. C3.ai, Inc. et al.,
22-cv-01413-HSG) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company, and certain
current and former officers and directors.
On December 12, 2022, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.
On February 15, 2023, the lead plaintiff and three additional named
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint names as defendants the Company, four current
and former officers and directors, the underwriters in the
Company's IPO, and Baker Hughes Company. The amended complaint
generally alleges that the defendants made material misstatements
or omissions about the Company's partnership with Baker Hughes and
the Company's own salesforce.
The amended complaint alleges that defendants made these
misstatements or omissions in connection with the Company's IPO in
violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
between December 9, 2020 and December 2, 2021, inclusive, in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
The amended complaint further alleges that certain defendants
engaged in insider trading in violation of Section 20A of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, interest, fees and costs.
All defendants have now moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended
complaint on May 1, 2023.
Those motions are scheduled to be heard on August 17, 2023.
C3.ai operates as an enterprise AI software company. The Company
offers a variety of SaaS applications for enterprises, as well as
software solutions and integrated turnkey enterprise AI
applications for oil and gas, chemicals, utilities, manufacturing,
financial services, defense, intelligence, aerospace, healthcare,
and telecommunications market segments. The Company also has
purported strategic partnerships with Baker Hughes related to oil
and gas markets; FIS related to financial services markets;
Raytheon; and AWS, Intel, and Microsoft. The Individual Defendants
are officers of the company.[BN]
CANOPY GROWTH: Continues to Defend Asmara Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Canopy Growth Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 22, 2023, that the Company continues to
defend itself from the Asmara putative class suit in the Supreme
Court of British Columbia.
On June 15, 2023, an ostensible shareholder commenced a putative
class action (Asmaro v. Canopy Growth Corporation et al., Court
File No. VLC-S-S-234351) against the Company and two of its
officers in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on behalf of all
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities
of the Company between August 6, 2021 and May 10, 2023.
The lawsuit alleges that between August 6, 2021 and February 9,
2023 the Company published core and non-core documents containing
misrepresentations that were publicly corrected on May 10, 2023 and
claims that the defendants are liable to the class for damages
resulting from those misrepresentations under the Securities Act
(British Columbia) and at common law. The plaintiff seeks an
unspecified amount of damages.
The Company denies the alleged misconduct and liability for all
claims asserted, believes that the defendants have meritorious
defenses to the lawsuit, and expects to vigorously defend the
claims, although the Company cannot predict when or how it will be
resolved or estimate what the potential loss or range of loss would
be, if any.
Canopy Growth produces, distributes, and sells a diverse range of
cannabis, hemp, and consumer packaged goods ("CPG") products for
recreational and medical use.[BN]
CANOPY GROWTH: Continues to Defend Consumer Protection Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Canopy Growth Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 22, 2023, that the Company continues to
defend itself from Consumer Protection Act related class suit in
Calgary, Canada.
In July 2020, Canopy Growth was added as a defendant in a proposed
class action commenced against a large number of Canadian license
holders including Aurora Cannabis Inc.; Aurora Cannabis Enterprises
Inc.; AuroraCo.; Aleafiaco; Aleafia Health Inc.; Emblem Cannabis
Corp.; Hexo Corp.; HexoCo; Cronos Group Inc.; Cronosco; Tilray
Canada Ltd.; Organigram Holdings Inc.; OrganigramCo; MediPharm Labs
Corp.; MediPharmCo; CanopyCo; Aphria Inc.; Broken Coast Cannabis
Ltd.; AphriaCo; Emerald Cannabis Corporation; Emerald Health
Therapeutics, Inc.; and EmeraldCo.
The proposed class action was commenced in the Alberta Court of
Queen's Bench sitting at Calgary. The plaintiffs allege that the
defendants, including Canopy Growth, marketed and sold medicinal
and adult-use cannabis products with an advertised content of THC
and CBD and that the amount of THC and/or CBD as contained on the
label was wrong and outside the permissible variability limits.
The claim alleges the following causes of action indiscriminately
against all of the defendants: breach of contract and breach of
consumer protection legislation, including the various Sale of
Goods Acts and Consumer Protection Acts; common law and statutory
misrepresentation; negligence in product labelling; breach of the
duty to warn; unjust enrichment; waiver of tort.
The claim seeks an aggregate of $505 million in damages as against
all of the defendants) and $5,000,000 in punitive damages against
each defendant plus an accounting of revenues from each defendant.
Canopy Growth produces, distributes, and sells a diverse range of
cannabis, hemp, and consumer packaged goods ("CPG") products for
recreational and medical use.[BN]
CANOPY GROWTH: Continues to Defend Turpel Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Canopy Growth Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 22, 2023, that the Company continues to
defend itself from the putative Turpel class suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
On May 23, 2023, a shareholder filed a putative class action
against the Company and two of its officers in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who
purchased or otherwise acquired our securities between May 31, 2022
and May 10, 2023, Turpel v. Canopy Growth Corporation, et al., No.
1:23-cv-0423. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by allegedly overstating revenue recognized
from sales of its BioSteel business unit and allegedly failing to
disclose material weaknesses in internal controls over accounting
and financial reporting, among other allegations related to
disclosure, and that disclosure of the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis, among other allegations.
The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, and other relief.
The Company denies the alleged misconduct and liability for all
claims asserted, believe it has meritorious defenses to the lawsuit
and expect to defend it vigorously, although it cannot predict when
or how it will be resolved or estimate what the potential loss or
range of loss would be, if any.
Canopy Growth produces, distributes, and sells a diverse range of
cannabis, hemp, and consumer packaged goods ("CPG") products for
recreational and medical use.[BN]
CANOPY GROWTH: Continues to Defend Twidale Class Suit in Ontario
----------------------------------------------------------------
Canopy Growth Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 22, 2023, that the Company continues to
defend itself from the Twidale putative class suit in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice.
On May 26, 2023, an ostensible shareholder commenced a putative
class action (Twidale v. Canopy Growth Corporation et al., Court
File No. CV-23-00700135-00CP) against the Company and eight of its
directors and officers in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on
behalf of securityholders who suffered losses when certain alleged
misrepresentations were publicly disclosed.
The lawsuit alleges that the Company's disclosures contained
misrepresentations with the meaning of the Securities Act
(Ontario), that certain directors and officers authorized,
permitted, or acquiesced in the release of the impugned
disclosures, and that all of the defendants are liable for damages
to the putative class.
The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of damages, interest,
legal fees, and the costs of administering a plan of distribution
of the recovery.
The Company denies the alleged misconduct and liability for all
claims asserted, believes that the defendants have meritorious
defenses to the lawsuit, and expects to vigorously defend the
claims, although the Company cannot predict when or how it will be
resolved or estimate what the potential loss or range of loss would
be, if any.
Canopy Growth produces, distributes, and sells a diverse range of
cannabis, hemp, and consumer packaged goods ("CPG") products for
recreational and medical use.[BN]
CITY VIEW MULTICARE: Gamble Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City View Multicare
Center, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Evelyn Gamble, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. City View Multicare
Center, LLC, Infinity Healthcare Management of Illinois LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-03029 (N.D. Ill., May 15, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Acts.
City View Multicare Center -- http://www.cityviewmcc.com/-- is a
nursing home in Cicero, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI LLC
125 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (224) 698-2630
Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
CONTRACT LAND: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Crager Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER CRAGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CONTRACT LAND STAFF, LLC, Case No. 8:23-cv-01357 (M.D.
Fla., June 16, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid
wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Crager was employed by the Defendant as a lead land
representative.
CONTRACT LAND STAFF, LLC provides staffing services. The Company
offers its services to pipeline, electric transmission, wind and
solar, and public sector industries. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
Morgan & Morgan, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 867-4791
Email: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
CONTRACT LAND: Weinmann Bid for Conditional Status Partly OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GAYL WEINMANN,
individually and for others similarly situated, v. CONTRACT LAND
STAFF, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01140-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Christy Criswell Wiegand entered an order granting in part Ms.
Weinmann's motion for conditional certification and court
authorized notice, such that the Court has conditionally certified
a collective action and authorize notice, and denying in part, such
that the collective action is limited to those putative members who
worked in Pennsylvania.
The following proposed collective shall be conditionally certified
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b):
"All Right of Way Agents, including title agents, right-of-way
agents, and supervisors, who worked in Pennsylvania for, or on
behalf of, CLS who were paid a day rate with no overtime in the
past three years from _______, 2020 to the present (the Day-Rate
ROW Agents)."
Ms. Weinmann is authorized to send the Notice and Consent forms
pursuant to the Court's attachment.
In addition, courts have found that reminder notice "is a neutral
communication that does recommend [collective] participation and is
reasonable to distribute."
CLS is a land management consulting company that provides clients
with services related to right-of-way, title, acquisition,
permitting, regulatory, and other land management issues.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/469hmRp at no extra charge.[CC]
CREDIT UNION: Lopez Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Union of New
Jersey. The case is styled as Myasia Lopez, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Enzo Biochem, Inc., Enzo
Clinical Labs Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-02659-ZNQ-DEA (D.N.J., May 17,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Credit Union of New Jersey started in 1943 as the credit union for
state highway employees offering only loans and savings
accounts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Francis, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 735-8600
Email: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Eric Thom Evans
GORDON & REES LLP
18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 220
Florham Park, NJ 07932
Phone: (973) 549-2500
Fax: (973) 377-1911
Email: eevans@grsm.com
CRUNCHBASE INC: Parties Seek More Time to File Responsive Pleading
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT CASAR and MICHAEL
FINK, v. CRUNCHBASE, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00950-JG (N.D. Ohio),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the time for
the Defendant to file its responsive pleading and to dispose of the
Placeholder Motion for Class Certification per the Stipulation of
the Defendant not to make a settlement tender to the named the
Plaintiffs.
The Parties have engaged in preliminary discussions regarding this
case including the resolution of the Plaintiffs’ Placeholder
Motion for Class Certification).
The Defendant requests an extension of time to July 10, 2023, to
file its responsive pleading to allow its counsel adequate time to
prepare its responsive pleading.
CrunchBase operates as a software company. The Company offers
prospecting and research solutions.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42QkNJR at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
ANDERSON & WANCA
3701 Algonquin Road, Ste. 500
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Telephone: (847) 368-1501
Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Aneca E. Lasley, Esq.
Kishala Srivastava, Esq.
ICE MILLER LLP
250 West Street, Suite 700
Columbus, OH 43215-7509
Telephone: (614) 232-1085
Facsimile: (614) 232-6899
E-mail: Aneca.Lasley@icemiller.com
Kishala.Srivastava@icemiller.com
DEUTSCHE BANK: Conspires to Control Price of Gilt Bonds, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
DEUTSCHE BANK AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT (F/K/A DEUTSCHE BANK AG); DEUTSCHE
BANK SECURITIES INC.; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS LIMITED; CITIGROUP
GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; RBC EUROPE LIMITED; RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC;
HSBC BANK PLC; HSBC SECURITIES (USA) INC.; MORGAN STANLEY & CO.
INTERNATIONAL PLC; and MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 1:23-cv-05095 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' anticompetitive scheme to fix,
raise, maintain, stabilize, or otherwise manipulate the price of
British pound sterling-denominated United Kingdom (UK) government
bonds (Gilt Bonds or Gilts) sold and purchased throughout the
United States from at least as early as January 1, 2009 through at
least December 31, 2013. The Defendants' traders orchestrated and
maintained their conspiracy via regular electronic communications
through private online chatroom communications. Through such
communications, these traders colluded to manipulate the
allocations and prices of Gilt Bonds in the primary and secondary
markets. In furtherance of the scheme, the Defendants and their
co-conspirators secretly exchanged commercially and competitively
sensitive information, including the prices they offered to
customers, and trading strategies. This conduct benefitted the
Defendants, to the detriment of investors in the market, including
the Plaintiff and the Class, says the suit.
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System is a government
agency based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft is a banking company, with its
principal place of business located in Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. is a capital market company, with its
principal place of business located at 1 Columbus Circle, New York,
New York.
Citigroup Global Markets Limited is a wholly owned broker-dealer
subsidiary of Citigroup Inc., located at Canada Square, Canary
Wharf, London, E14 5LB, United Kingdom.
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. is a wholly owned broker-dealer
subsidiary of Citigroup Inc., located at 388 Greenwich Street, New
York, New York.
RBC Europe Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of Royal Bank of
Canada, with its principal place of business at 100 Bishopsgate,
London, EC2N 4AA, United Kingdom.
RBC Capital Markets LLC is a global investment banking company,
headquartered in Toronto, Canada.
HSBC Bank PLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of HSBC Holdings Inc.,
located at 8 Canada Square London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom.
HSBC Securities (USA) Inc. is a multinational investment bank and
financial services company, with its headquarters located at 1585
Broadway, New York, New York.
Morgan Stanley & Co. International PLC is a wholly owned subsidiary
of Morgan Stanley, with its principal place of business at 20 Cabot
Square Canary Wharf, London E14 4QW, United Kingdom.
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC is an affiliate broker of HSBC Securities
(USA) Inc., with headquarters at 1585 Broadway, New York, New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick Coughlin, Esq.
Carmen Medici, Esq.
Fatima Brizuela, Esq.
Daniel J. Brockwell, Esq.
John Smallwood, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-4565
Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
E-mail: pcoughlin@scott-scott.com
cmedici@scott-scott.com
fbrizuela@scott-scott.com
dbrockwell@scott-scott.com
jsmallwood@scott-scott.com
- and -
Kristen M. Anderson, Esq.
Donald A. Broggi, Esq.
Michelle E. Conston, Esq.
Patrick J. Rodriguez, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Ave., 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
E-mail: kanderson@scott-scott.com
dbroggi@scott-scott.com
mconston@scott-scott.com
prodriguez@scott-scott.com
- and -
David R. Scott, Esq.
Amanda Lawrence, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
156 South Main Street
P.O. Box 192
Colchester, CT 06415
Telephone: (860) 537-5537
Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
E-mail: david.scott@scott-scott.com
alawrence@scott-scott.com
EFG GENERAL: Court Junks Racca Bid to Remand Case
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONDA RACCA, v. EFG
GENERAL PARTNER CORP., EDUCATION FUTURES MANAGEMENT, COMPANY,
EDUCATION FUTURES GROUP, LLC, COMPUTER CAREER CENTER, L.P. d/b/a
Vista College, and JIM TOLBERT, Case No. 1:22-cv-00142-MAC (E.D.
Tex.), the Hon. Judge Marcia A. Crone entered an order denying
Racca's opposed renewed motion to remand.
American National Property & Casualty Co., Cedar Lodge Plantation,
and Braud exemplify the Fifth Circuit's adherence to the rule that
a federal court's exercise of CAFA jurisdiction is governed by the
operative pleading at the time of removal, not a plaintiff's
post-removal amendments. Nevertheless, the Fifth Circuit has
acknowledged that a district court "may properly remand if the
amendment dismissing the removing defendant was made forlegitimate
purposes" and minimal diversity is lacking.
Although minimal diversity still existed between the Braud
plaintiffs and a remaining defendant after the removing defendant
was dismissed, the Fifth Circuit instructed that courts without
minimal diversity "must consider the reasons behind the amendment
[dismissing the removing defendant] in determining whether remand
is proper. If the plaintiff amended simply to destroy diversity,
the district court should not remand. But an amendment that is made
for legitimate purposes may be a proper ground for a remand to
state court."
The court's prior Order denying Racca's initial motion to remand
determined that CAFA jurisdiction was proper in this case at the
time of removal. Racca has not provided any "legitimate purpose"
for amending her complaint to omit all class action allegations and
abandon her claims against the diverse defendants.
Vista formerly operated as a private, post-secondary educational
institution, with its headquarters located in Richardson, Texas.
The Richardson location was licensed to provide online education to
students located in twenty-eight other states.
Vista operated five Texas campuses that provided in-person
education, located in Beaumont, College Station, Killeen, El Paso,
and Longview. Vista also maintained campuses outside of Texas—in
Las Cruces, New
Mexico, and Fort Smith, Arkansas.
On October 12, 2021, Racca, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons, filed this class action lawsuit in the 136th
District Court of Jefferson County, Texas, against the Defendants.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46bPjAP at no extra charge.[CC]
EMERSON ELECTRIC: Miller Sues Over Defective InSinkErator Badgers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANITA MILLER; and CHERYL MORASKA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EMERSON ELECTRIC COMPANY;
and WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION d/b/a INSINKERATOR or INSINKERATOR, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-03797 (N.D. Ill., June 15, 2023)
alleges violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Trade Practices Act.
According to the complaint, InSinkErator has been selling the
Badgers since the 1990s and represents the Badgers to consumers as
setting the "standard for performance and reliability," delivering
"advanced performance" for home garbage disposals, and ranging in
retail price from approximately $100–$200. InSinkErator
represents to consumers that the Badgers are quality, long- lasting
garbage disposals that are made with "Rugged Galvanized Steel
Construction (For Disposer Durability)."
However, despite this explicit representation that the Badgers'
materials were selected for "Disposer Durability," InSinkErator
selected materials, designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed,
and sold the Badgers with improper materials, including zinc
coated, galvanized steel (the "Defect"). The Defect allows the
water from the sink faucet to permeate the zinc coating and corrode
the steel and causes the plastic casing/housing and/or the bottom
of the Badgers to prematurely fail and leak into cabinetry and onto
flooring, says the suit.
EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. designs and manufactures electronic and
electrical equipment, software, systems, and services. The Company
offers its products for industrial, commercial, and consumer
markets worldwide through its network power, process management,
industrial automation, climate technologies, and commercial and
residential solutions divisions. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Harper T. Segui, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, LLC
825 Lowcountry Blvd., Suite 101
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
Email: hsegui@milberg.com
- and -
Rachel Soffin, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, LLC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
Email: rsoffin@milberg.com
- and -
Thomas Pacheco, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, LLC
15453 Indianola Drive
Derwood, MD 20855
Telephone: (212) 946-9305
Email: tpacheco@milberg.com
- and -
Jonathan Feavel
FEAVEL & PORTER, LLP
36 North 5th Street
Vincennes, IN 47591
Telephone: (812) 886-9230
Facsimile: (812) 886-9161
Email: feavel@feavelandporter.com
ENZO BIOCHEM: Netrosio Sues Over Failure to Secure Patients' Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIE V. NETROSIO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENZO BIOCHEM, INC. AND ENZO CLINICAL LABS,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-04303 (E.D.N.Y., June 12, 2023)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence
per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust
enrichment/quasi contract, breach of confidence, and declaratory
judgment for failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's
and other similarly situated Enzo patients' personally identifiable
information and protected health information.
On May 30, 2023, Enzo filed documents with the Securities and
Exchange Commission giving notice of "a ransomware attack that
impacted certain information technology systems." On May 31, 2023,
Enzo also sent out data breach letters to individuals whose private
information was compromised as a result of the hacking incident.
Based on the notice Defendants filed with the SEC and the letter
sent to Plaintiff Netrosio, Enzo's investigation revealed that an
unauthorized party had access to certain files that contained
sensitive information belonging to Plaintiff and Class Members, and
that such access took place between April 4 and April 6, 2023.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and are at an
imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of suffering,
ascertainable losses in the form of harm from identity theft and
other fraudulent misuse of their private information, out-of-pocket
expenses incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the data
breach, lost value of their respective PII and PHI that was
impacted in the data breach, and the value of their time reasonably
incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the data breach, says
the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself and
all similarly situated individuals whose private information was
accessed and/or compromised during the data breach.
Enzo Biochem, Inc., which is based in Farmingdale, New York, is a
life sciences and molecular diagnostics company that provides
clinical research services and develops products such as DNA
tests.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mason A. Barney, Esq.
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.com
ENZO BIOCHEM: Weinman Sues Over Failure to Secure Patients' Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARJORIE WEINMAN, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENZO BIOCHEM, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-04965-VEC (S.D.N.Y., June 13, 2023) is
a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of
implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of the New York
Deceptive Trade Practices Act arising from the cyberattack and data
breach resulting from Enzo's failure to implement reasonable and
industry standard data security practices.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint against Defendant for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally
identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part
of its regular business practices, including, but not limited to,
names, Social Security numbers, ("personally identifying
information" or "PII") and medical and/or clinical information,
which is protected health information ("PHI" and collectively with
PII, "Private Information") as defined by the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injuries as a result
of Defendant's conduct. These injuries include: (i) invasion of
privacy; (ii) loss of benefit of the bargain; (iii) lost time,
spent on activities remedying harms resulting from the Data Breach;
(iv) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate
the actual consequences of the Data Breach; and (v) the continued
and certainly increased risk to their Private Information, which:
(a) remains unencrypted and available for unauthorized third
parties to access and abuse; and (b) remain backed up in
Defendant's possession and is subject to further unauthorized
disclosures so long as Defendant fails to undertake appropriate and
adequate measures to protect the Private Information, says the
suit.
Enzo Biochem, Inc., which is based in Farmingdale, New York, is a
life sciences and molecular diagnostics company that provides
clinical research services and develops products such as DNA
tests.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
E-mail: vmaniatis@milberg.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
ESTES FORWARDING: Villalobos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Estes Forwarding
Worldwide, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Eric Villalobos,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Estes
Forwarding Worldwide, LLC, Estes Express Lines, GI Trucking
Company, Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2023-0005691 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 24,
2023).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Estes Forwarding Worldwide LLC -- https://efwnow.com/ -- provides
logistics services. The Company offers truckload, consolidation,
documentation, supply chain, warehousing, distribution management,
and other services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
Phone: 213-488-6555
Fax: 213-488-6554
Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Garrett V. Jensen, Esq.
CDF LABOR LAW LLP
18300 Von Karman Ave., Ste. 800
Irvine, CA 92612-1037
Phone: 949-622-1661
Email: gjensen@cdflaborlaw.com
FELTON INSTITUTE: Cofield Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Felton Institute, et
al. The case is styled as Vincent Edward Cofield, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Felton Institute,
Does 1 Through 10, Inclusive, Case No. CGC23606837 (Cal. Super.
Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 24, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Felton Institute -- https://felton.org/ -- provides innovative,
evidence-based social services & treatments that transform
lives.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
Phone: 213-232-3128
Fax: 213-232-3125
Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
FOWLER PACKING: Class Settlement in Aldapa Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BEATRIZ ALDAPA, et al., v.
FOWLER PACKING COMPANY INC., Case No. 1:15-cv-00420-ADA-SAB (E.D.
Cal.), the Court entered an order:
1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class
action settlement;
2. confirming Beatriz Aldapa and Elmer Avalos as class
representatives;
3. confirming the Plaintiffs' counsel, Martinez Aguilasocho Law,
Inc., and Bush Gottlieb, A Law Corporation, as class counsel;
and
4. confirming CPT Group as Settlement Administrator; and
5. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for an award of attorney'
fees
and costs and incentive awards:
a. Class counsel shall receive $2,625,000.00 in attorneys'
fees
and $465,392.72 in costs;
b. The Plaintiffs Aldapa and Avalos shall each receive $10,000
as
an incentive payment; and
c. CPT Group, Inc. shall receive $92,500 in settlement
administration costs.
Fowler Packing produces fruits and related products.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ji92EU at no extra charge.[CC]
FRC BALANCE LLC: Durham Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FRC Balance LLC. The
case is styled as Brandee Haley, Julia Velasquez, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FRC Balance LLC doing
business as: True Food Kitchen, Case No. 1:23-cv-00666-TSE-IDD
(E.D. Va., May 22, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.
FRC Balance LLC doing business as True Food Kitchen --
https://www.truefoodkitchen.com/ -- is a culinary destination
rooted in nutritional science.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith L. Gibson, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF KEITH L. GIBSON
490 Pennsylvania Avenue
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Phone: (630) 677-6745
Email: keith@keithgibsonlaw.com
G.D. BARRI: Enriquez Seeks Conditional Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Enrico Enriquez,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
G.D. Barri & Associates, Inc., an Arizona Corporation, Case No.
2:23-cv-00611-MTL (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order granting conditional certification bid, notice methods,
and consent forms.
Mr. Enriquez contends that her has more than met the lenient
standard for conditional certification.
Enriquez moves for conditional certification of the following
collective:
"All employees of GD Barri & Associates who were paid straight
time for overtime and staffed to power plants or similar
facilities
in the last three years."
The Plaintiff filed this collective action lawsuit pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to recover unpaid overtime wages
owed to current and former employees of GD Barri.
GD Barri provides contract labor solutions to power plants and
similar facilities.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 6, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Cyv9TM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel R. Randall, Esq.
RANDALL LAW PLLC
4742 N 24th Street, Suite 300
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 328-0262
Facsimile: (602) 926-1479
E-mail: srandall@randallslaw.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: rschreiber@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard ("Rex") J. Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 1325
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
GALE HEALTHCARE: Perez Suit Alleges Unlawful Payroll Card Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SONIA PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GALE HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-03837 (N.D. Ill., June 16, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for its unlawful maintenance of a mandatory
payroll card program that subjects its employees to loading fees,
transfer fees, and withdrawal fees in violation of the Illinois
Wage Payment and Collection Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Registered Nurse
from approximately early 2019 until May 15, 2021.
Gale Healthcare Solutions, LLC is a provider of recruiting,
credentialing, staffing, and payroll solutions, with its principal
place of business in Tampa, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven Molitor, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JULIE O. HERRERA
159 N. Sangamon Street, Suite 200
Chicago, IL 60607
Telephone: (312) 479-3014
Facsimile: (708) 843-5802
E-mail: jherrera@julieherreralaw.com
smolitor@julieherreralaw.com
- and -
Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
Paige L. Smith, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
135 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3210
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 782-4880
Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
psmith@caffertyclobes.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Alexander E. Wolf, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
280 South Beverly Drive, Penthouse
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (872) 365-7060
E-mail: awolf@milberg.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Clarifies Class Definition in Siqueiros Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAUL SIQUEIROS, et al., v.
GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-07244-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Edward M. Chen entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
motion for clarification of the class definition.
The Court clarifies the class definition to require Class Vehicle
ownership as of May 23, 2022, the date of Class Notice:
California Class
"All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that was
purchased or leased in new condition in the State of
California as of May 23, 2022;"
Idaho Class
"All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that
was purchased or leased from a GM-authorized dealer in the State
of
Idaho as of May 23, 2022;" and
North Carolina Class
"All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that was
purchased or leased in the State of North Carolina as of May 23,
2022."
The Court denies the Plaintiffs' motion for punitive damages under
the Idaho Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiffs did not "itemize" their claim for punitive damages
in the Joint Pretrial Statement, only mentioning that the
Plaintiffs "seek monetary damages measured by the difference
between the value of the allegedly defective Class Vehicles
received and the Value of the Class Vehicles without the alleged
defect. "
Nor did the Plaintiffs refer to punitive damages in their Trial
Brief. Consequently, the Court did not discuss punitive damages in
its Pretrial Order. By not seeking punitive damages in the Joint
Pretrial Statement or elsewhere in the pretrial briefing or in
instructing the jury, the Plaintiffs have waived their request for
punitive damages.
This is a vehicle defect class action in the post-trial stage. the
Plaintiffs are class members from Idaho, California, and North
Carolina who have sued GM. The Plaintiffs allege that GM sold a
defective engine model in certain vehicles that had an excessive
oil consumption problem.
The Court certified three claims for trial: (1) breach of implied
warranty under California's Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, (2)
breach of implied warranty of merchantability under North Carolina
law, and (3) violation of the Idaho Consumer Protection Act
(ICPA).
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.
A copy of the Court's orderdated June 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qPwiEb at no extra charge.[CC]
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Tosses Bid to Certify Interlocutory Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK D. CHAPMAN, ET AL.,
v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-12333-TGB-DRG (E.D. Mich.),
the Hon. Judge Terrence G. Berg entered an order denying GM's
request to certify order for Interlocutory appeal.
GM did not challenge the admissibility of conjoint analysis
generally, and -- as the Court explained in its order -- GM offered
nothing (and continues to offer nothing) to suggest that Gaskin and
Weir's analysis deviated in any significant way from the usual
principles by which a conjoint analysis survey is designed.
Gaskin and Weir's opinions would leave the Plaintiffs without a
damages model that satisfies Comcast. ECF No. 172, PageID.41981.
But even if Gaskin and Weir's models are excluded, the Plaintiffs
still have Stockton's damages model—which GM has not chosen to
challenge in this specific motion. "When litigation will be
conducted in substantially the same manner regardless of [the
court's] decision, the appeal cannot be said to materially advance
the termination of the litigation." In re City of Memphis, 293 F.3d
at 351 (internal citations omitted).
The case is about an alleged defect in GMC and Chevrolet trucks
with 6.6L Duramax engines from model years 2011-2016, caused by
GM's decision to equip the vehicles with Bosch CP4 pumps. Since it
was filed in 2019, five other cases have been consolidated with it.
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NB7Mzi at no extra charge.[CC]
GESICK CONCRETE: Court Sends Claims in Cashpal Suit to Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARLOS CASHPAL, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GESICK CONCRETE, INC., a
corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-00496-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California submits
the Plaintiff's individual wage-and-hour claims, brought on behalf
of the putative class, to arbitration.
The Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the Superior Court of
California, County of Sacramento, on Nov. 30, 2022, in Case No.
34-2022-00330545, alleging claims individually and on behalf of a
putative class. The Defendant removed the Action to this Court on
March 15, 2023.
The Parties have agreed to arbitrate the Plaintiff's individual
wage-and-hour claims alleged in the Action as required by the
Northern California AGC/Laborers Master Agreement, which contains a
class action waiver. The arbitration will be with AAA per the AAA
Employment Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures. All claims
brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of the putative class in the
Action will be dismissed. Considering the foregoing facts, the case
will be stayed in its entirety pending the outcome of the
arbitration, subject to a later motion to confirm the arbitration
award, if any.
Judge Mueller orders that the Plaintiff's individual wage-and-hour
claims will be submitted to arbitration before the AAA and
arbitrated per the AAA Employment Arbitration Rules and Mediation
Procedures. She dismisses the Plaintiff's claims brought on behalf
of the putative class. The case is stayed in its entirety pending
the AAA arbitration, subject to a later motion to confirm the
arbitration award, if any. The Parties are directed to file a joint
status report no later than 120 days from the Order updating the
Court on the status of arbitration proceedings.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yc35pvrb from Leagle.com.
Timothy B. Del Castillo -- tdc@castleemploymentlaw.com -- Lisa L.
Bradner -- lb@castleemploymentlaw.com -- Spencer S. Turpen --
st@castleemploymentlaw.com -- CASTLE LAW: CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT
COUNSEL, PC, Roseville, CA,
Avalon J. Fitzgerald -- afitzgerald@rtwlawllp.com -- Jake C. Weaver
-- jweaver@rtwlawllp.com -- REYNOLDS TILBURY WOODWARD LLP, Auburn,
CA, Attorneys for Defendant GESICK CONCRETE, INC.
GLENN HAWBAKER: Court OK's Packer Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESTER PACKER, SR., LESTER
PACKER, II, and SHAWN DYROFF, individually and on behalf of the
Glenn O. Hawbaker, Inc. Benefit Plan, v. GLENN O. HAWBAKER, INC.,
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF GLENN O. HAWBAKER, INC., PLAN ADMINISTRATOR
OF THE GLENN O. HAWBAKER, INC. BENEFIT PLAN, and JOHN DOES 1–20,
Case No. 4:21-cv-01747-MWB (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Matthew W.
Brann entered an order granting the motion for class
certification:
"All current and former hourly wage employees who worked on
prevailing wage contracts at [Hawbaker] within the Commonwealth
of
Pennsylvania during the period September 1, 2012, through
December
31, 2018."
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied all four
prerequisites of Rule 23(a) as well as the requirements of both
Rules 23(b)(1)(A) and 23(b)(1)(B).
In the putative class action, the Plaintiffs allege that their
employer -- the heavy construction contractor Glenn O. Hawbaker,
Inc. -- stole their pension and health and welfare benefits, as
well as those of their coworkers similarly assigned to public,
prevailing wage projects.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have brought claims under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") against Hawbaker,
the Hawbaker Board of Directors, and the Administrator of
Hawbaker's employee benefits plan. They now move for class
certification. Because they have satisfied the requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the motion is granted.
On April 8, 2021, the Office of the Attorney General for the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania filed a criminal complaint against
Hawbaker, alleging that the company failed to provide its employees
working prevailing wage jobs with the required "fringe benefits"
under Hawbaker's employee benefits plan (the "Hawbaker Benefit
Plan" or "Plan").
Hawbaker is a heavy and highway contractor.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XfE8CT at no extra charge.[CC]
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Filing for Class Cert. Continued to Sept. 29
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONRAD RELOJ, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
INSURANCE CO, INC. Case No. 3:21-cv-01751-L-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Michael S. Berg entered an order as follows:
1. The deadline for the Parties to serve expert reports in
compliance with the disclosure provisions of Rule 26(a)(2)(A)
and (B) is continued from July 10, 2023, to August 22, 2023.
2. The deadline to complete expert discovery is continued from
August 22, 2023, to September 29, 2023.
3. The deadline for the Plaintiff to file his motion for class
certification is continued from August 22, 2023, to September
29, 2023.
4. The Deadline to file all pretrial motions is continued from
September 20, 2023, to October 20, 2023.
The parties request that the expert disclosure deadline be
continued y approximately 45 days and the expert discovery, class
certification, and pretrial motions deadlines be continued by
approximately 30 days.
In support, they explain that the Plaintiff's lead attorney, David
Leimbach, unexpectedly went on an early paternity leave due to
complications in his wife's pregnancy.
The Plaintiff submits that Mr. Leimbach's active participation is
critical "at the expert and class certification phases," as he has
been the lead attorney since the inception of this case and his
participation will ensure the most "effective and efficient"
litigation. The Defendant's counsel is agreeable to amending the
Scheduling Order under the circumstances.
The parties have diligently litigated the case to this point. On
March 31, 2023, the Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Collective Action Certification. Since then, the
Plaintiff has filed approximately 190 opt-in forms.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42SM7qO at no extra charge.[CC]
HACKENSACK, NJ: Pays Unfair Wages Based on Race, Ramirez Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
DENNY RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF HACKENSACK, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-03216 (D.N.J., June 12, 2023) alleges that the Defendant
discriminates against Plaintiff and all other Sanitation Department
employees based on their race by intentionally paying them less for
working holidays than their Department of Public Works counterparts
who are bound by the same collective bargaining agreement in
violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.
The Plaintiff seeks monetary damages individually and for each
Class member who has suffered from the wrongful acts of the City, a
declaration that the City's acts were unconstitutional, and an
injunction precluding the City from continuing its unconstitutional
acts.
Plaintiff Ramirez is, and at all times relevant hereto has been, a
resident of the State of New Jersey. The Plaintiff is an employee
with the City's Sanitation Department and currently serves as union
shop steward. The Plaintiff is Hispanic.
Defendant City of Hackensack is a municipality organized and
existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald J. Williams, Esq.
Christopher Markos, Esq.
Dylan T. Hastings, Esq.
WILLIAMS CEDAR LLC
One South Broad Street, Suite 1510
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 557-0099
Facsimile: (215) 557-0673
E-mail: gwilliams@williamscedar.com
dhastings@williamscedar.com
HAPPY GROUP: Seeks to File Documents Under Seal
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN RUSOFF and JOSEPH
GAMBINO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. THE HAPPY GROUP, INC., et al, Case No. 3:21-cv-08084-AMO (N.D.
Cal.), the Defendants move to file the following documents under
seal: Exhibits 7, 9, and 11 to the Declaration of Cheryl
Rossi-O'Reilly in Support of the Defendant's Opposition to the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification; the unredacted copies
of Exhibits 15, 16, 17, and 20 to the Declaration of Amit Rana; and
the unredacted copy of the Defendant's Opposition to the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
HappyGroup is a group of companies that trade in the mobile
technology sector.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 9, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XjHDbr at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Angel A. Garganta, Esq.
Amit Rana, Esq.
VENABLE LLP
101 California Street, Suite 3800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: 415.653.3750
Facsimile: 415.653.3755
E-mail: agarganta@venable.com
arana@venable.com
- and –
Nicholas M. DePalma, Esq.
Christian R. Schreiber, Esq.
1850 Towers Crescent Plaza, Suite 400
Tysons, VA 22182
Telephone: (703) 760-1600
Facsimile: (703) 821-8949
E-mail: nmdepalma@venable.com
crschreiber@venable.com
HOME DEPOT INC: Chang Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Joseph Chang, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. The Home Depot, Inc., Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV07149 was removed from the
Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on May 15, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-03702-FLA-MAA to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated Other Contract.
The Home Depot, Inc. -- https://www.homedepot.com/ -- is an
American multinational home improvement retail corporation that
sells tools, construction products, appliances, and services,
including fuel and transportation rentals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven C. Rice, Esq.
Paul J. Marron, Esq.
Yinghan Ma, Esq.
MARRON LAWYERS APC
5000 East Spring Street Suite 580
Long Beach, CA 90815
Phone: (562) 432-7422
Fax: (562) 683-2721
Email: srice@marronlaw.com
pmarron@marronlaw.com
yma@marronlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Albert A. Zakarian, Esq.
ALBERT A. ZAKARIAN
14826 Heronglen Drive
Lithia, FL 33547
Phone: (813) 468-8406
Email: albert.zakarian@troutman.com
HUNTINGTON INGALLS: Beadle Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Huntington Ingalls
Industries, Inc. The case is styled as Tyler N. Beadle,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-00065-AWA-LRL
(E.D. Va., May 23, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. -- https://hii.com/ -- is the
largest military shipbuilding company in the United States as well
as a provider of professional services to partners in government
and industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Hilton Wise, Esq.
Joseph Michael Langone, Esq.
WISE LAW FIRM, PLC
10640 Page Avenue, Suite 320
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: (703) 934-6377
Fax: (703) 934-6379
Email: dwise@wiselaw.pro
jlangone@wiselaw.pro
ICON HEALTH: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Nov. 14
-----------------------------------------------------------
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
approving in part the parties' second joint stipulation to amend
scheduling order to allow more time for the completion of
discovery:
(a) Fact discovery shall be completed by: Sept. 14,
2023
(b) The Plaintiffs must identify experts Oct. 30, 2023
by:
(c) The Defendants must identify experts by: Nov. 30, 2023
(d) All Expert discovery must be March 15, 2024
completed by:
(e) The Plaintiffs class certification June 15, 2023
expert disclosures due by:
(f) Rebuttal class certification expert July 17, 2023
disclosures due by:
(g) Class certification expert deposition Sept. 15,
2023
cutoff shall be:
(h) The Plaintiffs class certification Nov. 14, 2023
motion due by:
(i) The Defendants Opposition to class Dec. 29, 2023
certification due by:
(j) Reply to class certification motion Feb. 14, 2024
due by:
(k) Dispositive motions, including Daubert May 15, 2024
motions must be filed by:
(l) Non-dispositive motions must be filed by: March 15,
2024
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Fraud.
Icon Health manufactures fitness and exercise equipment.[CC]
JEA SENIOR: Class Settlement in Bowen Suit Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNICA B. BOWEN, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. JEA SENIOR LIVING
HEALTH AND WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN, LLC, et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-02318-KJN (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kendall J. Newman
entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for
provisional class certification and preliminary approval of
settlement.
-- The Rule 23 class is provisionally certified, plaintiff Annica
Bowen (a.k.a. Annica Palacio) is appointed class
representative,
and Stephen M. Harris and Louis Benowitz are appointed class
counsel
-- Simpluris, Inc. is appointed Claims Administrator for this
class
action settlement.
-- The Settlement Agreement is preliminarily approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate.
The deadline for fairness hearing has been set to account for any
delay in remailing notices to the class members under the
procedures.
Deadline for defendants to provide to Claims June 19, 2023
Administrator a database of all putative Class
Members, including names, last known
addresses, social security numbers, and dates
of employment:
Deadline for mailing of Class Notices by July 10,
2023
Claims Administrator:
Last day for Class Members opt out, submit 45 days from
the
written objections to the court, or dispute the mailing (or
workweeks calculated: remailing)
of
the Class
Notice
Last day for plaintiff to request final Oct. 30, 2023
approval of the settlement agreement,
attorneys' fees, and incentive award:
Last day for Settlement Administrator to file Oct. 30, 2023
Proof of Mailing:
Fairness Hearing Date: Dec. 5, 2023
The Plaintiff alleges in the First Amended Complaint (FAC) that she
previously worked as a non-exempt hourly-wage employee for
defendants Empire Ranch, Willow Springs, and Blossom Grove, who
jointly ran Alzheimer care centers in Northern California.
The Plaintiff alleges that from at least 2016 through 2021, the
Defendants enforced policies and practices that did not allow for
her and other caregivers to:
(i) take meal breaks despite working 5+ hours a day;
(ii) take rest breaks for every four hours worked;
(iii) receive itemized wage statements; and
(iv) receive all wages owed at the conclusion of their
employment.
The Settlement Agreement proposes deducting from the $125,000 gross
settlement amount the following:
(a) Class representative incentive award of $3,000;
(b) Class counsel's attorney's fees of up to $41,666;
(c) Class counsel's litigation costs of up to $12,500;
(d) Settlement administrator costs of up to $9,000; and
(e) A PAGA payment of $3,750 to be paid to the Labor Workforce
and
Development Agency (LWDA), out of an overall PAGA award of
$5,000.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42PUvHt at no extra charge.[CC]
JOHNS MANVILLE: Moore Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled GREGORY MOORE, JR., individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BPS
DIRECT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:2022cv01951, was removed from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
June 15, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02287-MAK to the
proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Mark A.
Kearney.
BPS DIRECT, LLC, doing business as Bass Pro Shops (BPS), retails
products online. The Company offers fishing reels, rods, gears,
boating, water sports, hunting, archery, bows, clothing, footwear,
camping gear, clothing, shoes, boots, home decor, and other related
products.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (866) 219-3343
Email: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com
- and -
Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 222-7429
Email: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com
KAREN TIMBERLAKE: Court Dismisses Peshek Case w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DALE PESHEK and BRIAN
THRELKELD, v. KAREN TIMBERLAKE, Case No. (E.D. Wis.), the Hon.
Judge Pamela Pepper entered an order dismissing Case Without
prejudice.
The defendant argues that the case should be dismissed without
prejudice. The plaintiffs' brief focuses solely on their desire to
appeal the court's ruling and their concern that they may do so
only if the court dismisses with prejudice.
The court is not convinced that dismissing the case without
prejudice based on Younger abstention prohibits the plaintiffs from
appealing. The Seventh Circuit has recognized that some "kinds of
dismissals without prejudice signal clearly that the district court
has finished with the case but is leaving open the possibility that
the parties may pursue the dispute in another forum."
On September 13, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a complaint against
Karen Timberlake in her official capacity as the Secretary of the
Wisconsin Department of Health Services. The defendant filed a
motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
and 12(b)(6).
On March 28, 2023, the court held a hearing at which it orally
granted the defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) based
on the abstention doctrine articulated in Younger v. Harris.
The court indicated, however, that it had reviewed a Seventh
Circuit case, Nicole K, By Next Friend Linda R. v. Stigdon 990 F.3d
534 (7th Cir. 2021), and based on that review, it questioned the
parties regarding the appropriate nature of the dismissal.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43IreQm at no extra charge.[CC]
LEOPOLD & ASSOCIATES: McDonough Amended Complaint Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL P. MCDONOUGH, v.
LEOPOLD & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, TRINITY FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Case
No. 2:21-cv-00375-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christy Criswell
Wiegand entered an order granting in part Leopold's motion for
summary judgment and Trinity's motion for summary judgment.
-- The Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice for lack
of
standing, and the remainder of the parties' Motions, are
hereby
denied as moot.
-- Mr. McDonough is granted leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint
by June 23, 2023.
In his summary judgment submissions, Mr. McDonough has raised new
theories of harm to support standing, including that, as a result
of receiving the letter, he suffered from increased stress, stopped
his plans to sell his house, had marital troubles, and made
modifications to his house that he would not have otherwise made.
These harms are not included in the Amended Complaint.
The Court cannot consider these new theories at the motion for
summary judgment stage if they are absent from the pleadings. In
light of recent developments in the law regarding standing to sue
for violations of the FDCPA, the Court finds that Mr. McDonough's
allegations regarding standing in his pleadings are insufficient.
Mr. McDonough is a Pennsylvania resident who took out a mortgage
for his house on March 22, 2004.
Mr. McDonough alleges that Trinity and Leopold violated the Fair
Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) by sending a debt collection
letter that falsely and deceptively threatened to initiate
foreclosure proceedings on his house.
Trinity is a debt collector, and Leopold is a New York law firm
that Trinity hired to send debt collection communications on behalf
of Trinity to Mr. McDonough.
Leopold & Associates is a law firm specializing in commercial and
residential mortgage foreclosure, evictions, bankruptcy, and
litigations.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44eBjod at no extra charge.[CC]
LONELY PLANET: Initial Conference in McGucken Suit Set for July 17
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELLIOT MCGUCKEN, v LONELY
PLANET GLOBAL, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-04293-ALC-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Sarah L. Cave entered an order that:
-- an initial conference in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16
will
be held on Monday, July 17, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. on the Court's
conference line. The parties are directed to call: (866) 390-
1828; access code: 380-9799, at the scheduled time. At the
conference, the parties must be prepared to discuss the
subjects
set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and (c).
-- Counsel shall meet and confer in accordance with Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(f) no later than 21 days before the Initial Case
Management
Conference. No later than July 10, 2023, the parties shall
file a
Report of Rule 26(f) Meeting and Proposed Case Management
Plan,
via ECF, signed by counsel for each party. A template is
available at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-sarah-l-cave.
The action has been referred, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section
636(b)(1)(A), to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave for general
pretrial management, including scheduling discovery,
non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement. All pretrial
motions and applications, including those relating to scheduling
and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on
the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for
class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to
Magistrate Judge Cave and must comply with her Individual
Practices, available on the Court's website at
https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-sarah-l-cave.
Lonely Planet operates as a travel media company. The Company
provides travel related information to community of travelers
through magazines, guide, lifestyle, and e-books.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43NYAgP at no extra charge.[CC]
LOWE'S HOME: Court Consolidates Azizpor and Rodriguez Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID AZIZPOR, et al., Plaintiffs v. LOWE'S HOME
CENTERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 23cv452-LL-DDL, No.
23cv461-LL-DDL (S.D. Cal.), Judge Linda Lopez of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California consolidates the
Related Actions: Azizpor, et al. v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC,
3:23-cv-00452, and Rodriguez, et al. v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC,
3:23-cv-00461, and designates Azizpor as the lead case.
The matter is before the Court on the Amended Joint Stipulation and
Motion of Plaintiffs David Azizpor, Artemio Angel, Daniel West,
Edward Shubin, Robert Gregory, and Ronald Bluhm and Defendant
Lowe's to consolidate a related action (Rodriguez et al. v. Lowe's
Home Centers, LLC, No. 23cv461-LL-DDL), designate a lead case,
grant the Plaintiffs leave to file a First Amended Complaint in the
consolidated action, and set a deadline for the Defendant to file a
responsive pleading to the FAC, pursuant to Rule 42(a) and Rule
15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
On April 20, 2022, the Defendant removed a class action case
originally filed in the Superior Court of California for the Count
of San Diego, Merhi et al. v. Lowe's Home Center, LLC (No.
22cv545-LL-DDL) alleging claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), the California Labor Code, the California Business and
Professions Code, and the California Private Attorneys General Act
of 2004 ("PAGA").
In Merhi, the individual claims of all plaintiffs other than
Jeffrey Graham and Omar Reyes have been stayed and submitted to
arbitration at this time -- with the Court retaining jurisdiction
solely to confirm or vacate any arbitration award—and only the
non-individual PAGA claims of certain Plaintiffs remains pending
before the Court. Also, in Merhi, Lowe's moved to compel Merhi
plaintiffs Graham and Reyes to arbitrate their claims, and to
dismiss or stay the non-individual (i.e., representative) portion
of the PAGA claims on Sept. 16, 2022.
The instant case ("Azizpor") was initially filed in the Northern
District of California on Jan. 6, 2023, alleging violations of the
California Labor Code, the FLSA, and the California Business and
Professions Code by Lowe's.
On Jan. 31, 2023, the plaintiffs in Rodriguez filed their case in
the Northern District of California, bringing similar claims to
those brought in Merhi and Azizpor against Lowe's. The plaintiffs
in Rodriguez filed an amended complaint on Feb. 16, 2023, adding an
additional plaintiff and asserting claims identical to those in
Azizpor.
On Feb. 22, 2023, the District Court for the Northern District of
California related Azizpor and Rodriguez (the "Related Actions").
On March 10, 2023, the Related Actions were transferred to the
Southern District of California based on the pending earlier case
in this district, Merhi, and the joint stipulation and motion of
all parties in the Related Actions to transfer the cases to this
district. The orders transferring the Related Actions further
vacated pending deadlines and stayed the Defendant's deadlines to
file responsive pleadings in the Related Actions.
The Parties submit that the Related Actions should be consolidated
into a single proceeding because they involve the exact same facts
and circumstances, share many of the same causes of action, and
would require the same legal analysis. They assert that
consolidation would increase judicial efficiency because it would
avoid duplicative evidence and inconsistent adjudication, preclude
waste, and alleviate potential burdens to the Court and the
Parties.
The Parties agree that Merhi should not be consolidated with the
Related Actions at this time due to the pending motion in that
case, and that Azizpor should be designated as the lead case in the
consolidated action. They further agree that the Plaintiffs may
file a FAC that merges the causes of action in the Related Actions
such that it becomes the operative complaint in the consolidated
proceeding. They also agree that the putative class and collective
in the FAC will be limited to non-exempt employees of Lowe's in
California who did not agree to arbitrate all claims arising out of
their employment with Lowe's on an individual basis.
Upon review of the motion, the record, and the applicable law,
Judge Lopez finds that consolidation is appropriate. She says a
review of the two operative complaints shows that both cases are
asserted against the same Defendant, Lowe's, and both allege (1)
violations of the FLSA for failure to pay overtime, and violations
of the California Labor Code and for failure to: (2) provide meal
periods; (3) provide rest periods; (4) pay overtime; (5) maintain
accurate records; (6) pay all wages when due; (7) provide accurate,
itemized wage statements; (8) reimburse work expenses; (9) timely
pay wages upon termination; and (10) unfair business practices on
behalf of the Plaintiffs and on behalf of all others similarly
situated.
Hence, consolidation is appropriate as it would allow the Court and
the parties to proceed in the most efficient manner. There are no
indications that consolidation would cause delay, confusion, or
prejudice.
Accordingly, Judge Lopez grants the Parties' Amended Joint Motion
and consolidates the Related Actions and designates Azizpor as the
lead case.
All further filings will be made in Azizpor. The Plaintiffs may
file a First Amended Complaint in this consolidated proceeding that
merges the causes of action alleged in the operative complaints of
the Related Actions into a single operative complaint. The
Defendant must file a responsive pleading no later than 21 days
after the Plaintiffs file their FAC. The Parties' earlier-filed
joint motion for consolidation is denied as moot.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mvurywbj from Leagle.com.
MAGNA INTERNATIONAL: Summary Judgment Bid vs Davis Partly OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELVIN DAVIS, et al., v.
MAGNA INTERNATIONAL OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-11060-NGE-RSW (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Nancy G. Edmunds
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The Court grants the Defendants' motion as to the Plaintiffs'
second claim: failure to adequately monitor other fiduciaries. The
Court denies the remainder of the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment.
In the case, the Plaintiffs have pointed out that the Principal has
interests in both recordkeeping and the proprietary TDF funds. The
Court finds that the Plaintiffs have provided enough evidence to
survive summary judgment on the loyalty claim.
The Defendants first argue that if there is no triable issue on
Claim I, then Claim II cannot survive summary judgment either. The
Northern District of Ohio pointed out in a 2016 case that the
"Sixth Circuit has yet to determine whether an underlying breach of
fiduciary duty is required for failure-to-monitor liability" but
that other district courts within the Sixth Circuit "have held that
a failure to monitor claim does not survive absent a predicate
breach of fiduciary duty by a monitored fiduciary."
The plaintiffs in this action are individuals who invested in a
401k plan called the Magna Group of Companies Retirement Savings
Plan during their past employment with Magna International.
Magna International is a Canadian parts manufacturer for
automakers.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XciIqm at no extra charge.[CC]
MAHARAJA PALACE: General Pretrial Management Order Entered
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PEDRO ORTIZ GATICA and
DIEGO LOPEZ MORALES, v. MAHARAJA PALACE RESTAURANT CORP (D/B/A)
MAHARAJA PALACE), and MOHAMMED BASHAR, Case No.
1:23-cv-03717-RA-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses
entered an order on general pretrial management, including
scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and
settlement, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(A).
-- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related
to
scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or
for
judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary
judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23)
must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this
Court's
Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's
website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.
-- The Court is in receipt of a document entitled "Answer," filed
on
May 30, 2023, apparently on behalf of the individual
defendant,
Mohammed Bashar, and the corporate defendant, Maharaja Palace
Restaurant Corp. (Maharaja Palace). The Court accepts the
Answer
on behalf of the individual defendant, who is representing
himself.
-- However, Mr. Bashar cannot appear, sign pleadings, or
otherwise
defend this action on behalf of Maharaja Palace. See Lattanzio
v.
COMTA, 481 F.3d 137, 139 (2d Cir. 2007) ("[A] layperson may
not
represent a separate legal entity such as a corporation."). A
corporation "must appear through licensed counsel."
Accordingly,
no later than July 5, 2023, Maharaja Palace must appear and
answer the complaint through counsel. Should it fail to do so,
a
default judgment may be entered against it.
Mr. Bashar may wish to contact the New York Legal Assistance
Group (NYLAG) Clinic for Pro Se Litigants in the Southern
District of New York, which is a free legal clinic staffed by
attorneys and paralegals to assist those who are representing
themselves in civil lawsuits in this court. The clinic is run
by
a private organization; it is not part of, or run by, the
Court.
Lastly, Mr. Bashar may choose to receive documents in this
case
electronically by completing a Consent to Electronic Service
form, which is available on the Court's website at
https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/forms/consent-electronic-service-
pro-se-cases.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46n0p6a at no extra charge.[CC]
MARYLAND: Seeks August 4 Extension to File Class Cert Response
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as T.G., BY HIS NEXT FRIEND,
BEVERLY SCHULTERBRANDT, et., al. v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
SERVICES, et. al., Case No. 8:23-cv-01433-PJM (D. Md.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending until August
4, 2023, the deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the
Plaintiffs' complaint, motion for class certification and for
appointment of class counsel.
On May 30, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a 93-page complaint for
injunctive and declaratory relief against the Defendants, and the
Court issued a summons directed to each defendant. On May 31, 2023,
the Plaintiffs served the Defendants, and on the same day, the
Defendants accepted service.
Maryland DHS is the state's primary social service provider with 24
local departments of social services.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 9, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Nm9Ycy at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Leslie Seid Margolis, Esq.
Leslie Luciene M. Parsley, Esq.
Megan R. Berger, Esq.
DISABILITY RIGHTS MARYLAND
1500 Union Avenue, Ste. 2000
Baltimore, MD 21211
- and -
Mitchell Y. Mirviss, Esq.
VENABLE LLP
750 East Pratt Street, 9th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21202
The Defendants are represented by:
Anthony G. Brown, Esq.
Elise Song Kurlander, Esq.
Kathleen A. Ellis, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
311 West Saratoga Street, Suite 1015
Baltimore, MD 21201
Telephone: (410) 767-7765
Facsimile: (410) 333-0026
E-mail: elise.song@maryland.gov
Kathleen.Ellis@maryland.gov
MDL 2918: End-User Plaintiffs Seek Class Status 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 End-User Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order
granting their motion to certify the Classes, appointing the
proposed EUP Class representatives, and appointing Messrs,
Micheletti and Reiss, and Zelle and Robins Kaplan as Co-Lead Class
Counsel. The Court further found sufficient EUPs' antitrust
standing-related allegations that an SA is "physically distinct"
from the product in which it is contained, and that "regression
analysis" may be employed to determine the amount of the overcharge
passed down to the plaintiff.
The EUP Classes comprise the following 29 statewide damages classes
asserting claims under state antitrust, unfair competition, and/or
consumer protection laws as well as common law unjust enrichment:
All persons and entities who, during the time period January 1,
2003 to December 31, 2016, in the Indirect Purchaser States,
purchased Standalone Storage Devices or Computers, not for resale,
which included hard disk drive (HDD) suspension assemblies (SAs)
that were manufactured or sold by the Defendants.
This is a straightforward price-fixing and market allocation case,
ideally suited for class certification. For more than 12 years, the
Defendants conspired to artificially inflate SA prices by agreeing
to, inter alia, fix prices and allocate market shares and
customers. the Defendants admitted to participating in a criminal
conspiracy in violation of U.S. antitrust law, and extensive
class-wide evidence obtained in discovery confirms the
conspiracy’s scope, duration, and operational details.
A copy of Plaintiffs' motion dated June 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NE4gEl at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher T. Micheletti, Esq.
ZELLE LLP
555 12th Street, Suite 1230
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (415) 693-0700
Facsimile: (415) 693-0770
E-mail: cmicheletti@zellelaw.com
- and -
William V. Reiss, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
1325 Avenue of Americas, Suite 2601
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 980-7400
Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
MERIT ENERGY COMPANY: Cooper-Clark Suit Removed to D. Kansas
------------------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as The Cooper-Clark Foundation, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated v. Merit Energy
Company, LLC, Case No. GT-2023-CV-000011 was removed from the Grant
County District Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas on May 22, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:23-cv-01097-JAR-GEB to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated Other Contract.
Merit Energy Company -- http://www.meritenergy.com/-- is one of
the largest privately held US-based oil and gas companies by
production volume.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon Christopher Landt, Esq.
Hammons P. Hepner, Esq.
Larkin E. Walsh, Esq.
Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
Scott B. Goodger, Esq.
SHARP LAW, LLP
4820 W. 75th Street
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Phone: (972) 998-8825
Fax: (913) 901-0419
Email: blandt@midwest-law.com
hhepner@midwest-law.com
lwalsh@midwest-law.com
rsharp@midwest-law.com
sgoodger@midwest-law.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel M. McClure, Esq.
Francisco Escobar-Calderon, Esq.
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US, LLP - HOUSTON
1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
Houston, TX 77010-3095
Phone: (713) 651-5159
Fax: (713) 651-5246
Email: dan.mcclure@nortonrosefulbright.com
francisco.escobar-calderon@nortonrosefulbright.com
- and -
Jonathan A. Schlatter, Esq.
Robert W. Coykendall, Esq.
Will B. Wohlford, Esq.
MORRIS, LAING, EVANS, BROCK & KENNEDY, CHTD.--WICHITA
300 N. Mead Street, Suite 200
Wichita, KS 67202-2745
Phone: (316) 262-2671
Fax: (316) 262-6226
Email: jschlatter@morrislaing.com
rcoykendall@morrislaing.com
wwohlford@morrislaing.com
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Filing for Class Cert Extended to April 8, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONIT LARONE,
Individually, as Trustee of the Gary Lang Trust; and on Behalf of
the Class, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York
Corporation; MERCER HEALTH AND BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, LLC, a
Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, Case No. e
2:21-cv-00995-AB-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr.
entered an order granting joint stipulation to continue hearing
date on motion for summary judgment and related dates:
-- The Plaintiff's Opposition to the July 28, 2023
Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment is due:
-- The Defendant's Reply to Motion August 25, 2023
for Summary Judgment is due:
-- The hearing on the Defendant's September 15, 2023
Motion for Summary Judgment is
continued to:
-- The deadline for the completion of March 11, 2024
Phase II discovery is extended to:
-- The deadline for the filing of any April 8, 2024
Motion for Class Certification is
extended to:
-- The hearing date for the Pretrial June 7, 2024
Conference is continued from July 7,
2023, to:
-- The trial date is continued from June 25, 2024
July 25, 2023, to:
Metropolitan Life offers annuities, auto, dental, home,
disabilities, life, vision, accident, and health insurance
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NyYFiO at no extra charge.[CC]
MICHIGAN: Clerk to Schedule Hearing on Bid to Appeal in Hathon Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LYNETTE HATHON and AMY JO DENKINS, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees v.
STATE OF MICHIGAN, Defendant-Appellant, SC: 165219, COA: 356850
(Mich.), the Supreme Court of Michigan directs the Clerk to
schedule oral argument on the application for leave to appeal the
Dec. 1, 2022 judgment of the Court of Appeals.
On order of the Court, the Supreme Court considers the application
for leave to appeal. It directs the Clerk to schedule oral argument
on the application. The parties will file supplemental briefs in
accordance with MCR 7.312(E), addressing: (1) whether 2020 PA 256
controls the Plaintiffs' claims and deprives the Court of Claims of
jurisdiction to certify a class action under a takings theory; and,
if not, (2) whether the Court of Claims abused its discretion by
certifying a class.
The Supreme Court directs the Clerk to schedule the oral argument
in the present case for the same future session of the Court when
it will hear oral argument in Schafer v Kent Co (Docket No.
164975).
The Michigan Association of County Treasurers, Michigan Association
of Counties, Michigan Townships Association, Michigan Municipal
League, Institute for Justice, AARP and AARP Foundation, Buckeye
Institute for Public Policy Solutions, and Center for
Constitutional Jurisprudence are invited to file briefs amicus
curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of
the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission
to file briefs amicus curiae.
Judge Brian K. Zahra concurs in the order directing the Clerk to
schedule oral argument on the application. In presenting additional
briefing, he says the parties may wish to address: (1) whether the
time to make a claim for remaining proceeds under MCL 211.78t is
subject to the limitations periods set forth in MCL 211.78l, MCL
600.5813, or MCL 600.6452(1); (2) whether the applicable
limitations period is subject to equitable tolling until this Court
decides whether Rafaeli, LLC v Oakland Co, 505 Mich. 429 (2020),
applies retroactively; and (3) whether the 5% sales commission
under MCL 211.78t(9) is constitutional.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yc2t69cm from Leagle.com.
MIDLAND FUNDING: Putative Class Claims in Sandoval Suit Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GEORGINA C. SANDOVAL and TODD M. NORTH, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MIDLAND
FUNDING, LLC; MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1 to
10, (fictitious names unknown), Defendants, Docket No.
HUD-L-2920-22 (N.J. Super. App. Div.), Judge Anthony V. D'Elia of
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County,
dismisses the Plaintiffs' putative class claims but allows their
individual claims.
The Defendant moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint and the
Plaintiff's Class Action Claims and their individual claims.
The State litigation is premised upon Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA) 15 U.S.C. The Plaintiffs' Complaint was filed
by Georgina Sandoval and Todd North, individually and on behalf of
a class of individuals who were sent "N001 form letters" ("Letter")
by the Defendant Midland Funding LLC and Midland Credit Management
Inc. ("Midland" or "Defendants") between May 17, 2017, and Jan. 7,
2019.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Letter was misleading as follows:
"You are hereby notified that a negative report on your credit
record may be submitted to a credit reporting agency if it failed
to meet the terms of your credit obligations." They claim that this
statement was false because, prior to sending the Letter, the
Defendant had already reported their accounts to one or more of the
three major reporting agencies. They claim that the putative class
includes approximately 11,612 account holders in the State of New
Jersey.
The Plaintiff initially filed the action in Federal Court in May of
2018. The Complaint was subsequently amended on several occasions
and Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to proceed as a class action
in February of 2021.
On July 7, 2021, the Hon. Susan D. Wiggenton, U.S.D.J., entered an
Order denying the Plaintiffs' motion, holding that their proposed
class was defective. The Plaintiffs chose not to seek
reconsideration, nor did they appeal that decision.
On Dec. 20, 2021, the Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing,
inter alia, that the Plaintiffs suffered no injuries because of
said Letters. On Jan. 4, 2022, the Plaintiffs cross moved to
dismiss the entire matter without prejudice, arguing that the
Federal Court then lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear their
case because they did not suffer any injuries.
On June 10, 2022, Judge Wiggenton granted the Defendant summary
judgment and dismissed the Plaintiffs' Federal Complaint and also
granted the Plaintiffs' cross-motion to dismiss with prejudice due
to lack of standing. In doing so, Judge Wiggenton in part relied
upon the then recent opinion of Trans Union LLC v. Ramirez, 141
S.Ct. 2190 (2021), (decided on June 25, 2021). In that Opinion the
Supreme Court clarified that a Plaintiff, to have federal standing,
under FDCPA, must demonstrate (1) that he or she suffered an injury
in fact that is concrete, particularized, and imminent; (2) that
the injury was likely caused by the Defendant and (3) that the
injury will likely be redressed by judicial relief.
In Trans Union, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified and rejected the
proposition that a Plaintiff automatically satisfies an injury in
fact requirement whenever a statute grants a person a statutory
right and purports to authorize that person to sue to vindicate
that right, because Article III standing requires a "concrete
injury" in the context of a statutory violation.
Significantly, that opinion was decided in June of 2021. It was not
until the Defendant moved for summary judgment that the Plaintiffs
then, in that Federal action, cross-moved "conceding" that they
suffered no "concrete harm" in light of the Trans Union case and
sought to have the Federal Complaint dismissed without prejudice.
On Sept. 1, 2022, Judge Wiggenton entered a "Whereas Opinion" in
which she addressed the standing issue in light of Trans Union.
There, she confirmed that the Plaintiffs suffered no concrete harm
as defined under the Trans Union Opinion to confer Article III
standing but clarified (perhaps in not the clearest language
possible) that the Plaintiffs' Complaint is dismissed without
prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the Court's
June 10, 2022, Opinion is vacated.
The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff's claims, (both the
putative class claims and the individual claims), accrued more than
5 years prior to the date this State proceeding was filed (Sept. 1,
2022). Thus, all such claims are plainly barred by the FDCPA one
year statute of limitation.
Judge D'Elia opines that equities favor the Plaintiffs and also
because the Plaintiffs immediately filed the State claims on the
same day that Judge Wiggenton permitted that Complaint to be filed,
by dismissing the federal matter without prejudice on Sept. 1,
2022. The Plaintiff has established that the statute of limitation
purposes (for the individual claims only) would toll until Sept. 1,
2022.
For these reasons, the Plaintiffs' putative class claims are
dismissed by application of the statute of limitations, but their
individual claims will not be dismissed.
The Court will schedule a Case Management Conference to discuss
further proceedings. The parties should note that the matter is now
calendared as a Track 4, "Complex Commercial" matter. They may
confer and, by consent, have it removed from the Track 4 listing
and be placed into a more appropriate listing after this ruling.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yt5rte4w from Leagle.com.
MIDWEST PHYSICIAN: Mayer Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Patricia Mayer, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Midwest Physician Administrative
Services, LLC d/b/a Duly Health and Care, Case No. 2023 CH 03446
was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May
18, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-03132 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated Other P.I.
Midwest Physician Administrative Services, LLC (MPAS) --
https://midwestphysicianservices.com/ -- operates as a management
services organization. The Company offers quality improvement,
case, utilization management, credentialing, provider relations,
technology support, analytics, and revenue cycle management
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James B. Zouras, Esq.
Michael Joseph Casas, Esq.
Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
222 W. Adams Street, Suite 2020
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 233-1550
Email: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
mcasas@stephanzouras.com
tbecvar@stephanzouras.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Bonnie Keane DelGobbo, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 4500
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 416-6200
Email: bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com
- and -
David A. Carney, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
127 Public Square, Suite 2000
Cleveland, OH 44114
Phone: (216) 621-0200
Fax: (216) 696-0740
Email: dcarney@bakerlaw.com
MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC: Completion of Mediation in Confer Due August 1
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUSTIN CONFER, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC
TOOL CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-02028-KHV-ADM (D. Kan.), the
Hon. Judge Angel D. Mitchell entered a preliminary stage scheduling
order:
Event Deadline/Setting
Resubmit revised proposed protective order: June 15, 2023
Motion and brief in support of proposed June 15, 2023
protective order (only if parties disagree
about need for and/or scope of order):
Mediation completed: August 1, 2023
Submission of class-certification-stage August 11, 2023
scheduling order if mediation is
unsuccessful:
After discussing ADR during the scheduling conference, the court
determined that settlement potentially would be enhanced by early
mediation. Toward that end, the parties have already scheduled
mediation with Thomas Bender on July 17, 2023. Recognizing the
possibility that the mediation process may continue beyond that
date, the court orders the parties to complete that mediation
process no later than August 1, 2023.
If the parties' attempt at early mediation is not successful, they
are directed to email the undersigned magistrate judge's chambers a
proposed scheduling order with their jointly proposed case
management deadlines for the class-certification stage of the case,
using the general parameters the court discussed with the parties
during the scheduling conference on June 8, 2023.
Milwaukee Electric is a multi-national company that develops,
manufactures, and markets power tools.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/449Aop4 at no extra charge.[CC]
MODERN BROKERS: Bid to Bifurcate Discovery Tossed in Kerswill Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHANEL KERSWILL, v. MODERN
BROKERS OF AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 8:22-cv-01131-CEH-AAS (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell entered an order:
1. Denying the Defendant Modern Brokers of America, LLC's motion
to
bifurcate discovery; and
2. Denying the Defendant Modern Brokers of America, LLC's Motion
for Protection from Class Discovery.
The Court declines to exercise its discretion to bifurcate
discovery. As explained in Lakeland Regional, the distinction
between merits and class issues is often "murky at best, and
impossible to discern at worst."
The Court is not persuaded that the class and merits issues in this
action are unusually distinct, such that there would be little to
no overlap between the phases of discovery. In short, the
circumstances do not warrant a deviation from this District's
general practice of disfavoring bifurcation. The Defendant's Motion
for a Protective Order from Class Discovery is denied for the same
reasons.
In this putative class action brought under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA), the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant
made multiple unwanted sales calls to her and other putative class
members without prior express written consent.
The Defendant contends that good cause exists to order bifurcation
of individual and class discovery in this matter. Similarly, the
Defendant's Motion for Protection from Class Discovery asks the
Court to evaluate the Plaintiff's individual claims on their merits
first before allowing class discovery, in the case that they
survive summary judgment.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PlN086 at no extra charge.[CC]
MODERN BROKERS: Loses Bid for Protection From Class Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHANEL KERSWILL, Plaintiff v. MODERN BROKERS OF
AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:22-cv-1131-CEH-AAS (M.D. Fla.),
Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, denies the Defendant's
Motions for Bifurcated Discovery and Protection from Class
Discovery.
In this putative class action brought under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant
made multiple unwanted sales calls to her and other putative class
members without prior express written consent. The Defendant's
Motions ask the Court to conduct discovery in two phases and enter
an Order protecting it from class discovery. The Plaintiff opposes
the motions and the Defendant has filed a reply.
In its Motion for Bifurcated Discovery, the Defendant asserts that
good cause supports the bifurcation of discovery into two phases:
the merits of the Plaintiff's individual claims and class
discovery. It argues that the Court's decision on the issue of
consent will likely resolve the Plaintiff's individual claim and
that bifurcation would promote judicial economy and allow the
parties and the Court to avoid tackling class-wide discovery issues
until the class proceeds, assuming that it will. Similarly, its
Motion for Protection from Class Discovery asks the Court to
evaluate the Plaintiff's individual claims on their merits first
before allowing class discovery, in the case that they survive
summary judgment.
The Plaintiff opposes bifurcation of discovery. She argues that the
Defendant fails to demonstrate a need to change the standard
approach to discovery, and that bifurcation would not streamline
the case. She objects to the Defendant's motion for a protective
order from class discovery for the same reasons.
Judge Honeywell declines to exercise her discretion to bifurcate
discovery. She is not persuaded that the class and merits issues in
the action are unusually distinct, such that there would be little
to no overlap between the phases of discovery. In short, the
circumstances do not warrant a deviation from this District's
general practice of disfavoring bifurcation.
Therefore, she denies the Defendant's Motion to Bifurcate
Discovery. The Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order from Class
Discovery is denied for the same reasons.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3h4kud8p from Leagle.com.
MONTANA UNIVERSITY: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Extended to Nov. 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Catherine Cole, Barbara
Koostra, Mary-Ann Sontag Bowman, Rhondie Voorhees, Courtney
Babcock, Laura Berkhouse, Ruth Ann Burgad, Jane Doe 1, Jennifer
Cooper, Cindy Ferguson, Frieda Houser, Sherrie Lindbo, Jennifer
McNulty, Jane Doe 2, Vida Wilkinson, and Vandi Theriot,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Montana University System, University of Montana-Missoula, and John
Doe the Defendants 1-50, Case No. 9:21-cv-00088-BMM (D. Mont.), the
Hon. Judge Brian Morris entered an order extending the following
deadlines in the Amended Scheduling Order as follows:
-- All parties shall disclose liability August 15, 2023
experts on or before:
-- The Plaintiffs shall disclose damages August 15, 2023
experts (with Rule 26(a)(2) reports)
on or before:
-- The Defendant shall disclose damages September 13,
2023
experts on or before:
-- All parties shall disclose rebuttal October 10, 2023
experts on or before:
-- Discovery shall close on: November 15,
2023
-- Class certification motion shall be November 1,
2023
filed with supporting briefs on or
before:
A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qRbD2v at no extra charge.[CC]
NATIONAL GENERAL: August 3 Extension for Class Cert Filing Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDD KING, DIEDRE KING, and
ELMO SHEEN, SHEILA LEE, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, NATIONAL
GENERAL ASSURANCE COMPANY, INTEGON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
INTEGON PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, MIC GENERAL INSURANCE
CORPORATION, PERSONAL EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, SEQUOIA INSURANCE
COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 200, inclusive, Case No.
4:15-cv-00313-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate extending the
following deadlines as follows:
Event Current Date Proposed Date File
Class certification motion: June 8, 2023 Aug. 3,
2023
Opposition to class certification July 29, 2023 Sept. 25,
2023
Motion:
Reply re class certification: Sept. 14, 2023 Nov. 9,
2023
the Plaintiffs' expert witness: Sept. 17, 2023 Nov. 12,
2023
disclosure:
The Defendants' expert witness Oct. 14, 2023 Dec. 11,
2023
disclosure:
Rebuttal expert disclosures due: Nov. 12, 2023 Jan. 8,
2024
Expert discovery cut−off: Jan. 14, 2024 March 11,
2024
Last day for hearing dispositive March 8, 2024 May 3, 2024
Motions:
National General offers coverage to help protect your home,
vehicle, and more.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 6, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JkAnGH at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael F. Ram, Esq.
Marie N. Appel, Esq.
Shelby Serig, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 358-6913
Facsimile: (415) 358-6923
E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com
mappel@forthepeople.com
sserig@forthepeople.com
- and -
Jeffrey B. Cereghino, Esq.
CEREGHINO LAW GROUP LLP
649 Mission Street, Floor 5
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 433-4949
E-mail: jbc@cereghinolaw.com
- and -
W. Craig Bashein, Esq.
John P. Hurst, Esq.
BASHEIN & BASHEIN CO., L.P.A.
Terminal Tower, 35th Floor
50 Public Square
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 771-3239
Facsimile: (216) 781-5876
E-mail: cbashein@basheinlaw.com
jhurst@basheinlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Marc R. Jacobs, Esq.
Sanford L. Michelman, Esq.
David F. Hauge, Esq.
Mona Z. Hanna, Esq.
Vincent S. Loh, Esq.
MICHELMAN & ROBINSON, LLP
10880 Wilshire Boulevard, 19th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 299-5500
Facsimile: (310) 299-5600
E-mail: mjacobs@mrllp.com
smichelman@mrllp.com
dhauge@mrllp.com
mhanna@mrllp.com
vloh@mrllp.com
NATIONAL GENERAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to July 6
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDD KING, DIEDRE KING, and
ELMO SHEEN, SHEILA LEE, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, NATIONAL
GENERAL ASSURANCE COMPANY, INTEGON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
INTEGON PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, MIC GENERAL INSURANCE
CORPORATION, PERSONAL EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, SEQUOIA INSURANCE
COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 200, inclusive, Case No.
4:15-cv-00313-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Donna M. Ryu entered
an order extending the current case deadlines as follows:
Event Current Date Proposed
Date
File class certification motion: June 8, 2023 July
6,2023
Opposition to class certification July 29, 2023 Aug. 8,
2023
Motion:
Reply re class certification: Sept. 14, 2023 Oct. 12,
2023
the Plaintiffs' expert witness Sept. 17, 2023 Oct. 16,
2023
disclosure:
the Defendants' expert witness Oct. 14,2023 Nov. 13,
2023
disclosure:
Rebuttal expert disclosures due: Nov. 12, 2023 Dec. 11,
2023
Expert discovery cut−off: Jan. 14, 2024 Feb. 12,
2024
Last day for hearing dispositive Mar. 8, 2024 Apr. 11,
2024
Motions:
National General offers coverage to help protect your home,
vehicle, and more.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JoeTIU at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael F. Ram, Esq.
Marie N. Appel, Esq.
Shelby Serig, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 358-6913
Facsimile: (415) 358-6923
- and -
Jeffrey B. Cereghino, Esq.
CEREGHINO LAW GROUP LLP
649 Mission Street, Floor 5
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 433-4949
E-mail: jbc@cereghinolaw.com
- and -
W. Craig Bashein, Esq.
John P. Hurst, Esq.
BASHEIN & BASHEIN CO., L.P.A.
Terminal Tower, 35th Floor
50 Public Square
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 771-3239
Facsimile: (216) 781-5876
E-mail: cbashein@basheinlaw.com
jhurst@basheinlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Sanford L. Michelman, Esq.
David F. Hauge, Esq.
Marc R. Jacobs, Esq.
MICHELMAN & ROBINSON, LLP
10880 Wilshire Blvd., 19th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 299-5500
Facsimile: (310) 299-5600
E-mail: smichelman@mrllp.com
dhauge@mrllp.com
mjacobs@mrllp.com
- and -
Mona Z. Hanna, Esq.
Vincent S. Loh, Esq.
MICHELMAN & ROBINSON, LLP
17901 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone: (714) 557-7990
Facsimile: (714) 557-7991
E-mail: mhanna@mrllp.com
vloh@mrllp.com
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Bid to Modify May 16, 2022 Order OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLYDE WILLIAM TYNES, JR.,
v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-02221-KJM-DMC (E.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dennis M. Cota entered an order that:
1. The parties' joint motions for modification of the
May 16, 2022, scheduling order are granted.
2. The schedule is modified as follows:
a. All non-expert discovery shall be completed and all
motions
pertaining to non-expert discovery shall be noticed to be
heard by June 21, 2023.
b. Any motion for class certification shall be filed by June
28,
2023.
Nationstar Mortgage provides mortgages loan, re-financing, and home
equity loans.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NDV2bu at no extra charge.[CC]
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Plaintiffs Seek to File Exhibit Under Seal
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMILY FITZMORRIS, ET AL.,
v. NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
COMMISSIONER, LORI WEAVER, ET AL., Case No. 1:21-cv-00025-PB
(Court), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order to file
under seal Exhibit F to their June 8, 2023 "the Plaintiffs'
Proffered Rebuttal Evidence to Supplement the Record on the Renewed
Motion to Certify Class.
The Plaintiffs and the Defendants filed a Joint Motion for
Protective Order on August 24, 2021. On August 24, 2021, this Court
granted the parties' Joint Motion for Protective Order.
The Plaintiffs ask that Exhibit F and its sub-exhibits 1-4 remain
filed under seal at Level I, pursuant to the Protective Order,
until further Order of the Court. The Plaintiffs do not request the
sealing of this Motion, nor do the Plaintiffs request that any
docket text entries be sealed.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 9, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NCuas6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Cheryl S. Steinberg, Esq.
Kay E. Drought, Esq.
Marta A. Hurgin, Esq.
NEW HAMPSHIRE LEGAL ASSISTANCE
117 N. State Street
Concord, NH 03301
Telephone: (603) 206-2210
E-mail: csteinberg@nhla.org
kdrought@nhla.org
mhurgin@nhla.org
- and -
Jennifer Eber, Esq.
Mia Fry, Esq.
DISABILITY RIGHTSCENTER–
NEW HAMPSHIRE
64 North Main Street, Suite 2
Concord, NH 03301
Telephone: (603) 228-0432
Facsimile: (603) 225-2077
E-mail: jennifere@drcnh.org
miaf@drcnh.org
- and -
Kierstan E. Schultz, Esq.
W. Daniel Deane, Esq.
Mark Tyler Knights, Esq.
Tammy Nguyen, Esq.
NIXON PEABODY LLP
900 Elm Street, 14th Floor
Manchester, NH 03101
Telephone: (603) 628-4000
Facsimile: (603) 628-4040
E-mail: kschultz@nixonpeabody.com
ddeane@nixonpeabody.com
mknights@nixonpeabody.com
tpnguyen@nixonpeabody.com
- and -
Kelly Bagby, Esq.
Maame Gyamfi, Esq.
Stefan Shaibani, Esq.
Samantha Gerleman, Esq.
AARP FOUNDATION
601 E Street NW
Washington, DC 20049
Telephone: (202) 434-2103
Facsimile: (202) 434-6622
E-mail: kbagby@aarp.org
mgyamfi@aarp.org
sshaibani@aarp.org
sgerleman@aarp.org
NEW YORK: Asks More Time to File Class Cert. Reply
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as H.A., by her guardians
L.A. and S.A., et al, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. KATHLEEN HOCHUL, in her official capacity as
Governor of the State of New York, et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-00735-LJV-JJM (W.D.N.Y.), Governor Hochul asks the Court to
enter an order extending the date for the Defendants to reply to
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification to July 7, 2023.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 6, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46c4Xfp at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Daniel R. Maguire, Esq.
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF COUNSEL
Main Place Tower, Suite 300A
350 Main Street
Buffalo, NY 14202
Telephone: (716) 853-8419
E-mail: Daniel.Maguire@ag.ny.gov
NORTH CAROLINA: Faces Suit Over Violation of Rights to Due Process
------------------------------------------------------------------
PLANNED PARENTHOOD SOUTH ATLANTIC; BEVERLY GRAY, M.D., on behalf of
themselves and their patients seeking abortions, Plaintiffs v.
JOSHUA STEIN, Attorney General of North Carolina, in his official
capacity; TODD M. WILLIAMS, District Attorney (DA) for
Prosecutorial District (PD) 40, in his official capacity; JIM
O'NEILL, DA for PD 31, in his official capacity; SPENCER B.
MERRIWEATHER III, DA for PD 26, in his official capacity; AVERY
CRUMP, DA for PD 24, in her official capacity; JEFF NIEMAN, DA for
PD 18, in his official capacity; SATANA DEBERRY, DA for PD 16, in
her official capacity; WILLIAM WEST, DA for PD 14, in his official
capacity; LORRIN FREEMAN, DA for PD 10, in her official capacity;
BENJAMIN R. DAVID, DA for PD 6, in his official capacity; KODY H.
KINSLEY, M.P.P., Secretary of the North Carolina Department of
Health and Human Services, in his official capacity; MICHAUX R.
KILPATRICK, M.D., PhD., President of the North Carolina Medical
Board, in her official capacity, on behalf of herself, the board
and its Members; RACQUEL INGRAM, PhD., R.N., Chair of the North
Carolina Board of Nursing, in her official capacity, on behalf of
herself, the Board and its members; and their employees, agents,
and successors, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00480 (M.D.N.C., June
16, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution.
The Plaintiffs bring this civil rights action, on behalf of
themselves and their patients, under the U.S. Constitution and 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1983 to challenge the constitutionality of certain
provisions of North Carolina Session Law 2023-14. The law bans
abortion after twelve weeks of pregnancy, with narrow exceptions,
and imposes other significant restrictions on abortion access that
will harm patients and impede health care professionals from
providing quality care. The law contains numerous inconsistencies
and irrationalities in the 12-week ban itself. Notably, it repeals
section 14.45.1 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, which
listed the conditions under which abortion was lawful and was a
critical cross-reference in North Carolina's fetal homicide
statute, which makes it a crime, punishable by life in prison, to
willfully cause the death of an "unborn child." Accordingly, the
law creates confusion about whether lawful abortion remains
exempted from the fetal homicide statute. The Plaintiffs seek
declaratory and injunctive relief from those constitutional
deprivations.
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic is a not-for-profit corporation
that operates nine health centers throughout North Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kristi Graunke, Esq.
Jaclyn Maffetore, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
OF NORTH CAROLINA LEGAL FOUNDATION
P.O. Box 28004
Raleigh, NC 27611
Telephone: (919) 834-3466
E-mail: kgraunke@acluofnc.org
jmaffetore@acluofnc.org
- and -
Peter Im, Esq.
Helene T. Krasnoff, Esq.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD FED. OF AMERICA
1110 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 973-4800
E-mail: peter.im@ppfa.org
helene.krasnoff@ppfa.org
- and -
Brigitte Amiri, Esq.
Lindsey Kaley, Esq.
Ryan Mendias, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
125 Broad Street, 18th Fl.
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 549-2633
E-mail: bamiri@aclu.org
lkaley@aclu.org
rmendias@aclu.org
NORTH CAROLINA: Hodge Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW HODGE, et al., v.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADULT CORRECTION, Case No.
5:19-cv-00478-D (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs Matthew Hodge, David
Holbrook, Philip Kay, Jacob Franckowiak and Ralph Brown ask the
Court to enter an order:
-- Granting class certification of their Breach of Contract claim
for straight time and overtime pay owed to Correctional
Officers
and Sergeants (Class Members) employed by North Carolina
Department of Adult Correction and its predecessors (DAC)
since
October 28, 2016;
-- Appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives;
-- Appointing the undersigned counsel as Class Counsel;
-- Requiring DAC to provide a class list with addresses and email
addresses within 30 days of the Court’s order certifying the
class;
-- Directing a Court-approved notice and allowing a 60-day period
for Class Members to exclude themselves from the Class; and
-- Requiring the Plaintiffs to advise DAC of individuals who opt
out
of the Class.
The proposed Class includes:
"All current and former non-exempt, hourly-paid employees of DAC
who worked as security personnel in a correctional institution
at
any time between October 28, 2016 and the date of judgment."
A copy of Plaintiffs' motion dated June 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46cPdJb at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
Laura E. Reasons, Esq.
DiCELLO LEVITT LLP
Ten North Dearborn St., Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
Facsimile: (312-253-1443
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
lreasons@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
Facsimile: (919) 600-5002
E-mail: dbryson@milberg.com
pwallace@milberg.com
- and -
Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
R. Michael Smith, Esq.
Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
4725 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 789-3960
Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com
mike@cuneolaw.com
mflanner@cuneolaw.com
NY PASTRY: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Sanchez Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
RANDY SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NY PASTRY LAB, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-04486 (E.D.N.Y., June 16, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City
Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.dominiqueanselworkshop.com, contains access barriers
which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members from enjoying the
benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the
public through the website. The accessibility issues include, but
not limited to inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading
hierarchy, ambiguous graphic link texts, changing of content
without advance warning, ambiguous alt-text on graphics, inaccurate
drop-down menus, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive
elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely
with a mouse, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
NY Pastry Lab, LLC is a seller of pastries products, nibbles,
drinks, and accessories, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor A. Saab, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Telephone: (718) 740-5060
Facsimile: (718) 709-5912
E-mail: NoorASaabLaw@gmail.com
ONIX GROUP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Owens Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD OWENS; and AIDA ALBINO WIMBUSH, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ONIX GROUP, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-02301 (E.D. Pa., June 15, 2023) is a
class action against Onix for its failure to secure and safeguard
approximately 319,500 individuals' personally identifiable
information and personal health information (collectively, "Private
Information") arising out of the recent targeted cyberattack and
data breach on Onix's network that resulted in unauthorized access
of highly sensitive patient data.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that as a result of the
negligence, Plaintiffs and Class Members suffered ascertainable
losses in the form of the loss of the benefit of their bargain,
out-of-pocket expenses, and the value of their time reasonably
incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, emotional
distress, and the imminent risk of future harm caused by the
compromise of their sensitive personal information.
The Data Breach was a direct result of Onix's failure to implement
cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect
individuals' PII and PHI from the foreseeable threat of a
cyberattack. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiffs and Class
Members are at imminent and substantial risk of experiencing
various types of misuse of their Private Information in the coming
years, including but not limited to, unauthorized access to email
accounts, tax fraud, and identity theft—including medical
identity theft, says the suit.
ONIX GROUP, LLC act as a holding company for a group of companies
involved in the manufacture and supply of scientific instruments
for analysis of gasses, flow meters and compression automation
control systems. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
Samantha Holbrook, Esq.
SHUB & JOHNS LLC
Four Tower Bridge
200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 477-8380
Facsimile: (856) 210-9088
Email: jshub@shublawyers.com
bjohns@shublawyers.com
sholbrook@shublawyers.com
OREGON: Court Compels Deposition of Former Governor
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as 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, 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, Case No. 6:20-cv-00570-SB (D.
Or.), the Hon. Judge Stacie F. Beckerman entered an order granting
the Plaintiffs' motion to compel the deposition of former Governor
Brown.
The Court also denies the Defendants' motion for a protective order
barring the deposition. The Defendants make former Governor Brown
available for a deposition, not to exceed two hours, at a time and
location convenient to former Governor Brown.
Oregon is a part of the Western United States, with the Columbia
River delineating much of Oregon's northern boundary with
Washington, while the Snake River delineates much of its eastern
boundary with Idaho.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NCH75s at no extra charge.[CC]
OREGON: Court Compels Deposition of Kevin Gleim
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as 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, 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, Case No. 6:20-cv-00570-SB (D.
Or.), the Hon. Judge Stacie F. Beckerman entered an order
1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion to compel the deposition of
Kevin Gleim;
2. denying the Defendants' motion for protective order barring
the
deposition; and
3. directing the Defendants to make Gleim available for a
deposition, not to exceed two hours, at a time and location
convenient to Gleim.
The Court finds that Gleim's testimony is relevant to the
Plaintiffs' claims and proportional to the needs of the case.
The Plaintiffs allege that other states and experts widely viewed
the release of AICs at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic as
critical to preventing the spread of the virus in prisons, but that
the Defendants did not engage in meaningful population reduction
measures. Governor Brown is a named defendant in this class action
litigation, and the Plaintiffs allege that she was deliberately
indifferent to protecting members of the class from COVID-19
exposure.
Oregon is a part of the Western United States, with the Columbia
River delineating much of Oregon's northern boundary with
Washington, while the Snake River delineates much of its eastern
boundary with Idaho.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PhRXyK at no extra charge.[CC]
P.C. RICHARD: Douglass Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLAIR DOUGLASS, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. P.C. RICHARD &
SON, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00399-MPK (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order granting final approval of the parties'
Class Action Settlement Agreement.
P.C. Richard is a chain of private, family-owned electronics and
appliances stores in the United States.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 6, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/440YemC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephanie Moore, Esq.
Kevin 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
PACIFICORP: Continues to Defend James Class Suit in Oregon
----------------------------------------------------------
PacifiCorp. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report for June 12, 2023
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 16, 2023,
that the Company continues to defend itself from the Jeanyne James
class suit in Oregon state court.
Following a series of wildfires in Oregon in September 2020, a
group of 17 plaintiffs filed a class action in Oregon state court
(Jeanyne James et al. v. PacifiCorp et al., Case No. 20CV33885,
Circuit Court, Multnomah County) ("James Case"), alleging that
PacifiCorp, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Berkshire
Hathaway Energy Company (the "Company"), was responsible for four
of those wildfires (the Santiam Canyon, Echo Mountain Complex,
South Obenchain and Two Four Two wildfires).
The trial in the James Case began on April 24, 2023; and, on June
12, 2023, the jury found PacifiCorp liable to the 17 individual
plaintiffs and to the class with respect to those four wildfires
and awarded the 17 individual plaintiffs approximately $72 million
in economic ($4 million) and noneconomic ($68 million) damages.
On June 14, 2023, the jury further awarded the individual
plaintiffs and the class 0.25 times the compensatory damages in
punitive damages, resulting in approximately $18 million in
punitive damages with respect to the individual plaintiffs.
Judgment has not yet been entered on the jury's verdict, and once
it is entered PacifiCorp expects that enforcement of the judgment
will be stayed during the appeals process.
PacifiCorp is currently evaluating the impact of the jury's
findings and damage awards on its previously recorded estimated
probable losses. The number of claimants with respect to those four
wildfires, and the amount of their claims, if any, have not been
determined as of the date hereof. Further, the process for
determining such claimants and the amounts of their claims has not
yet been established.
PacifiCorp intends to vigorously appeal the jury's findings and
damage awards, including whether the case can proceed as a class
action. PacifiCorp is unable to predict the outcome of any such
appeals or further actions, but believes such appeals or further
actions likely will take several years. There can be no assurance
that final determinations in these actions, if adverse, could not,
in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on PacifiCorp's
financial condition.
Portland, Oregon based PacifiCorp, which includes PacifiCorp and
its subsidiaries, is a United States regulated, vertically
integrated electric company serving 1.8 million retail customers,
including residential, commercial, industrial and other customers
in portions of the states of Utah, Oregon, Wyoming, Washington,
Idaho and California.
PARKASH 2125: Underpays Building Superintendents, Martinez Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROLANDO LOPEZ MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PARKASH 2125 LLC, ANURAG PARKASH,
and VED PARKASH, Defendants, Case No. 6:23-cv-06321 (S.D.N.Y., June
16, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid
minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a building
superintendent in New York since 2009.
Parkash 2125 LLC is an owner and operator of buildings, with its
principal place of business located in Jamaica, 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
PELICIA E. HALL: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due Jan. 25, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW ALEXANDER, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
PELICIA E. HALL, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00021-SA-JMV (N.D.
Miss.), the Hon. Judge Jane M. Virden entered an amended
supplemental case management order as follows:
-- The Plaintiffs' Expert Designation August 24, 2023
deadline is:
-- The Defendants' Expert Designation October 24, 2023
deadline is:
-- Discovery must be completed by: November 24, 2023
-- Daubert motions must be filed by: December 26, 2023
-- The Plaintiffs' motion for January 25, 2024
class certification:
A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43MUVj9 at no extra charge.[CC]
PEOPLECONNECT INC: Nolen Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALICIA NOLEN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PEOPLECONNECT,
INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-09203-EMC (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying
the Class defined as:
"All persons residing in the State of California who are not
registered users of Classmates.com and whose names and yearbook
photographs are or were searchable on the Classmates.com website,
where at least one such yearbook photograph became searchable for
the first time on or after December 18, 2018."
The Plaintiff further requests the Court appoint her as Class
Representative and appoint Morgan & Morgan LLP, Turke & Strauss
LLP, and the Law Office of Benjamin R. Osborn as Class Counsel.
PeopleConnect owns and operates the website www.classmates.com. The
Company advertises paid subscriptions to Classmates using
individual's names, childhood photographs, and personal information
without their consent.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 8, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qQze3c at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raina Borrelli, Esq.
Sam Strauss, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703-3515
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509 4423
E-mail: raina@turkestrauss.com
sam@turkestrauss.com
- and -
Michael F. Ram, Esq.
Marie N. Appel, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 358-6913
Facsimile: (415) 358-6923
E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com
mappel@forthepeople.com
- and -
Benjamin R. Osborn, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF BENJAMIN R. OSBORN
102 Bergen St.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (347) 645-0464
E-mail: ben@benosbornlaw.com
PERFECT CORP: Thomas Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometric
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Thomas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. PERFECT CORP., Case No. 2023LA000506 (Ill. 18th Judicial Cir.
Ct., DuPage Cty., May 15, 2023), is brought against for violations
of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") and for
damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from the
illegal actions of Defendant in collecting, storing, and using
Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' biometric
identifiers and biometric information (referred to collectively as
"biometrics") without obtaining the requisite prior informed
written consent or providing the requisite data retention and
destruction policies, in direct violation of BIPA.
Biometrics are biologically unique to the individual; therefore,
once compromised, the individual has no recourse, is at heightened
risk for identity theft, and is likely to withdraw from
biometric-facilitated transactions." In recognition of these
concerns over the security of individuals' biometrics, the Illinois
Legislature enacted BIPA, which provides, inter alia, that a
private entity like Defendant may not obtain or possess an
individual's biometrics unless it: informs that person in writing
that biometric identifiers or information will be collected or
stored; informs that person in writing of the specific purpose and
length of term for which such biometric identifiers or biometric
information is being collected, stored, and used; receives a
written release from the person for the collection of his or her
biometric identifiers or information; and publishes publicly
available written retention schedules and guidelines for
permanently destroying biometric identifiers and biometric
information.
In direct violation of each of the foregoing provisions of BIPA,
the Defendant is actively collecting, storing, and using –
without providing notice, obtaining informed written consent, or
publishing data retention policies – using the face geometry and
associated personally-identifying information of thousands of
Illinois residents who have used the website,
https://www.clinique.com (the "Website"), in Illinois.
Clinique offers a "try it on" option ("virtual try-on") for website
users to see how cosmetic products look on their faces. The "try it
on" feature makes use of software developed and administered by
Defendant, a "software as a service" company. The virtual try-on
works by extracting the biometric face geometry of website users by
scanning their faces. Defendant then uses this face geometry data
and proprietary software to digitally apply cosmetics to live
images of the Website user's face. This allows website users to
digitally see what the cosmetics look like on their faces without
needing to visit a physical store. Using its virtual try-on
software, Defendant possesses, captures, collects, stores, and/or
otherwise obtains Website users' face geometry and related
biometric information without complying with BIPA's requirements.
If Defendant's database of website users' face geometry were to
fall into the wrong hands, by data breach or otherwise, individuals
to whom these sensitive biometric identifiers belong could have
their identities stolen or their financial and other highly
personal information breached and used for nefarious purposes.
BIPA confers on Plaintiff and all other similarly situated Illinois
residents a right to know of such risks inherent to the collection
and storage of biometrics, and a right to know how long such risks
will persist after their use of the website. Yet, Defendant never
adequately informed any of its website users of its biometrics
collection practices, never obtained written consent from any of
the website users regarding their biometric practices prior to
collecting, storing, or otherwise obtaining website users'
biometrics, and never provided any data retention or destruction
policies to any of its website users at the time they first
possessed the biometrics.
The Plaintiff brings this action to prevent Defendant from further
violating the privacy rights of Illinois residents, and to recover
statutory damages for Defendant's unauthorized collection, storage,
and use of these individuals' biometrics in violation of BIPA, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff used the virtual try-on feature on the Clinique
website.
Clinique is a large cosmetics and beauty retailer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carl V. Malmstrom
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
111 W. Jackson Street, Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 984-0000
Fax: (212) 686-0114
Email: malmstrom@whafh.com
- and -
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Fax: (212) 989-9163
Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Extended to July 7
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kroeger v. Progressive
Universal Insurance Company, Case No. 4:22-cv-00104 (S.D. Iowa,
Filed March 25, 2022), the Hon. Judge Stephen H. Locher entered an
order granting motion for extension of time of scheduling order
deadlines as follows:
-- The Plaintiffs Expert Witness July 7, 2023
Disclosures due by:
-- The Plaintiff's motion for class July 7, 2023
certification due by:
-- The Defendants Expert Witness Sept. 8, 2023
Disclosures due by:
-- The Defendant's opposition to Sept. 8, 2023
motion for class certification
due by:
-- The Plaintiff's reply in Oct. 23, 2023
support of class certification
due by:
The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.
Progressive Universal operates as an insurance firm.[CC]
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Court Junks Bennett Class Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER BENNETT, LAWRENCE
CATTI, JACOB CHERNOV, DIANA DANNELLY, CRAIG DVORAK, CLYDE FREEMAN,
VALERIE FUNARI, ARTHUR GOLDSMITH, EDIE GOLIKOV, LING GONG, DOLORES
HERRMANN, LONNIE HODGES, JR., MARVIN AND VICKI LESLIE, LILY MARTYN,
RYSZARD POJAWIS, JILL ROACH, CAROLYN SCOTT, and STEPHEN TIMM, on
behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. QUEST
DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-01590-EP-MAH (D.N.J.), the Hon.
Judge Evelyn Padin entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure
Quest Diagnostics is an American clinical laboratory.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PlhEyn at no extra charge.[CC]
QWP HOLDINGS: Extension to File Class Cert Reply Sought
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICKEY HUNSAKER and DARYL
PATTON, on behalf of themselves individually and all other
similarly situated employees, v. QWP HOLDINGS, LLC, d/b/a PROFILE
CABINET & DESIGN, Case No. 4:22-cv-00740-WBG (W.D. Mo.), the
Plaintiffs move the Court for a 21-day extension of time up to and
including June 30, 2023, to file their Reply in Support of their
Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification.
On May 5, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Conditional
Collective Action Certification. The Defendants filed their
Memorandum in Opposition to that Motion on May 26, 2023. Pursuant
to Local Rule 7.0(c)(3), the Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of their
Motion is due on June 9, 2023.
The Plaintiffs seek an extension of time to file their response to
June 30, 2023. In the weeks surrounding that June 9 deadline, the
Plaintiffs' counsel is preparing for an oral argument in the 8th
Circuit case Anderson v. KAR Global, Case No. 22-2808.
In addition, counsel will be out of the office for part of that
time while moving. As a result of those circumstances and the
general press of business in several upcoming cases, the Plaintiffs
seek a three-week extension up to and including June 30, 2023, in
which to file their Reply in Support of their Motion for
Conditional Certification.
QWP Holdings is a carrier company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 6, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/468FK5z at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kevin A. Todd, Esq.
Brad K. Thoenen, Esq.
John J. Ziegelmeyer III, Esq.
Ethan R. Crockett, Esq.
HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
1501 Westport Road
Kansas City, MO 64111
Telephone: (816) 875-9339
E-mail: ktodd@hkm.com
bthoenen@hkm.com
jziegelmeyer@hkm.com
ecrockett@hkm.com
REGULATORY DATACORP: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by June 30
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY N. CARR, SR, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. REGULATORY
DATACORP, INC. and BUREAU VAN DIJK ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING, INC.,
Case No. 2:22-cv-02139-MRP (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Mia R. Perez
entered an order extending case management deadlines as follows:
1. Opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion June 30, 2023
for Class Certification shall be
filed no later than:
2. The Plaintiff shall file his reply July 25, 2023
to the Defendants' opposition no
later than:
3. Counsel shall contact Magistrate Aug. 30, 2023,
Judge Carol Sandra More Wells's
Chambers to reschedule their
settlement conference, which shall
take place on or before:
4. All other case management deadlines set forth in the March
24,
2023 Scheduling Order remain in effect.
Regulatory DataCorp provides comprehensive risk and compliance
protection services.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Xm1Kpx at no extra charge.[CC]
RELIGIOUS PRACTICE: Reconsideration Bid Denial in Zirus Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Kenric Ledbetter, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Zirus et al. v. Religious
Practice Committee et al., Case No. 1:22-CV-191, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Abilene.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this class
action lawsuit was filed against Religious Practice Committee, et
al. The Religious Practice Committee is part of the Rehabilitation
Programs Division (RPD) serving as the centralized administration
and management of activities related to inmate programs within
TDCJ.
The title of that case was Scott Zirus also known as: Konchok
Tingdzin Wangyal, Kenric Ledbetter, Isaac Cardenas, Santhy
Inthalangsy, David Martin also known as: Etsuzen, Miguel Bygoytia,
James Renfro, Justin Panus, Richard Cross, William Oliver,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Religious Practice Committee, Timothy Jones, TDCJ Director of
Chaplaincy; Thomas Brouwer, TDCJ Assistant Director of Chaplaincy;
C.F. Hazelwood, TDCJ Director of Religious Service; Christopher
Carter, TDCJ Director of Rehabilitation Program Division;
individually and in their official capacity, Case No.
4:22-cv-02858
(S.D. Tex., Aug. 23, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.
On Dec. 20, 2022, the suit was removed from the Southern District
of Texas to the Northern District of Texas.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-00191-H to the
proceeding.
The Plaintiffs filed this interlocutory appeal seeking a review
from the Court's Order dated Dec. 19, 2022 wherein their motion to
reconsider the transfer of case was denied.
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[BN]
RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to July 5
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ford v. Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute, Case No. 1:20-cv-00470 (N.D.N.Y., Filed
April 25, 2020), the Hon. Judge Christian F. Hummel entered an
order granting letter motion from James R. Peluso for Ethan
Deecher, Grady Habicht requesting extension of the motion deadlines
by 30 days:
-- The deadline for filing a Motion for July 5, 2023
Class Certification is extended to:
-- Dispositive Motions to be filed by: Aug. 1, 2023
The nature of suit states Contract -- Other Contract.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute is a private research university
in Troy, New York, with an additional campus in Hartford,
Connecticut.[CC]
RUDI'S ORGANIC: Lowe Sues Over Baked Goods' False Protein Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIGETTE LOWE and HEATHER CARSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RUDI'S ORGANIC BAKERY,
INC. and RUDI'S ORGANIC AND GLUTEN FREE BRANDS, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 4:23-cv-02975-KAW (N.D. Cal., June 16, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendants for violation of the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act; false advertising; common law fraud, deceit and/or
misrepresentation; unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent trade
practices; and unjust enrichment.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
Rudi's brand baked goods. To capitalize on this trend, the
Defendants prominently claim on the front of their Rudi's brand
baked goods product packages that they provide a specified amount
of protein, such as "9G PROTEIN PER SERVING" on the Rudi's Bagels.
Consumers, in turn, reasonably expect that each product will
actually provide the amount of protein per serving claimed on the
front of the product package in a form the body can use. However,
the Defendants did not comply with the regulatory requirements for
making a protein claim because it did not include any statement of
the corrected amount of protein per serving in the nutrition facts
panel (NFP). Had the Defendants included a statement of the
corrected amount of protein per serving in the NFP, as they were
required to do under the law, it would have revealed that the
product provides nutritionally as little as 25 percent of their
total protein quantity, says the suit.
Rudi's Organic Bakery, Inc. is a manufacturer of baked goods, with
its principal place of business in Boulder, Colorado.
Rudi's Organic and Gluten Free Brands, Inc. is a manufacturer of
baked goods, with its principal place of business in Boulder,
Colorado. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Seth A. Safier, Esq.
Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
Hayley Reynolds, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 639-9090
Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
marie@gutridesafier.com
hayley@gutridesafier.com
RXO LAST: Compelled to Provide Notice List
------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN MUNIZ, MOHAMMED
BELAABD, NELSON QUINTANILLA, JOSE DILONE, and VICTOR AMARO, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. RXO LAST
MILE, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-11905-TSH (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge
Timothy S. Hillman entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion
to compel the class list in part and denying it in part.
The Court said, "It is advisable that class notice is issued to the
class before this Court issues a summary judgment order. Therefore,
this Court will not issue its summary judgment order until class
notice has been distributed. However, the Court is cognizant that
this litigation has gone on for nearly five years and does not wish
to stall its progress. Accordingly, the defendant has fourteen days
to provide plaintiffs with a notice list consistent with the
definition of "in Massachusetts" above, and the plaintiffs have 14
days after receiving the information to issue class notice to the
putative class and will notify the Court on the docket when they
have done so. In accordance with the class notice devised by this
Court, the summary judgment order will issue 45 days after class
notice is issued by the plaintiffs."
The Plaintiffs bring this action, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, against RXO. The plaintiffs are delivery
drivers who contracted with RXO, a federally authorized freight
forwarder, to deliver appliances and other large consumers goods
for RXO's retail clients. The plaintiffs allege that RXO
misclassified them as independent contractors and unlawfully
deducted wages from their pay in violation of the Massachusetts
Wage Act.
RXO Last Mile provides third-party logistics and last mile delivery
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42OZyIa at no extra charge.[CC]
SAN DIEGO, CA: Bid to File Documents Under Seal OK'd in Dunsmore
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRYL DUNSMORE, ANDREE
ANDRADE, ERNEST ARCHULETA, JAMES CLARK, ANTHONY EDWARDS, LISA
LANDERS, REANNA LEVY, JOSUE LOPEZ, CHRISTOPHER NELSON, CHRISTOPHER
NORWOOD, JESSE OLIVARES, GUSTAVO SEPULVEDA, MICHAEL TAYLOR, and
LAURA ZOERNER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO, SAN DIEGO COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT, and DOES 1 to 20,
inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Anthony J. Battaglia entered an order granting the
defendants' motion to file documents under seal.
The Defendants wish to seal certain exhibits offered in support of
their opposition to the Plaintiffs' motions for preliminary
injunction and provisional class certification.
San Diego County Sheriff's Department is the primary and largest
law enforcement agency in San Diego County, California.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XbANoA at no extra charge.[CC]
SAN DIEGO, CA: Dunsmore Seeks to File Errata on Memorandum
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRYL DUNSMORE, ANDREE
ANDRADE, ERNEST ARCHULETA, JAMES CLARK, ANTHONY EDWARDS, LISA
LANDERS, REANNA LEVY, JOSUE LOPEZ, CHRISTOPHER NELSON, CHRISTOPHER
NORWOOD, JESSE OLIVARES, GUSTAVO SEPULVEDA, MICHAEL TAYLOR, and
LAURA ZOERNER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO, SAN DIEGO COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT, and DOES 1 to 20,
inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order permitting them filing
of an Errata to correct an editing error in the Memorandum of
Points and Authorities in Support of the Plaintiffs' Motions for
Preliminary Injunction and Class Certification, filed on April 25,
2023, as well as an editing error in the Reply in Support of the
Plaintiffs' Motions for Preliminary Injunction and Class
Certification, filed on May 26, 2023.
San Diego County Sheriff's Department is the primary and largest
law enforcement agency in San Diego County, California.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion the Defendant's motion dated June
8, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3PlcUsT at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gay C. Grunfeld, Esq.
Van Swearingen, Esq.
Priyah Kaul, Esq.
Eric Monek Anderson, Esq.
Hannah M. Chartoff, Esq.
ROSEN BIEN, GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-1738
Telephone: (415) 433-6830
Facsimile: (415) 433-7104
E-mail: ggrunfeld@rbgg.com
vswearingen@rbgg.com
pkaul@rbgg.com
eanderson@rbgg.com
hchartoff@rbgg.com
- and -
Aaron J. Fischer, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF AARON J. FISCHER
1400 Shattuck Square Suite 12 – No. 344
Berkeley, CA 94709
Telephone: (510) 806-7366
Facsimile: (510) 694-6314
E-mail: ajf@aaronfischerlaw.com
- and -
Christopher M. Young, Esq.
Isabella Neal, Esq.
Oliver Kiefer, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100
San Diego, CA 92121-2133
Telephone: (858) 677-1400
Facsimile: (858) 677-1401
E-mail: christopher.young@dlapiper.com
isabella.neal@dlapiper.com
oliver.kiefer@dlapiper.com
SENTINELONE INC: Artificially Inflated Stock Price, Nyren Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER NYREN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SENTINELONE, INC., TOMER
WEINGARTEN, and DAVID BERNHARDT, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-02982
(N.D. Cal., June 16, 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 SentinelOne's business and
operations in order to trade SentinelOne securities at artificially
inflated prices between June 1, 2022 and June 1, 2023.
Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (i)
that the company lacked effective internal controls over accounting
and financial reporting; (ii) that, as a result, the company's
annualized recurring revenue (ARR) was overstated; (iii) that, as a
result, the company's guidance was overstated; and (iv) that, as a
result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements about
the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
When the truth emerged, SentinelOne's stock price fell $7.28 per
share, or more than 35 percent, to close at $13.44 per share on
June 2, 2023, damaging investors, says the suit.
SentinelOne, Inc. is a cybersecurity company, with its principal
executive offices located in Mountain View, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Joshua E. Fruchter, Esq.
WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP
25 Robert Pitt Drive, Suite 209G
Monsey, NY 10952
Telephone: (845) 290-6818
Facsimile: (718) 504-3773
E-mail: jfruchter@wohlfruchter.com
SHARPSPRING INC: Munoz Sues Over Disclosed Video Viewing Habits
---------------------------------------------------------------
CIEARA MUNOZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHARPSPRING INC., d/b/a SHARPSPRING.COM,
Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01130-JES-BLM (S.D. Cal., June 6, 2023)
is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Video
Privacy Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has secretly reported to
third parties all key data regarding the video viewing habits of
the visitors to its website, www.sharpspring.com, for the purpose
of marketing, advertising, and analytics. When a visitor watches a
video on its website, the Defendant uses spyware and transmits the
visitor's personally identifiable information and video viewing
habits to third parties without consent. The Plaintiff seeks
damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from the
Defendant's violations of the VPPA.
SharpSpring Inc., doing business as sharpspring.com, is a marketing
automation company, headquartered in Gainesville, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 706-6464
Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
SIDWELL AIR: Deadline for Amending Pleadings Set for July 17
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAKOTA ROBERTS et al., v.
SIDWELL AIR FREIGHT INC et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-05912-BHS (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge Benjamin H. Settle entered an order setting
Jury trial and Pretrial dates as follows:
-- 10 Day Jury Trial set for: December 10, 2024
-- Deadline for filing motion July 6, 2023
to join parties:
-- Deadline for amending July 17, 2023
Pleadings:
-- Disclosure of expert June 3, 2024
testimony under FRCP 26(a)(2):
-- Disclosure of rebuttal expert July 3, 2024
testimony under FRCP 26(a)(2):
-- All motions related to discovery July 15, 2024
must be filed by:
-- Discovery completed by: August 12, 2024
-- All dispositive motions Sept. 11, 2024
must be filed by:
-- Motions in limine should Nov. 4, 2024
be filed pursuant to Local
Rule CR 7(d)(4) by:
-- Agreed pretrial order filed Nov. 18, 2024
with the Court by:
-- Pretrial conference will Nov. 25, 2024
be held at:
-- Trial briefs, proposed voir Nov. 19, 2024
dire, jury instructions, agreed
neutral statement of the case
and deposition designations due
by:
A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qFwMwj at no extra charge.[CC]
SIG SAUER: Class Certification Discovery in Glasscock Due Sept. 11
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Glasscock v. Sig Sauer,
Inc., Case No. 6:22-cv-03095 (W.D. Mo., Filed April 18, 2022), the
Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order granting second joint
motion to modify scheduling order as follows:
(1) Discovery shall close for class September 11, 2023
certification on:
(2) The Plaintiff shall designate October 26, 2023
class certification experts and
file his motion for class
certification on or before:
(3) The Defendant shall designate November 28, 2023
class certification experts and
file its opposition brief to the
Plaintiff's motion for class
certification on or before:
(4) The Plaintiff shall file his reply January 4, 2024
to his motion for class certification
on or before:
The nature of suit states Torts -- Diversity-Product Liability.
Sig Sauer provides and manufactures firearms, electro-optics,
ammunition, airguns, suppressors, and remote controlled weapons
stations.[CC]
SINGER HOLDING: Manis Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Account Managers
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOANNA MANIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SINGER HOLDING CORPORATION d/b/a ROBISON
OIL, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-03339 (D.N.J., June 16, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendant for its failure to compensate
the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of
Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the
New Jersey Wage Theft Act.
Ms. Manis worked for Robison Oil as an account manager in New
Jersey from approximately June 2020 until April 2023.
Singer Holding Corporation, doing business as Robison Oil, is a
distributor of petroleum products, with its headquarters in Port
Chester, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
E-mail: dcimera@fslawfirm.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
SOCIAL FINANCE: Class Action Settlement in Juarez Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUBEN JUAREZ, et al., v.
SOCIAL FINANCE, INC., et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-03386-HSG (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order
granting motion oN final approval of class action settlement and
granting in part and denying in part the motion for attorneys' fees
and incentive award.
The Court awards attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of
$300,000; settlement administrator costs in the amount of $25,000;
and incentive awards to the Plaintiffs Segarceanu, Galicia and
Jimenez in the amount of $5,000 each.
In Staton, the son of a class representative and a non-class member
received an incentive award under the terms of a consent decree in
an employment discrimination class lawsuit. The Ninth Circuit
recognized that such individuals could contribute meaningfully to a
case, but cautioned that "if those [non-class] individuals rendered
compensable services to the lawyers, then the lawyers should pay
for those services from the amount of the fund properly awarded for
costs or fees, as appropriate."
The Court further indicated that the consent decree "should be
approved only if the provision awarding that person or those
persons damages is deleted."
In short, the Court finds that Class Counsel has not sufficiently
supported its contention that class funds can be used to pay
non-class members. The Court does not minimize Mr. Juarez's
substantive role in this case.
The Plaintiffs Ruben Juarez, Calin Constantin Segarceanu, Emiliano
Galicia, and Josue Jimenez allege that the Defendants engaged in
lending discrimination. The Plaintiffs applied for loans, but
allege that SoFi denied their applications because they were not
U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents (LPRs).
Rather, the Plaintiffs had either Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals (DACA) status or temporary green cards as conditional
permanent residents
In May 2020, the Plaintiffs brought a class action lawsuit against
SoFi, alleging lending discrimination based on alienage and
migration status in violation of federal and California state law.
-- Settlement Agreement
The Court detailed the key terms of the settlement agreement
in
its order granting the motion for preliminary approval. The
following key terms are relevant to the discussion below:
Class Definition:
The parties have proposed two Settlement Classes, which have
been defined narrowly:
-- "National Class" means those individuals who (i) applied
for
or attempted to apply for any credit product from SoFi;
(ii)
between December 19, 2019 through the date of preliminary
approval; (iii) who held valid and unexpired DACA or CPR
status at the time they applied for or attempted to apply
for
credit; (iv) who called SoFi at the designated 877 number
regarding the application as set forth in the class data
produced by SoFi; (v) who were denied as set forth in the
class data produced by SoFi; and (vi) who were not
California
residents as indicated in the "applied state" data field as
set forth in the class data produced by SoFi; or
(i) applied for or attempted to apply for any credit
product
from SoFi; (ii) between May 19, 2017 through the date of
preliminary approval; (iii) who held valid and unexpired
DACA
or CPR status at the time they applied for or attempted to
apply for credit; (iv) who opted out of SoFi’s
arbitration
provision in writing; (v) who were denied as set forth in
the
class data produced by SoFi; and (vi) who were not
California
residents as set forth in the class data produced by SoFi;
Excluded from the National Class are SoFi, all officers,
directors, and employees of SoFi, and their legal
representatives, heirs, or assigns, and any Judges to whom
the
Action is assigned, their staffs, and their immediate
families.
California Class "means those individuals who ○ (i)
applied
for or attempted to apply for a credit product from SoFi;
(ii)
between December 19, 2019 through the date of preliminary
approval; (iii) who held valid and unexpired DACA or CPR
status at the time they applied for or attempted to apply
for
credit; (iv) who called SoFi at the designated 877 number
regarding the application as set forth in the class data
produced by SoFi; (v) who were denied as set forth in the
class data produced by SoFi; and (vi) who were California
residents as indicated in the "applied state" data field as
set forth in the class data produced by SoFi; or
(i) applied for or attempted to apply for a credit product
from
SoFi; (ii) between May 19, 2017 through the date of
preliminary
approval; (iii) who held valid and unexpired DACA or CPR
status
at the time they applied for or attempted to apply for
credit;
(iv) who opted out of SoFi's arbitration provision in
writing;
(v) who were denied as set forth in the class data produced
by
SoFi; and (vi) who were California residents as set forth in
the class data produced by SoFi.
Excluded from the California Class are SoFi, all officers,
directors, and employees of SoFi, and their legal
representatives, heirs, or assigns, and any Judges to whom
the
Action is assigned, their staffs, and their immediate
families.
Social Finance operates as an online personal finance company. The
Company offers student loan refinancing, mortgages, and personal
loans.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pc0AQY at no extra charge.[CC]
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH: Mismanages Retirement Funds, Drust Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARK DRUST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE; and JOHN DOES
1-20, Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-00767-XR (W.D. Tex., June 16,
2023) alleges Defendant's violation of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants failed
to administer the Southwest Research Institute Retirement Plan
("Plan") in the best interests of participants and failed to employ
a prudent process for managing the Plan. Instead, Defendants have
used a single service provider, Teachers Insurance and Annuity
Association of America ("TIAA"), to serve as the Plan's
recordkeeper, investment advisor, and investment manager service
since at least 2009. The Defendants have never sought any other
service providers for the Plan and have failed to scrutinize TIAA's
advice and recommendations. Instead of heeding the well-documented
warnings regarding TIAA's self-interested behavior, the Defendants
parrot TIAA's false and misleading language regarding TIAA's
history and results. Throughout that time, the Defendants have
never removed a single investment from the Plan. Instead,
Defendants have continued to add TIAA investments. The Plan now
consists of 28 TIAA investments and zero investments managed by
other companies, the suit says.
Additionally, the Defendants added numerous TIAA index funds to the
Plan despite those funds being more expensive than nonproprietary
index funds that track the exact same index. In other words, the
Defendants have allowed participants to pay increased expenses for
no increased value because they blindly select TIAA for each
investment without appropriately considering alternatives. Had
Defendants undergone a prudent review of the available options
tracking the exact same index, they would not have selected more
expensive versions of these passive investments that offer no value
for their increased fees, alleges the suit.
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE operates as a nonprofit organization.
The Organization advocates for wildlife studies and forestry
preservation. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
Brock J. Specht, Esq.
Ben Bauer, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
80 S 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
Email: plukas@nka.com
bspecht@nka.com
bbauer@nka.com
SPACE COAST: Parties in Merritt Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Merritt Island Woodwerx
LLC et al, v. Space Coast Credit Union, Case No. 6:23-cv-01066
(M.D. Fla., Filed June 7, 2023), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron
entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding
deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise
the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report.
-- The deadlines should include a deadline for:
(1) disclosure of expert reports -- class action, plaintiff
and
defendant;
(2) discovery -- class action;
(3) motion for class certification;
(4) response to motion for class certification; and
(5) reply to motion for class certification.
The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.
Space Coast Credit Union is a state-chartered credit union
headquartered in Melbourne, Florida.[CC]
STATE FARM: Chadwick Seeks Class Certification in Insurance Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSE CHADWICK, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, V. STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:21-cv-01161-DPM (E.D.
Ark.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her
motion for class certification and incorporated memorandum of law.
In summary, overwhelming evidence confirms that State Farm's
imposition of the TNDs is wrong, invalid, inconsistent with both
empirical evidence and market realities, and resulted in a windfall
of tens of millions of dollars to State Farm at the expense of its
insureds. Damages are a ministerial and formulaic calculation based
on State Farm's own records: the difference between actual market
value and the artificially deflated value calculated by State Farm
through imposition of the TNDs.
The Plaintiff moves the Court to certify the following Class:
"All persons who made a first-party claim on a policy of
insurance
issued by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company to an
Arkansas resident where, from November 29, 2016 through the date
an
order granting class certification is entered, State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company determined that the vehicle was a
total loss and based its claim payment on an appraisal report
from
Audatex where a typical negotiation deduction ("TND") was
applied
to at least one comparable vehicle."
If an insured vehicle sustains a total loss, State Farm is
obligated under its insurance policy to pay the actual cash value
("ACV") of the vehicle. State Farm does not. Instead, using
appraisals conducted by a third-party vendor, Audatex, State Farm
systematically thumbs the scale against its insureds by applying
baseless TNDs that reduce insureds' claims payments below ACV.
State Farm is a provider of general and life insurance, banking
products and mutual funds.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 9, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JowKzx at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hank Bates, Esq.
Tiffany Wyatt Oldham, Esq.
Lee Lowther, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
519 W. 7th St.
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 312-8500
Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com
toldham@cbplaw.com
llowther@cbplaw.com
- and –
Joshua Jacobson, Esq.
Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
Jacob L. Phillips, Esq.
NORMAND PLLC
3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175
Orlando, FL 32803
Telephone: (407) 603-6031
E-mail: jjacobson@normandpllc.com
ed@normandpllc.com
jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com
STELLANTIS NV: Wiater Sues Over Defective, Unsafe Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------
DR. BRETT WIATER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STELLANTIS, N.V. and FCA US LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-11408-SDK-APP (E.D. Mich., June 13, 2023) is a
class action brought by the Plaintiff, on his own behalf and as
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, to
recover damages for violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection
Act, the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, among other claims, for
economic and injunctive relief against Defendants which
manufactured, designed, tested, distributed, promoted, and sold the
alleged defective vehicles.
This is a class action claim arising from a defect in Defendants'
vehicles which make them easy to steal, unsafe, and worth less than
they should be, if they were not defective. The Defendants did not
disclose this defect, which is a material fact, and a fact that a
reasonable person would rely on when purchasing a vehicle. Even
now, Defendants admit there is a theft and safety problem with the
defective vehicles but refuse to fix them, compensate consumers, or
otherwise take actions to solve the problems their defective
vehicles are causing, says the suit.
Plaintiff Wiater purchased a 2022 Ram TRX at Golling Chrysler Dodge
Jeep Ram in Bloomfield Hills for personal, family, or household
use. Because of the alleged defects at issue in this case, it was
stolen in April 2023.
Stellantis, N.V. is a multinational automotive manufacturing
corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Norman A. Yatooma, Esq.
Brian T. Hilderley, Esq.
YATOOMA LAW, P.C.
100 Renaissance Center Ste. 2-101 #43437
Detroit, MI 48243
STUPP BROS: Filing for Conditional Class Status Extended to Oct. 9
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNA STOKLOSA,
Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
STUPP BROS., INC. dba STUPP CORPORATION, Case No.
3:21-cv-00162-SDD-SDJ (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Shelly D. Dick
entered an order granting the joint motion to extend the deadline
to file for conditional class certification and issue notice to
prospective class members for 90 days as follows:
-- The Plaintiff to file a motion for conditional class
certification of collective action and for notice to
prospective
class members by October 9, 2023.
Stupp Bros is a privately-owned company with a rich history of
providing the materials and services needed to develop essential
infrastructure across the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42R8Qn4 at no extra charge.[CC]
SUPERCELL INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Feb. 20, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as T.T. v. Supercell, Inc.,
Case No. 4:22-cv-03196-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S.
Gilliam, Jr. entered an order setting the following deadlines
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and Civil Local Rule
16-10:
Event Deadline
Last Day to File Class Certification Feb. 20, 2024
Motion:
the Plaintiff's Disclosure of Expert Names Feb. 20, 2024
And General Subject Matter:
Class Certification Opposition: May 20, 2024
the Defendant's Disclosure of Expert Names May 20, 2024
And General Subject Matter:
Class Certification Reply: July 1, 2024
Last Day to Hold Hearing on Class July 18, 2024,
Certification Motion:
Supercell is a video game development company for tablets and smart
phones.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42MPCzc at no extra charge.[CC]
SUTTER HEALTH: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 22
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sargony, et al. v. Sutter
Health, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01007-JLT-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe, entered a preliminary scheduling
order as follows:
-- Initial disclosures shall June 16, 2023
be completed by:
-- Phase 1 Discovery Cutoff: November 17, 2023
-- Class Certification Motion December 22, 2023
Filing Deadline:
-- Phase 2 Discovery Cutoff: March 22, 2024
-- Class Certification Opposition: April 19, 2024
-- Class Certification Reply: May 17, 2024
-- Class Certification Motion June 28, 2024
Hearing:
Sutter Health is a not-for-profit integrated health delivery
system.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CxVIZo at no extra charge.[CC]
SYFS INTERMEDIATE: Potts Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SYFS Intermediate
Holdings, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Sybil Potts, William
Brown and all those similarly situated v. SYFS Intermediate
Holdings, LLC, Altamont Capital Partners, Casey Lynch, Charles
Farkas, Christopher Roussos, Jason Friedrichs, Jerome Rhodes, John
F. Ripley, John Stupak, Melissa Francis, New Castle County Sheriff,
Case No. 2023-0557-PAF (Del. Chancery Ct., May 24, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Civil Action."
SYFS Intermediate Holdings, LLC is a Delaware Domestic
Limited-Liability Company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph Christensen, Esq,
CHRISTENSEN & DOUGHERTY LLP
1000 N West St Ste 1200
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (917) 558-0501
Email: joe@christensendougherty.com
SYSCO ATLANTA: Bid for Conditional Certification Stayed in Madison
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Madison v. Sysco Atlanta,
LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04856 (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Steven D.
Grimberg entered an order staying until the date on which the Court
enters an order adjudicating the Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification, except that, if no such motion is filed, the
Plaintiff shall have until September 1, 2023 to seek class
certification.
The parties are ordered to confer and submit to the Court a
proposed revised scheduling order within 30 days of entry of the
Court's Order on the Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) or Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(c)(1), whichever occurs first in time.
The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) involving
minimum wage or overtime compensation.
Sysco markets and distributes food products.[CC]
T&T FARMS: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 19, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL PORTER, an
individual, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. T&T FARMS, INC., an Indiana Corporation, and THOMAS
HALLECK, JR., an individual, Case No. 3:21-cv-00529-JD-MGG (N.D.
Ind.), the Hon. Judge Michael G. Gotsch, Sr. entered an order
anmending the Scheduling Order as follows:
-- The deadline for the parties to complete Oct. 27, 2023
fact discovery is:
-- The deadline for the parties to disclose
retained experts under Rule 26(a)(2) is:
The Plaintiff: Aug. 30, 2023
The Defendants: Sept. 29, 2023
-- The deadline to depose the Plaintiff's Nov. 29, 2023
named expert(s) is:
-- The deadline to depose the Defendants' Jan. 4, 2024
named expert(s) is:
-- The deadline for the parties to engage Nov. 10, 2023
in mediation is:
-- The deadline to file a motion Jan. 19, 2024
for class certification in this
matter is:
-- The deadline for completion of Feb. 5, 2024
all discovery is:
A copy of the Court's order dated June 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42PAiBL at no extra charge.[CC]
TEXAS: Claims in Alexander v. Linthicum Dismissed With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division, dismisses the case, DARROLD
LATRELL ALEXANDER, a/k/a Alexis D. Alexander, TDCJ #00738390
Plaintiff, v. DR. LANNETTE LINTHICUM, et al., Defendants, Civil
Action No. H-22-3749 (S.D. Tex.).
Alexander, an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
(TDCJ), representing herself, has filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 alleging violations of the United States Constitution
and federal law. Alexander attempts to bring a class action on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, challenging TDCJ
policies that affect those inmates who have been diagnosed as
gender dysphoric.
Alexander initiated the civil action in October 2022 by filing a
567-page complaint. The complaint consisted mainly of conclusory
allegations devoid of specific facts. The Court struck the
complaint as failing to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and directed Alexander to file an amended complaint
on a court-approved form. It stressed that a complaint comprised of
naked legal assertions without factual allegations does not state a
claim for relief.
Alexander then filed an amended complaint, which is the current
live pleading. He sues Bobby Lumpkin, TDCJ's Executive Director;
Dr. Lannette Linthicum, the director of TDCJ's Health Services
Division; and "Director(s) and Committee Members (2020-2021)" of
Correctional Managed Health Care. Alexander's main claim is that
the Defendants are violating the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal
Protection Clause.
Alexander further asserts that Defendants "Director(s) and
Committee Members (2020-2021)" of Correctional Managed Health Care
have violated the Equal Protection Clause because their policy for
the treatment of gender dysphoria inmates is a "blanket ban" type
policy, which had denied Alexander adequate, effective, and
individualized mental health treatment. She claims that Dr.
Linthicum's administration of the "blanket ban" policy for the
treatment of gender dysphoria restricts her from receiving specific
gender-transitioning and gender-affirming healthcare. As to
Lumpkin, Alexander alleges that he has failed to institute specific
policies that are inclusive of the particular serious mental health
need (i.e., gender dysphoria) of the Plaintiff and has failed to
amend TDCJ grooming standards.
Alexander also nominally brings claims under the Eighth Amendment,
the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA),
and the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA). As
relief, she seeks preliminary relief, declaratory relief, permanent
injunctive allocution against all the Defendants.
Judge Rosenthal explains that because Alexander is an inmate who
has been granted leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing
fee, the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires the Court to
scrutinize the pleadings. The Court must dismiss the case at any
time, in whole or in part, if it determines that the action is
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief. In deciding whether the Plaintiff's claim must be
dismissed, the Court examines whether the complaint contains
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.
Alexander has failed to provide anything more than conclusional
allegations that the Defendants purposely discriminated against
her; the complaint is devoid of specific facts that support her
claim, Judge Rosenthal finds. She generally alleges that the
Defendants' policies and administration of the policies are
adversely impacting her, but she does not describe exactly how she
has been injured. Nor does she name or describe any specific policy
or policies that she is challenging, or how these policies have
caused her injury.
To the extent Alexander attempts to bring claims under the Eighth
Amendment, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(RLUIPA), or the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act
(CRIPA), such claims will also be dismissed. First, Judge Rosenthal
finds that Alexander offers only conclusory statements that the
Defendants acted with deliberate indifference; she does not allege
facts that indicate that any of the defendants knew of and
disregarded an excessive risk to her health or serious medical
needs. Alexander's conclusory statements do not meet her burden to
plead specific facts showing that the defendants violated her
Eighth Amendment rights. Any Eighth Amendment claim is dismissed
for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
Next, besides including the phrase "Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act" in the complaint, Judge Rosenthal
cannot discern any facts that would support a RLUIPA claim.
Alexander does not identify or describe any religious exercise that
is allegedly being burdened; rather, the complaint focuses entirely
on the alleged Fourteenth Amendment violation. Accordingly, any
purported RLUIPA claim must be dismissed for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.
Finally, Alexander nominally asserts that she is entitled to relief
under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C.
Section 1997. Courts addressing the issue, however, have held that
the statute does not create a private right of action for
individual litigants. Accordingly, any claims brought under the
Civil Rights for Institutionalized Persons Act are dismissed for
failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
For the reasons he stated, Judge Rosenthal dismisses Alexander's
civil action. He dismisses the claims with prejudice under 28
U.S.C. Sections 1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a
claim on which relief may be granted. The dismissal will count as a
strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g). The Clerk will
provide a copy of the Order to the Plaintiff. The Clerk will also
send a copy to the manager of the Three Strikes List at
Three_Strikes@txs.uscourts.gov. Final judgment is entered
separately.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/52ns5tzy from
Leagle.com.
THINX INC: Class Action Settlement in Dickens Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE DICKENS, HALEH
ALLAHVERDI, HALEY BURGESS, JILLIAN BLENIS, and LILI MITCHELL,
individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. THINX, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-04286-JMF (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of class action
settlement:
The Court certifies the proposed Settlement Class and grants the
Plaintiffs' motion for final approval. The Court finds that the
Settlement Class satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a) and 23(b), and that the Settlement Agreement is fair,
reasonable and adequate.
Although class certification was preliminarily approved by this
Court for the purpose of settlement, it is not certain that the
case would be certified in the absence of a settlement. While
plaintiffs might indeed prevail, the risk that the case might be
not certified is not illusory and weighs in favor of approving the
Settlement.
The Plaintiffs faced numerous legal, procedural, and practical
hurdles, including issues related to materiality, that, if not
overcome, could preclude any recovery for the Plaintiffs and the
Settlement Class. As the Court found in its Preliminary Approval
Order, the Settlement compares favorably with the expected recovery
balanced against the risks of continued litigation.
The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and the Defendant have entered into a class action
Settlement Agreement to resolve claims alleging that the
Defendant's proprietary line of menstrual underwear (Thinx Period
Underwear) was misrepresented as safe, sustainable, free from
harmful chemicals and migratory nanoparticles, and -- with regard
to certain styles -- organic. the Plaintiffs alleged that contrary
to these representations, the Thinx Period Underwear contained
per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
On November 28, 2022, in its Preliminary Approval Order, pursuant
to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court
preliminarily certified the following Settlement Class:
"All natural persons who purchased, not for resale, the
following
Thinx Period Underwear in the United States from November 12,
2016,
to the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order: Cotton
Brief, Cotton Bikini, Cotton Thong, Sport, Hiphugger, Hi-Waist,
Boyshort, French Cut, Cheeky, and Thong."
The Settlement Class excludes:
Thinx, as well as its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates,
officers,
directors, investors, and employees; any entity in which Thinx
has
a controlling interest; any judge presiding over this Action,
their
staff, and the members of the judge’s immediate family, all
persons
who request exclusion from (optout of) the Settlement.
Settlement Class Members had the option to receive either cash
reimbursement for past purchases of Thinx Period Underwear (up
to
three pairs total), or a voucher for future purchases of
Eligible
Voucher Products as defined below, on the following terms:
-- The maximum cash reimbursement available without proof of
purchase will be $10.50.
-- Settlement Class Members had the option to choose to receive
a
singleuse voucher for a discount of 35% off total purchases
of
Eligible Voucher Products (as defined below) in a single
purchase transaction of up to $150 on the Thinx website
(thinx.com).
-- The maximum discount available shall be up to $52.50.
Vouchers
will not be transferable, subject to standard terms and
conditions, and will be valid for six months from the date of
issuance. Vouchers may be used on full-price Eligible Voucher
Products only, and may not be combined with any other offers,
discounts, or promotions.
-- The Defendant will establish a common fund of up to Five
Million
Dollars ($5,000,000), comprising a $4,000,000 Cash Minimum
Amount and $1,000,000 Replenishment Amount. The fund will
provide for payment of valid claims by Settlement Class
Members,
Notice and administration costs, and attorneys' fees, costs,
and
service awards approved by the Court. If valid claims exceed
the
$4,000,000 Cash Minimum Amount, the Defendant will pay an
additional $1,000,000 Replenishment Amount to the fund to
cover
additional valid claims. If, after payment of Notice and
administration costs and any attorneys' fees, costs, and
service
awards approved by the Court, payment of total valid claims
would exceed the $5,000,000 Settlement Amount, the payments
to
Settlement Class Members shall be prorated.
Thinx is a New York–based company that makes feminine hygiene
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NBZCH3 at no extra charge.[CC]
THOSE CERTAIN: LAL Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINCOLN ADVENTURES, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, and MICHIGAN MULTI-KING, INC.,
a Michigan Corporation, on Behalf of Themselves and All Those
Similarly Situated, v. THOSE CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S,
LONDON MEMBERS OF SYNDICATES, et al., Case No.
2:08-cv-00235-CCC-ESK (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order certifying the following class pursuant to Rule
23(b)(3):
"All persons or entities in the United States who purchased or
renewed a contract of insurance with any Lloyd's Syndicates from
January 1, 2002, through February 12, 2016."
The Plaintiffs also move the Court to appoint the Plaintiffs
Lincoln Adventures, LLC and Michigan Multi-King, Inc. as
representatives of the Class.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs move the Court pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(B) and 23(g) to confirm Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Zwerling, Schacter & Zwerling as Class
Counsel.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 12, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Psv1wQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rachel L. Jensen, Esq.
Alexandra S. Bernay, Esq.
Paul J. Geller, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
- and -
Robert S. Schachter, Esq.
Justin M. Tarshis, Esq.
ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
41 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10010
Telephone: (212) 223-3900
Facsimile: (212) 371-5969
- and -
Dan Drachler, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
1904 Third Avenue, Suite 1030
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 895-5005
Facsimile: (206) 895-3131
- and -
Peter S. Pearlman, Esq.
COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP
Park 80 West – Plaza One
250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401
Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
Telephone: (201) 845-9600
Facsimile: (201) 845-9423
- and -
H. Sullivan Bunch, Esq.
BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN
& BALINT, P.C.
2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 274-1100
Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
- and -
Robert M. Foote, Esq.
Kathleen C. Chavez, Esq.
FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ
& O’NEIL, LLC
10 West State Street, Suite 200
Geneva, IL 60134
Telephone: (630) 232-7450
Facsimile: (630) 232-7452
- and -
Ellen Meriwether, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER
& SPRENGEL LLP
205 N. Monroe Street
Media, PA 19063
Telephone: (215) 864-2800
Facsimile: (215) 864-2810
TIVITY HEALTH: Strougo Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT STROUGO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
TIVITY HEALTH, INC., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00165 (M.D. Tenn.),
the Hon. Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. entered an order certifying
the following class:
"All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock
of TivityHealth, Inc. between March 8, 2019, and February 19,
2020,
inclusive."
Excluded from the Class are Tivity Health, Inc., Donato Tramuto,
Adam C. Holland, and Dawn Zier, members of their immediate
families, and any entity of which the Defendant has a
controlling
interest, and the legal representatives, heirs, predecessors,
successors, or assigns of any excluded party.
The law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP shall remain as class
counsel.
Tivity Health is a provider of health improvement, fitness, and
social engagement solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46cVtRe at no extra charge.[CC]
TMX FINANCE: Plaintiffs Seek to Suspend Class Cert. Filing Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REY EIMERT, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. TMX FINANCE CORPORATE
SERVICES, INC. and TMX FINANCE LLC d/b/a "TitleMax," "TitleBucks,"
and "InstaLoan," Case No. 4:23-cv-00097-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga.), the
Plaintiff moves the Court to enter an order suspending or tolling
the deadline for filing a motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff filed this class action complaint on April 12, 2023.
The Plaintiff is required to file his motion for class
certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 no later
than "90 days after the filing of a complaint in a class action."
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 9, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JjKE68 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roy E. Barnes, Esq.
John R. Bevis, Esq.
J. Cameron Tribble, Esq.
BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC
31 Atlanta Street
Marietta, GA 30060
Telephone: (770) 227-7375
E-mail: roy@barneslawgroup.com
bevis@barneslawgroup.com
ctribble@barneslawgroup.com
- and -
Barrett J. Vahle, Esq.
Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
Tanner J. Edwards, Esq.
Brandi S. Spates, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
vahle@stuevesiegel.com
tanner@stuevesiegel.com
spates@stuevesiegel.com
TRANS UNION: Filing of Class Certification Bid Extended to Jan. 26
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM NORMAN BROOKS, III
v. TRANS UNION LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00048-GEKP (E.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Gene E.K. Pratter entered an order that:
1. The Plaintiff must disclose a supplemental report from its
previously disclosed opinion witness by September 15, 2023.
2. Trans Union must disclose any opinion witnesses it will rely
upon to oppose Plaintiff's Rule 23 motion by October 20,
2023.
3. All depositions of disclosed class-certification opinion
witnesses must be completed by December 29, 2023.
4. The deadline for the Plaintiff to file his motion for class
certification is extended to Jan. 26, 2024.
5. Trans Union's response to the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification is due by Feb. 23, 2024.
6. The Plaintiff's reply in support of class certification is
due
by March 8, 2024.
Trans Union operates as global information and insights company.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XjyvDJ at no extra charge.[CC]
TRANSPERFECT TRANSLATIONS: Opposition Brief Due August 10
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELE METCALF and HANNAH
LAWSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. TRANSPERFECT TRANSLATIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case
No. 1:19-cv-10104-ER-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katharine H.
Parker entered an order that:
-- The Plaintiffs shall file an opposition to the Defendant's
motion
and any motion to preclude the Defendant's expert by Monday,
July
10, 2023.
-- The Defendant's opposition brief shall be filed by Thursday,
August 10, 2023.
On May 19, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to preclude the
Plaintiffs' expert report and testimony of the Plaintiffs' expert
witness.
On May 31, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a letter arguing that the
Defendant's motion is procedurally premature because the Defendant
neglected to request a pre-motion conference as required by my
Individual Rules.
The Plaintiffs' letter also raises substantive arguments in
opposition to the Defendant's motion and seeks leave to move to
strike the motion or in the alternative, to move to preclude the
Defendant’s expert report and testimony of the Defendant's expert
witness.
On June 2, 2023, the Defendant filed a letter stating that it was
not required to file a pre-motion letter because its motion is
connected to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and
needed to be contemporaneously filed with its opposition to the
Plaintiff's motion.
TransPerfect Translations is a translation and language services
company based in New York City.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JlLIGo at no extra charge.[CC]
TRAVEL INSURED: July 11 Extension to File Class Cert Reply Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOUIS B. EDLESON, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. TRAVEL
INSURED INTERNATIONAL, INC., and UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 3:21-cv-00323-WQH-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Parties
ask the Court to enter an order modifying the briefing schedule on
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and the Defendants'
Daubert motion as follows:
(1) extending until July 11, 2023, the deadline for the
Plaintiff
to file the reply in support of his motion for class
certification and the opposition to the Defendants' Daubert
motion; and
(2) extending until July 28, 2023, the deadline for the
Defendants
to file the reply in support of their Daubert motion.
On March 24, 2023, the Plaintiff filed his motion for class
certification. On May 19, 2023, the Defendants filed their
opposition to the motion for class certification.
On May 25, 2023, the Defendants filed their Daubert motion to
exclude opinions and testimony of the Plaintiff's expert, Charles
DeWeese.
the Plaintiff intends to depose the Defendants' two expert
witnesses. Those depositions are currently set for June 7 and 13,
2023. the Plaintiff further intends to work with his expert, Mr.
DeWeese, on preparing the reply in further support of the motion
for class certification and the opposition to the Daubert motion.
Travel Insured provides comprehensive travel insurance plans to
worldwide travelers.
A copy of Parties' motion dated June 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/446Ukc4 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858) 914-2001
Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
achang@bottinilaw.com
ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael N. Wolgin, Esq.
Steven B. Weisburd, Esq.
Markham R. Leventhal, Esq.
CARLTON FIELDS, LLP
2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 530N
Los Angeles, CA 90067-4707
Telephone: (310) 843-6300
E-mail: mwolgin@carltonfields.com
sweisburd@carltonfields.com
mleventhal@carltonfields.com
TRINITY HEALTH: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Medenblik Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER MEDENBLIK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRINITY HEALTH CORPORATION, MERCY HEALTH
NETWORK, INC. AND MERCY MEDICAL CENTER - CLINTON, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 4:23-cv-00197-SHL-SBJ (S.D. Iowa, June 12, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per
se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment, breach of confidence, declaratory judgment, and
violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act.
The Plaintiff bring this class action against Defendant for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other
similarly situated Defendant patients' personally identifiable
information and protected health information, including name,
address, date of birth, driver's license/state identification
number, Social Security number, financial account information,
medical record number, encounter number, Medicare or Medicaid
identification number, mental or physical treatment/condition
information, diagnosis code/information, date of service,
admission/discharge date, prescription information, billing/claims
information, personal representative or guardian name, and health
insurance information, from criminal hackers.
On June 2, 2023, Defendant sent out data breach notice letters to
individuals whose private information was compromised as a result
of the hacking incident. Based on the notice sent by Defendants,
unusual activity was detected on its network that disrupted certain
systems and, in response, Defendants launched an investigation
which revealed that an unauthorized party had access to certain
files that contained sensitive patient information, and that such
access took place between March 7, 2023 and April 4, 2023.
The complaint alleges Defendant and its employees failed to
properly implement security practices with regard to the computer
network and systems that housed the private information. Had
Defendant properly monitored its networks, it would have discovered
the data breach sooner. Through this complaint and the claims
brought herein, Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of
herself and all similarly situated individuals whose private
information was accessed and/or compromised during the data breach,
says the suit.
Trinity Health Corporation is among the largest not-for-profit,
faith-based health care systems in the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
Brian O. Marty, Esq.
SHINDLER ANDERSON GOPLERUD & WEESE PC
5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
West Des Moines, IA 50265-5749
Telephone: (515) 223-4567
Facsimile: (515) 223-8887
E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com
marty@sagwlaw.com
- and =
Mason A. Barney, Esq.
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.com
TRIPLEPOINT VENTURE: Petersen Sues Over 9.98% Drop of Stock Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEREK PETERSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRIPLEPOINT VENTURE GROWTH BDC CORP., JAMES
P. LABE, CHRISTOPHER M. MATHIEU, and SAJAL K. SRIVASTAVA,
Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-02980 (N.D. Cal., June 16, 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 TriplePoint's business and
operations in order to trade TriplePoint securities at artificially
inflated prices between March 4, 2020 and May 1, 2023.
Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) TriplePoint had
overstated the strength of its various portfolio companies and loan
book, as well as the viability of its overall investment strategy;
(ii) the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to have a material
negative impact on the company's financial position and/or
prospects; and (iii) as a result, the company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
When the truth emerged, TriplePoint's stock price fell $1.19 per
share, or 9.98 percent, over the following two trading sessions, to
close at $10.73 per share on May 3, 2023, damaging investors, says
the suit.
TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. is a business development
company, with principal executive offices located at 2755 Sand Hill
Road, Suite 150, Menlo Park, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
211 Perimeter Center Parkway, Suite 1010
Atlanta, GA 30346
Telephone: (770) 392-0090
Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
TULA LIFE INC: Schultz Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Michelle Schultz, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. TULA Life, Inc., Case No.
2023-CA-1093 was removed from the Hernando County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida on May 22, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-01128-SDM-SPF to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated Other Contract.
Tula Life, Inc. -- https://www.tula.com/ -- owns and operates
beauty supply stores. The Company offers anti-aging cream,
cleanser, serum, skincare, and other accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq.
KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A.
2110 West Platt Street
Tampa, FL 33606
Phone: (813) 422-7782
Fax: (813) 422-7783
Email: ben@thekrfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Terri L. Parker
Ashley P. Hayes
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, LLP
100 N Tampa St Ste 2900
Tampa, FL 33602-5810
Phone: (813) 202-7100
Fax: (813) 221-8837
Email: tparker@shb.com
ahayes@shb.com
- and -
Michael Gene Polatsek
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3200
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 358-5171
Email: MPolatsek@shb.com
UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Allowed to Seal Class Cert Declarations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AHMED, ABDUL, AMIR,
SIDDIQA, RAHMATULLAH, FATIMA, and MURSAL SADAT, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY; ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his official capacity as
Secretary of Homeland Security; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
SERVICES (USCIS); UR MENDOZA JADDOU, in her official capacity as
Director of USCIS; TED H. KIM, in his official capacity as
Associate Director of the Refugee, Asylum and International
Operations Directorate at USCIS, Case No. 4:23-cv-01892-JST (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' renewed administrative motion to seal portions of
plaintiffs' declarations filed in support of motions for
preliminary injunction and class certification.
United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S. federal
executive department responsible for public security, roughly
comparable to the interior or home ministries of other countries.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qNFOYq at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Edward Hillenbrand, Esq.
Michael F. Williams, Esq.
Joseph A. D’Antonio, Esq.
Morgan Lily Phoenix, Esq.
Michael P. Quinn, Esq.
Sanjay Nevrekar, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
555 South Flower Street, Suite 3700
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 680-8400
E-mail: edward.hillenbrand@kirkland.com
mwilliams@kirkland.com
joseph.dantonio@kirkland.com
morgan.phoenix@kirkland.com
michael.quinn@kirkland.com
sanjay.nevrekar@kirkland.com
- and -
Richard Caldarone, Esq.
Collen Cowgill, Esq.
Keren Zwick, Esq.
NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER
224 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 660-1370
E-mail: rcaldarone@heartlandalliance.org
ccowgill@heartlandalliance.org
kzwick@heartlandalliance.org
USAA FEDERAL: Parties Seek More Time to Submit Class Cert. Reply
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHILIP BULLS, DEAN BRINK,
CARMIN NOWLIN, NICHOLAS PADAO, AND RAPHAEL RILEY, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, v. USAA FEDERAL SAVINGS
BANK, and USAA SAVINGS BANK, Case No. 5:21-cv-00488-BO (E.D.N.C.),
the Parties jointly move the Court to extend the deadline for the
Plaintiffs' to submit their Reply in Support of the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel to
make the Reply due July 12, 2023.
On March 28, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class
Certification. On April 7, 2023, the Defendants filed a Motion for
Extension of Time to Respond, requesting a 120-day extension of
time to respond.
The Court partially granted that motion, setting the Defendants'
response deadline as May 30, 2023, and the Plaintiffs' Reply
deadline as June 20, 2023.
The Defendants conducted the depositions of four of the five the
Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs' expert between May 10, 2023, and May
19, 2023.
On May 17, 2023, the Plaintiff Nicholas Padao experienced a family
emergency and was unable to attend his deposition. Sgt. Padao's
deposition was rescheduled and was conducted on May 30, 2023.
On May 24, 2023, the Parties submitted a Joint Motion to Extend the
Briefing Schedule on the Motion for Class Certification, requesting
a two-week extension of the briefing schedule in order to
accommodate the deposition of Sgt. Padao.
As of May 30, 2023, the Court had not entered an order granting the
Joint Motion to Extend the Briefing Schedule. Accordingly, the
Defendants filed their Response to the Motion for Class
Certification. That Response is supported by the declarations of
three USAA witnesses.
USAA Federal operates as a full-service bank. The Bank accepts
deposits, makes loans and provides other services for the public.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qVoYHa at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew D. Ballew, Esq.
Robert E. Zaytoun, Esq.
John R. Taylor, Esq.
ZAYTOUN BALLEW & TAYLOR, PLLC
3130 Fairhill Drive, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Telephone: (919) 832-6690
Facsimile: (919) 831-4793
E-mail: MBallew@zaytounlaw.com
RZaytoun@zaytounlaw.com
JTaylor@zaytounlaw.com
- and -
Knoll D. Lowney, Esq.
Claire E. Tonry, Esq.
Alyssa L. Koepfgen, Esq.
SMITH & LOWNEY, PLLC
2317 E. John Street
Seattle, Washington 98112
Telephone: (206) 860-2883
Facsimile: (206) 860-4187
E-mail: Knoll@smithandlowney.com
Claire@smithandlowney.com
Alyssa@smithandlowney.com
The Defendants are represented by:
F. Hill Allen, Esq.
THARRINGTON SMITH, L.L.P.
150 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1800
Raleigh, N.C. 27602-1151
Telephone: (919) 821-4711
Facsimile: (919) 829-1583
E-mail: hallen@tharringtonsmith.com
- and -
Daniel T. Plunkett, Esq.
Megan S. Ben’Ary, Esq.
Jeffrey R. Seewald, Esq.
Andrew M. Albritton, Esq.
McGLINCHEY STAFFORD, PLLC
601 Poydras St., Suite 1200
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 596-2778
Facsimile: (504) 910-9542
E-mail: dplunkett@mcglinchey.com
mbenary@mcglinchey.com
jseewald@mcglinchey.com
aalbritton@mcglinchey.com
VIATRIS INC: Faces McCord Suit Over Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------
KATHRYN P. MCCORD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VIATRIS INC.; MICHAEL GOETTLER;
RAJIV MALIK; SANJEEV NARULA; ANTHONY MAURO; and WALT OWENS,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01098-MJH (W.D. Pa., June 15, 2023) is
a securities class action on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Viatris common stock between March
1, 2021 and February 25, 2022, inclusive, seeking remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class
Period, the Company falsely represented that: (i) 2021 was a
"trough year" for Viatris; (ii) $6.2 billion was the adjusted
EBITDA "floor" for Viatris; (iii) its biosimilars business was a
core part of the Company's long-term investment strategy; (iv) it
was managing resource allocation to meet its phase one objectives
and manage Viatris' base business erosion; (v) base business
erosion was being and would continue to be offset by new product
launches, including those in its biosimilars business; and (vi)
base business erosion was in line with Defendants' expectations.
However, contrary to the Defendants representations, the Company
was experiencing significantly more competition in its United
States complex generics business than disclosed. As a result, the
Company was not able to effectively manage its base business
erosion or create a stable revenue base. Instead, throughout 2021,
Viatris total revenues were declining quarter-over-quarter, says
the suit.
Viatris' stock price allegedly declined $3.53 per share of common
stock, or approximately 24 per cent, from a closing price of $14.54
per share on February 25, 2022, to a close of $11.01 on February
28, 2022.
VIATRIS INC. operates as a pharmaceutical company. The Company
produces medicines for patients across broad range of major
therapeutic areas spanning both noncommunicable and infectious
diseases. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Must Produce Abarca's Requested Drivers' Data
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EZEQUIEL OLIVARES ABARCA,
et al, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Case No. 8:14CV319 (D. Neb.),
the Hon. Judge Michael D. Nelson entered an order that:
1. The Plaintiffs' motion to compel is granted. Werner shall
produce the requested data for drivers hired after October
2018.
2. The parties shall meet and confer regarding (a) the time
Werner
requires to gather and produce such data and (b) the second
notice and opt out period for drivers hired after October
2018,
including reaching an agreement on an end date for class
members
who must receive notice under Rule 23(b)(3).
The parties have never moved the Court to amend its class
definition, and the Court declines to do so in this order, as that
issue has not been fully discussed between counsel and presented to
the Court. As it stands, the scope of the certified class spans
"four years before the filing of this legal action until such time
as there is a final disposition of this lawsuit." Werner objects to
producing data for class member drivers hired after October 2018
because they did not receive class notice -- but to the extent the
class was certified under Rule 23(b)(2), no notice and opt out
period is required, the Court says.
The class action arises out of the plaintiffs' allegations that
Werner has uniform policies and practices regarding their truck
drivers' compensation that violate wage and hour laws of California
and Nebraska.
On March 30, 2018, the Court entered an order certifying two
classes of Werner truck drivers affected by these policies and
practices, totaling over 66,000 drivers:
a. the California Class
All truck drivers who were or are California residents and
who,
while working for Werner, picked up and/or dropped off a load
in
the state of California after the completion of training at
any
time since four years before the filing of this legal action
until such time as there is a final disposition of this
lawsuit."
b. the Nebraska Class
All truck drivers who worked or work anywhere for Werner
after
the completion of training at any time since four years
before
the filing of this legal action until such time as there is a
final disposition of this lawsuit.
The Court granted the Plaintiffs' request for a "hybrid" class
certification pursuant to both Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and
23(b)(3), which contemplates both injunctive and monetary relief.
Werner is an American transportation and logistics company, serving
the United States, Mexico and Canada.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43Qn1KC at no extra charge.[CC]
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Must Produce Bryant's Requested Drivers' Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL BRYANT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Case No. 8:20CV227 (D. Neb.), the
Hon. Judge Michael D. Nelson entered an order that:
1. The Plaintiffs' motion to compel is granted. Werner shall
produce the requested data for drivers hired after October
2018.
2. The parties shall meet and confer regarding (a) the time
Werner
requires to gather and produce such data and (b) the second
notice and opt out period for drivers hired after October
2018,
including reaching an agreement on an end date for class
members
who must receive notice under Rule 23(b)(3).
The parties have never moved the Court to amend its class
definition, and the Court declines to do so in this order, as that
issue has not been fully discussed between counsel and presented to
the Court. As it stands, the scope of the certified class spans
"four years before the filing of this legal action until such time
as there is a final disposition of this lawsuit." Werner objects to
producing data for class member drivers hired after October 2018
because they did not receive class notice -- but to the extent the
class was certified under Rule 23(b)(2), no notice and opt out
period is required, the Court says.
The class action arises out of the plaintiffs' allegations that
Werner has uniform policies and practices regarding their truck
drivers' compensation that violate wage and hour laws of California
and Nebraska.
On March 30, 2018, the Court entered an order certifying two
classes of Werner truck drivers affected by these policies and
practices, totaling over 66,000 drivers:
a. the California Class
All truck drivers who were or are California residents and
who,
while working for Werner, picked up and/or dropped off a load
in
the state of California after the completion of training at
any
time since four years before the filing of this legal action
until such time as there is a final disposition of this
lawsuit."
b. the Nebraska Class
All truck drivers who worked or work anywhere for Werner
after
the completion of training at any time since four years
before
the filing of this legal action until such time as there is a
final disposition of this lawsuit
The Court granted the Plaintiffs' request for a "hybrid" class
certification pursuant to both Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and
23(b)(3), which contemplates both injunctive and monetary relief.
Werner is an American transportation and logistics company, serving
the United States, Mexico and Canada.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PnF5at at no extra charge.[CC]
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Must Produce Smith's Requested Drivers' Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM SMITH, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public, v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Case No.
8:15CV287 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Michael D. Nelson entered an
order that:
1. The Plaintiffs' motion to compel is granted. Werner shall
produce the requested data for drivers hired after October
2018.
2. The parties shall meet and confer regarding (a) the time
Werner
requires to gather and produce such data and (b) the second
notice and opt out period for drivers hired after October
2018,
including reaching an agreement on an end date for class
members
who must receive notice under Rule 23(b)(3).
The parties have never moved the Court to amend its class
definition, and the Court declines to do so in this order, as that
issue has not been fully discussed between counsel and presented to
the Court. As it stands, the scope of the certified class spans
"four years before the filing of this legal action until such time
as there is a final disposition of this lawsuit." Werner objects to
producing data for class member drivers hired after October 2018
because they did not receive class notice -- but to the extent the
class was certified under Rule 23(b)(2), no notice and opt out
period is required, the Court says.
The class action arises out of the plaintiffs' allegations that
Werner has uniform policies and practices regarding their truck
drivers' compensation that violate wage and hour laws of California
and Nebraska.
On March 30, 2018, the Court entered an order certifying two
classes of Werner truck drivers affected by these policies and
practices, totaling over 66,000 drivers:
a. the California Class
All truck drivers who were or are California residents and
who,
while working for Werner, picked up and/or dropped off a load
in
the state of California after the completion of training at
any
time since four years before the filing of this legal action
until such time as there is a final disposition of this
lawsuit."
b. the Nebraska Class
All truck drivers who worked or work anywhere for Werner
after
the completion of training at any time since four years
before
the filing of this legal action until such time as there is a
final disposition of this lawsuit
The Court granted the Plaintiffs' request for a "hybrid" class
certification pursuant to both Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and
23(b)(3), which contemplates both injunctive and monetary relief.
Werner is an American transportation and logistics company, serving
the United States, Mexico and Canada.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42RBvs8 at no extra charge.[CC]
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Must Produce Vester's Requested Drivers' Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN VESTER and JOEL
MORALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Case No. 8:17CV145
(D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Michael D. Nelson entered an order that:
1. The Plaintiffs' motion to compel is granted. Werner shall
produce the requested data for drivers hired after October
2018.
2. The parties shall meet and confer regarding (a) the time
Werner
requires to gather and produce such data and (b) the second
notice and opt out period for drivers hired after October
2018,
including reaching an agreement on an end date for class
members
who must receive notice under Rule 23(b)(3).
The parties have never moved the Court to amend its class
definition, and the Court declines to do so in this order, as that
issue has not been fully discussed between counsel and presented to
the Court. As it stands, the scope of the certified class spans
"four years before the filing of this legal action until such time
as there is a final disposition of this lawsuit." Werner objects to
producing data for class member drivers hired after October 2018
because they did not receive class notice -- but to the extent the
class was certified under Rule 23(b)(2), no notice and opt out
period is required, the Court says.
The class action arises out of the plaintiffs' allegations that
Werner has uniform policies and practices regarding their truck
drivers' compensation that violate wage and hour laws of California
and Nebraska.
On March 30, 2018, the Court entered an order certifying two
classes of Werner truck drivers affected by these policies and
practices, totaling over 66,000 drivers:
a. the California Class
All truck drivers who were or are California residents and
who,
while working for Werner, picked up and/or dropped off a load
in
the state of California after the completion of training at
any
time since four years before the filing of this legal action
until such time as there is a final disposition of this
lawsuit."
b. the Nebraska Class
All truck drivers who worked or work anywhere for Werner
after
the completion of training at any time since four years
before
the filing of this legal action until such time as there is a
final disposition of this lawsuit
The Court granted the Plaintiffs' request for a "hybrid" class
certification pursuant to both Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and
23(b)(3), which contemplates both injunctive and monetary relief.
Werner is an American transportation and logistics company, serving
the United States, Mexico and Canada.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43Vcb5Z at no extra charge.[CC]
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Ordered to Produce Drivers' Data in Abarca Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EZEQUIEL OLIVARES ABARCA, et al., individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated, and WILLIAM SMITH, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf
of the general public, and BRIAN VESTER and JOEL MORALES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and
DANIEL BRYANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case Nos. 8:14CV319, 8:15CV287, 8:17CV145, 8:20CV227
(D. Neb.), Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nebraska grants the Plaintiffs' motion to
compel.
The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Letter which the
Court has construed as a motion to compel. During discovery, the
Plaintiffs requested, and Werner produced, certain data for class
member drivers including driver logs, pay records, trip data, and
stop data. They assert they recently discovered Werner has not
produced payroll and driver log data for class member drivers hired
after October 2018, when notice to class members was first
distributed. They seek immediate supplementation of such data for
class member drivers hired after October 2018.
Werner opposes the Plaintiffs' request, arguing they abandoned
their position that drivers hired after October 2018 should be
added to the class. It asserts in the fall of 2020, it produced to
them supplemental class lists, and the parties discussed the
possibility of serving a supplemental notice to drivers hired after
October 2018. However, Werner maintains the Plaintiffs never
followed through and stopped responding to the defense counsel's
communications regarding the supplemental class notice.
Because class member drivers hired after October 2018 never
received class notice and the Plaintiffs did not raise the issue
since the fall of 2020, Werner objects to those drivers' inclusion
in the class and to producing any data or personal information
regarding them. Werner further maintains the certified class of
drivers, which spans from four years before the filing of this
legal action until such time as there is a final disposition of
this lawsuit, results in a class that never ceases to grow and is
not presently ascertainable, and requests that the Court finds it
has no obligation to produce records for individuals who are not on
the October 2018 class list.
The class action arises out of the Plaintiffs' allegations that
Werner has uniform policies and practices regarding their truck
drivers' compensation that violate wage and hour laws of California
and Nebraska.
On March 30, 2018, the Court entered an order certifying two
classes of Werner truck drivers affected by these policies and
practices, totaling over 66,000 drivers:
a. All truck drivers who were or are California residents and
who, while working for Werner, picked up and/or dropped off a load
in the state of California after the completion of training at any
time since four years before the filing of this legal action until
such time as there is a final disposition of this lawsuit (the
California Class).
b. All truck drivers who worked or work anywhere for Werner
after the completion of training at any time since four years
before the filing of this legal action until such time as there is
a final disposition of this lawsuit (the Nebraska Class).
The Court granted the Plaintiffs' request for a "hybrid" class
certification pursuant to both Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and
23(b)(3), which contemplates both injunctive and monetary relief.
In September 2018, the Court entered an order approving the
parties' Stipulation requiring notice of the class action to be
disseminated to the class members. The order appointed a Claims
Administrator and required Werner to provide the Claims
Administrator with a list of class members to whom notice of this
class action would be sent. In October 2018, notice was mailed to
over 66,000 class members, who were provided with an opt-out
deadline. After the opt-out deadline passed, Werner produced driver
logs, trip data, and payroll data in March 2019, for individuals
who received the class notice and did not opt out. Werner updated
its data production for those drivers in July 2020 and September
2022.
On Sept. 24, 2020, as a supplemental response to the Plaintiff
Alesna's Interrogatory No. 1, Werner produced supplemental class
lists showing the names and contact information for individuals who
were hired since the previous class lists were produced in 2018.
Werner's counsel informed the Plaintiffs' counsel that Werner
believed a supplemental notice should be issued to these
individuals, followed by an opt-out period for these individuals.
After receiving no response, on Oct. 7, 2020, Werner's counsel
followed up and requested Plaintiffs' position with respect to a
supplemental class notice.
On Oct. 14, 2020, Werner's counsel e-mailed Plaintiffs' counsel a
draft stipulation regarding supplemental notice. On November 3,
2020, counsel for Plaintiffs responded that the stipulation "would
be fine," but requested that Werner update the class lists to
include those individuals hired since the supplemental class lists
were produced on September 24, 2020. Werner asserts Plaintiffs'
request to supplement the class list six weeks after the first
supplemental class list was sent demonstrates that Plaintiffs'
interpretation of the class definition is not manageable and that
the requests for supplemental lists would be a never-ending
process.
On April 20, 2023, the Plaintiffs sent a letter to Werner first
raising this issue regarding Werner's incomplete production. The
parties exchanged emails and attempted to meet and confer to
resolve the issue but were not successful. The Plaintiffs filed
their motion to compel on May 5, 2023, bringing this issue before
the Court for the first time.
Judge Nelson finds that the parties have never moved the Court to
amend its class definition and he declines to do so in his instant
Order, as that issue has not been fully discussed between the
counsel and presented to the Court. As it stands, he finds that the
scope of the certified class spans "four years before the filing of
this legal action until such time as there is a final disposition
of this lawsuit."
Werner objects to producing data for class member drivers hired
after October 2018 because they did not receive class notice -- but
to the extent the class was certified under Rule 23(b)(2), no
notice and opt out period is required. And Werner is not relieved
of its discovery obligations just because a second notice has not
yet been sent to class members indisputably within the Court's
certified definition. Therefore, Judge Nelson finds that the
Plaintiffs' request for supplementation of data for drivers hired
after October 2018 should be granted.
Practically speaking, however, Werner is correct that, to the
extent the classes were certified under Rule 23(b)(3), class
members must receive class notice and an opportunity to opt out to
pursue their individual claims for monetary relief. The parties are
to meet and confer to reach an agreement on how and when
supplemental notice to the class members hired after October 2018
will be accomplished, including reaching an agreement on an end
date for class members who must receive notice under Rule 23(b)(3),
in consideration of the current case progression and trial
deadlines.
Accordingly, Judge Nelson grants the Plaintiffs' motion to compel.
Werner will produce the requested data for drivers hired after
October 2018. The parties will meet and confer regarding (a) the
time Werner requires to gather and produce such data and (b) the
second notice and opt out period for drivers hired after October
2018, including reaching an agreement on an end date for class
members who must receive notice under Rule 23(b)(3).
A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/36sb8haw from Leagle.com.
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Goldstein Sues Over Defective Gas Stoves
---------------------------------------------------------------
DEBRA GOLDSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-04752-CAS-JC (C.D. Cal., June 16, 2023) alleges that the
Defendant makes, sells, and markets defective KitchenAid brand gas
stoves.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant sold its
Products for cooking inside the home, while omitting any warning of
the serious defect due to the harmful emissions. The Defendant knew
of the defect, but actively concealed it. The Defendant should
have, but did not, warn consumers of the fact that its Products
emit harmful pollutants when used for cooking.
The Defendant should have, but did not, warn consumers of the risk
of nitrogen oxides. These warnings could have been included on the
packaging, stickers, or instruction manual for the product. But
Defendant did not include any such warning, says the suit.
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION manufactures and markets major home
appliances. The Company provides principal products include laundry
appliances, refrigeration, room air conditioning equipment, cooking
appliances, dishwashers, and mixers and other small household
appliances. Whirlpool serves customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christin Cho, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
Email: christin@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
jonas@dovel.com
WHOLE FOODS: Collects Sales Tax on Nontaxable Foods, Willman Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BARRY WILLMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-04980 (S.D.N.Y., June 13, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for unjust enrichment and violation of the
New York General Business Law arising from the Defendant's conduct
of charging and collecting sales tax on a nontaxable food product.
On October 28, 2021, Plaintiff Willman purchased "Green Beans with
Capers and Olives" from the Whole Foods located at 808 Columbus
Avenue in New York. The Plaintiff purchased the Green Bean Product
for $17.80, and Defendant placed an 8.875% sales tax on the Green
Bean Product. The Green Bean Product is sold from a cold case, was
packaged by the pound, and was sold at the deli counter at
Defendant's store. The Green Bean Product was prepared, packaged,
and refrigerated by Defendant, was not otherwise arranged on a
plate or platter or in an arranged form such as a sandwich or
ready-to-eat meal, was sold for off-premises consumption, and was
not otherwise sold in a heated state. Thus, the Green Bean Product
was not taxable. Whole Foods knows or should know that it is
improperly charging sales tax in New York, says the suit.
Whole Foods Market Group is a widely popular grocery store chain
known for its organic and healthy products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
Matthew A. Girardi, Esq.
Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: mroberts@bursor.com
mgirardi@bursor.com
jdiamond@bursor.com
- and -
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
WILCO LIFE: July 28 Extension for Class Cert. Hearing Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE GRUNDSTROM,
Individually, and as successor-in-interest to DR. RICHARD I.
APPLETON and on Behalf of the Class, v. WILCO LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, an Indiana Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-03445-MMC (N.D.
Cal.), the Parties agree and stipulate to a continuation of the
hearing date on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification from
June 9, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. to July 28, 2023 at 9:00 a.m., or any
further date as may be ordered by the Court.
The hearing date set for the motion was initially April 28, 2023,
and later continued by the Court to June 9, 2023, on the Court's
Order dated April 5, 2023.
Wilco Life operates as an insurance company. The Company provides
life, accident, and health insurance services to individuals.
A copy of the Parties' dated June 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42OkE9R at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
Alex M. Tomasevic, Esq.
NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
225 Broadway, 19th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 325-0492
Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
- and -
Jack B. Winters, Esq.
Sarah Ball, Esq.
La Mesa, CA 91942
WINTERS & ASSOCIATES
Telephone: (619) 234-9000
E-mail: jackbwinters@earthlink.com
sball@einsurelaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael D. Mulvaney, Esq.
Edward M. Holt, Esq.
John A. Little, Jr., Esq.
Ophir Johna, Esq.
MAYNARD NEXSEN PC
1901 Sixth Avenue North, Suite 1700
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 254-1000
E-mail: mmulvaney@maynardnexsen.com
tholt@maynardnexsen.com
jlittle@maynardnexsen.com
ojohna@maynardnexsen.com
XPRESS GLOBAL: Vasquez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Vasquez, Melvin Williams, Jaime Furlough, and Michael Chen,
on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons, and the
general public v. XPRESS GLOBAL SYSTEMS LLC and DOES 1through 25,
inclusive, Case No. 23CV034375 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., May
24, 2023), is brought by the Plaintiffs against the Defendant based
on the Defendants' wrongful actions and include the following
causes of action: failure to reimburse expenses, failure to pay
overtime; improper meal periods; improper rest periods; improper
wage statements; wages not paid upon separation, and unlawful
business practices.
The Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees worked
well over 8 hours in a day and 40 hours in a workweek. The
Defendant required Plaintiffs and Class Members to work overtime
but did not pay Plaintiffs and Class Members for all hours worked
on any given day or in any given workweek. The Defendant maintained
a series of policies and practices that effectively coerced and
pressured its non-exempt employees to work without overtime
compensation, have their wages miscalculated, to forego meal and
rest periods (or not be paid for their rest breaks), not being
reimbursed for business expenses, and not receive accurate wage
statements, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as drivers for the
Defendant.
XPRESS GLOBAL SYSTEMS, LLC was/is a trucking company that
distributes goods, is a Georgia limited liability company in good
standing that is registered and authorized to do business in the
state of California, with facilities located in Northern and
Southern California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
2901 W. Coast Highway, Suite 200
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Phone: (949) 270-2798
Fax: (949) 209-0303
Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com
- and -
Brian J. Kowalski, Esq.
KOWALSKI EMPLOYMENT LAW CORP.
1941 California Avenue, #79453
Corona, CA 92877
Phone: (925) 570-5673
Email: brian@kowalskilawfirm.com
YVONNE HAO: Small Business Owners Seek Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brian Dalton; New England
Firearms Academy, Inc.; John Troisi; Big Jack's Auto Service and
Towing, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated
persons, v. Yvonne Hao, in her official capacity as Secretary of
Economic Development, Massachusetts Growth Capital Corporation, and
Lawrence D. Andrews, in his official capacity as President and CEO
of Massachusetts Growth Capital Corporation, Case No.
1:23-cv-11216-WGY (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order granting class certification.
The proposed class will be represented by the Plaintiffs Brian
Dalton and his business, the New England Firearms Academy; and John
Troisi and his business, Big Jack's Auto Service and Towing (the
Plaintiffs or "small business owners").
The proposed class consists of all small businesses and small
business owners that would have been eligible to apply for
Massachusetts's Inclusive Recovery Grant Program if the business
were minority-owned, woman-owned, or LGBTQ+-owned.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 7, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JkBsyf at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan M. Houghton, Esq.
Andrew R. Quinio, Esq.
Joshua P. Thompson, Esq.
PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION
3100 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 1000
Arlington, VA 22201
Telephone: (202) 888-6881
E-mail: JHoughton@pacificlegal.org
AQuinio@pacificlegal.org
JThompson@pacificlegal.org
Asbestos Litigation
*********
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 ***