/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230704.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, July 4, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 133 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Bone Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Brown Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Brown Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Bryant Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Budler-Ronzoni Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams ACTION NISSAN: Fails to Pay Employees' Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA ADVANCE PUBLICATIONS: Bid to Dismiss Anderson ERISA Suit Granted AGB INC: Rivera Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Machine Operators ALLIANCE FOR MULTICULTURAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Suit Says AMAZON.COM INC: Asks Court to Trim Discovery in Alexa Privacy Suit APRIA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, May Alleges APRIA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Secure Info From Hackers, Kramer Says APRIA HEALTHCARE: Hohenbery Sues Over Third Party Access of Info AUTOZONERS LLC: Contreras Suit Removed to C.D. California BARCLAYS BANK: Class Deal in Sonterra Suit Wins Prelim. Approval BECCAIR LLC: Robertson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BERKELEY THERAPY: Dickson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BIRKENSTOCK MIDTOWN: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BLUEMERCURY INC: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York BOARD OF TRUSTEES: Whitaker-Pine Suit Removed to S.D. Indiana BOB MACKIE DESIGN: Robertson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BOUTIQUE TERE: Robertson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BPS DIRECT LLC: Tucker Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania BPS DIRECT: Cornell Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania BPS DIRECT: Hernandez Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Garza Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California BUDDY BAR CASTING: Ayala Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages C.R. ENGLAND INC: Midden Suit Removed to C.D. California CABELA'S INC: Calvert Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania CABELA'S INC: Montecalvo Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania CABELA'S LLC: Durham Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania CADWALADER WICKERSHAM: Perotti Voluntarily Dismissed Privacy Suit CAMBRIAN HOMECARE: Fails to Properly Pay Caregivers, Pulido Claims CAPEL INCORPORATED: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CATHYJON ENTERPRISES: Ramos Suit Removed to C.D. California CENTERVILLE CLINICS: Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania CENTRAL PARK WEST: Hirsch Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York CGM INC: Youngblood Files Suit in N.D. Georgia CGM LLC: Wolf Files Suit in N.D. Georgia CHARLOTTE STONE SHOES: Alexandria Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CLOUD 9 RECORDING: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CMG MEDIA: Filing of Class Cert. Bid in Hawkins Extended to Dec. 9 COMPASS GROUP: Faces Hayes FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Wages in E.D. Ark. DAYBREAK SOLAR: Court Dismisses Cunningham's Amended TCPA Complaint DENTALPLANS.COM: Bradley's Bid to Compel Reply to Deposition OK'd DIGMEE HOLDING: Robertson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DISH NETWORK: Turley Files Suit in D. Colorado DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Suhr Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid DONALD J. TRUMP: Collier Files Suit in D. Columbia DONALD TRUMP: Court OK's Denson Rule 23 Class Certification Bid DUPONT SPECIALITY: Fails to Pay Operators' OT Wages Under FLSA EL FINO HAT: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York EMPIRE PACKING: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Johnson Suit Claims EMPYREAN SERVICES: Bates Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania ENCOMPASS HEALTH: Fuller Sues Over Nurses' Unpaid Overtime Wages ENZO BIOCHEM: Bynum Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Records ENZO BIOCHEM: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Mullane Alleges ENZO CLINICAL: Pastore Sues Over Disclosure of Info to 3rd Party EUROMARKET DESIGNS: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York EVIL BIKES: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Young Files FCRA Suit in D. New Jersey FANATICS LLC: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FANDANGO MEDIA: Faces Jackson VPPA Suit for Disclosing Info to FB FEDEX GROUND: Ortiz-Dixon Suit Removed to C.D. California FEEL THE WORLD: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FINICITY CORPORATION: Lawrence Sues Over Deceptive Data Collection FLEO LLC: Morgan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FOCUSRITE GROUP US: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FORTE DATA SYSTEMS: Morales Files TCPA Suit in D. Kansas FRESENIUS MANAGEMENT: Noone Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania FRIEDMAN BROKERAGE: Ct. Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Peoria FUGRO USA LAND: Patterson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FUN IN TRAMPOLINE: Filing for Conditional Cert. Due Feb. 2, 2024 GAT AIRLINE: Manu Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GAVRIELI BRANDS: Alexandria Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY: Day Files Suit in C.D. California GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS: Baltimore Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin GMRI INC: Gaye Suit Removed to S.D. California GN TRANSPORTATION: Lee Suit Removed to C.D. California GOOGLE LLC: Plaintiffs Seek Provisional Class Status GOOGLE LLC: Plaintiffs Seek to Seal Portions of Smith's Declaration GULF COAST MOLECULAR: Jackson Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania HARD ROCK: Files Motion to Dismiss DiBenedetto Gambling Suit HAWKEYE MEDTECH: PHRC Files Placeholder Bid for Class Certification HERITAGE LIFE: Compton Files Suit in N.D. Illinois HERTZ CORPORATION: Sconce Suit Removed to E.D. California HOBBY HOUSE: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HONEST COMPANY: Completion of Class Settlement Due July 28 HYUNDAI MOTOR: Hageman Files Suit in C.D. California HYUNDAI MOTOR: Stern Sues Over Breach of Contract IL REALTY: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Stewart Suit IMA FINANCIAL GROUP: Zerbe Files Suit in D. Kansas IMPOSSIBLE DIAMOND: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York INSURANCE EXPRESS.COM: Metzler Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida INTELLIHARTX LLC: Fails to Safeguard Info, Perrone Suit Says INTERCONTINENTAL CAPITAL: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages IPSWITCH INC: Faces Pipes Suit Over Third Party Access to Info ISHOPSHOPS INC: Ligon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JCOMMERCE HOLDINGS: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JOHNSON GOURMET DELI: Ochoa Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation JP MORGAN: Shteierman Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KANSAS, MO: Melton Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri KING FUELS: Fails to Pay Clerk's OT Wages Under FLSA, Qureshi Says KINKISHARYO INTERNATIONAL: Court Accepts Armendariz Class Cert Bid LAWN ENFORCEMENT: Seeks Reconsideration of May 2023 Order LENDING FORCE: Brooks Suit Removed to M.D. Florida LENNAR CORPORATION: Tuso Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls LIFE STRATEGIES: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Singleton Says LONG BEACH, CA: Guma Files Suit in E.D. New York LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Walters Suit Removed to C.D. California LYONS MAGNUS: Initial Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Moore Files Suit in Del. Super. Ct. MAJOR LEAGUE: Faces Class Suit Over Systemic Age Discrimination MDL 2262: Fact Discovery in Baltimore v. BoA Due April 4, 2024 MDL 2262: Fact Discovery in DBP&FRS v. BoA Due April 4, 2024 MDL 2262: Fact Discovery in De Velde v. BoA Due April 4, 2024 MDL 2262: Fact Discovery in Schwab Money v. BoA Due April 4, 2024 MDL 2262: Fact Discovery in Schwab v. BoA Due April 4, 2024 MIKE ALBERT: Reese Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Drivers MOON MAGIC: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Garcia Suit Alleges NABORS COMPLETION: Hudson Recovers $155K in Unpaid Wages Plus Fees NABORS COMPLETION: Ortiz Recovers $226.8K in Unpaid Wages Plus Fees NEW MEXICO: Garcia-Ibarra Must File Section 2254 Habeas Petition NEW YORK CITY: DOC's Contempt Has Been Purged, Appeals Court Says NEW YORK, NY: Underpays Motor Vehicle Supervisors, Kassel Says NISSAN NORTH: Faces Suit Over Defective Electronic Braking Systems NOBLE ENERGY: Court Refuses to Remand Phelps Suit to State Court PORT JERVIS, NY: Metzgar Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces Buxbaum FDCPA Suit Over Collection Letter PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces Weiss FDCPA Suit Over Collection Letter PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA REED MOTORS: Fails to Pay Mechanics' Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA ROCKET MORTGAGE: Faces Another Class Suit Over TCPA Violations ROM LLC: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Pannullo Suit Alleges SDLA COURIER: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Wilder Alleges SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: Court Adopts May 12 Special Master's Orders ST. LOUIS, MO: Class Settlement in Street Suit Wins Final Approval TAKATA CORP: Court Grants Takata Airbag Class Suit Certification TEXAS: Court Junks Grisham Class Certification Bid TEXAS: Court Junks Zirus Class Certification Bid TEXAS: Court Nixes Panus Class Certification Bid TEXAS: Court Tosses Cone Class Certification Bid TEXAS: Court Tosses Quinones Class Certification Bid TIAA-CREF: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 14 TIMESHARE HELP: Faces Lawrence Suit Over Deceptive Sales Practices TORISHIKI USA: Riana Sues Over Illegal Deductions From Gratuities TRATTORIA ROMANA: Fails to Pay Servers' Minimum Wages, Rovira Says TREVOR HALL: Brown Bid for Class Certification Stricken TUG ROBERT: Order on Objections to Peaslee's Proof of Claim Vacated UMG RECORDINGS: Court Tosses Sobol Bid for Summary Judgment UNITED NATURAL: GPM Named Lead Counsel in Sills Securities Suit UP FINTECH: Burns Sues Over Drop of American Depositary Share Price VALERIE A. ARKOOSH: Daddazio Wins Class Certification Bid VSS-SOUTHERN THEATER: Hoge Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid WALBRIDGE ALDINGER: Rice Bid to Strike Third Party Complaint Nixed WEYERHAEUSER NR: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 22, 2024 WHITEFISH, MT: Class Cert Oral Argument Rescheduled to August 11 WHKS & CO: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Bowen Suit WILDCAT INVESTMENTS: Court Tosses Foley Conditional Class Cert. Bid WOW RESTAURANT: Court OK's Chen Conditional Certification Bid ********* 3M COMPANY: Bone Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams -------------------------------------------------------------- Rickey Bone, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-02279-RMG (D.S.C., May 26, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Phone: 631-600-0000 Facsimile: 631-543-5450 - and - Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 3M COMPANY: Brown Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Darnell Brown, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-02790-RMG (D.S.C., June 17, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during the Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with hypothyroidism as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. Justin G. Witkin, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 202-1010 Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com baylstock@awkolaw.com jwitkin@awkolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Brown Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Andrew Brown, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining andManufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARKEMA, INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; Case No. 2:23-cv-02791-RMG (D.S.C., June 17, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during the Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with hypothyroidism as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. Justin G. Witkin, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 202-1010 Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com baylstock@awkolaw.com jwitkin@awkolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Bryant Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Scott A. Bryant, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-02765-RMG (D.S.C., June 15, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was hypothyroidism as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. Justin G. Witkin, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 202-1010 Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com baylstock@awkolaw.com jwitkin@awkolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Budler-Ronzoni Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams ------------------------------------------------------------ Heather Budler-Ronzoni, and Arthur Conklin by the Proposed Administrator and Next-of-Kin, Heather Budler Ronzoni, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-02778-RMG (D.S.C., June 16, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Decedent in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Decedent was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Decedent's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Decedent to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein including death. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of Decedent's exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Heather Budler-Ronzoni is the proposed personal representative/administrator/executor of the Estate of Arthur Conklin, regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. Decedent's diagnosis caused and/or contributed to his death. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Phone: 631-600-0000 Facsimile: 631-543-5450 - and - Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 ACTION NISSAN: Fails to Pay Employees' Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------- JEFF SANTOS and SANTIAGO CADENAS on behalf of themselves and as representative of other class members similarly situated v. ACTION NISSAN, INC., d/b/a UNIVERSAL NISSAN, Case No. 6:23-cv-01136 (M.D. Fla., June 15, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages owed to the Lead Plaintiffs and the Collective Members pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs contend that Defendant has a pattern and practice of refusing to pay them wages lawfully earned in performing their job responsibilities, which includes paying each of them at the federal minimum wage standards, paying for overtime, failing to reimburse them for tools, and other materials purchased by them to perform their job responsibilities for their employer. The Lead Plaintiffs and the Collective Members were only compensated for "flagged hours," which sufficiently reduced the compensable hours included in their pay-out, effectively lowering their rate of pay in a manner which falls below the federal minimum wage rate. By way of example, on April 17, 2019, the Lead Plaintiffs received a paycheck stating that he worked 13 hours and was paid $416.00 (gross), but worked at least 60 hours, which is $.32 per hour below the federal minimum wage rate of $7.25 per hour for 2019. For this one week, he is owed a total of $19.20 in unpaid federal minimum wages. The Lead Plaintiffs and Collective Members were or continue to be automobile service or maintenance employees (or former-employees) of Universal Nissan -- including but not limited to mechanics/technicians and maintenance servicemen, says the lawsuit. Universal Nissan is an authorized dealership of Nissan North America, Inc., the manufacturer, and distributor of all Nissan motor vehicles throughout the United States of America.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin K. Ross-Andino, Esq. ECLAT LAW, PA 307 Cranes Roost Boulevard 2010 Altamonte Springs, FL 32701 Telephone: (407) 636-7004 E-mail: kevin.ross@eclatlaw.com ADVANCE PUBLICATIONS: Bid to Dismiss Anderson ERISA Suit Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JERMAINE ANDERSON, individually and as a representative of a class of similarly situated persons, on behalf of the ADVANCE 401(K) PLAN, Plaintiff v. ADVANCE PUBLICATIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 22 Civ. 6826 (AT) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Analisa Torres of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice. Anderson, individually and as a representative of a class of similarly situated persons, on behalf of the Advance 401(k) Plan, brings this class action against the Defendant, alleging that, inter alia, it breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 1001 et seq. The Defendant moves to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendant, a private New York corporation that invests in a portfolio of companies across media, entertainment, technology, communications, education and other potential growth sectors, and a former participant in the Plan. The Defendant maintains the Plan, and is a fiduciary under ERISA. As of Dec. 31, 2020, the Plan had 12,027 participants with account balances and assets totaling approximately $1.50 billion, placing it in "the top 0.1% of all defined contribution plans by plan size. A target date fund ("TDF") is an investment vehicle that offers an all-in-one retirement solution through a portfolio of underlying funds that gradually shifts to become more conservative as the assumed target retirement year approaches. Since the adoption of the Plan on April 15, 2011, the Plan has offered the BlackRock LifePath Index Funds, a suite of 10 TDFs. The Plaintiff alleges that the BlackRock TDFs are significantly worse performing, both in terms of total and risk-adjusted returns, than most of the mutual fund alternatives offered by TDF providers, as well as the broader TDF marketplace, and, throughout the class period, could not have supported an expectation by prudent fiduciaries that their retention in the Plan was justifiable. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant made an imprudent decision that has deprived Plan participants of significant growth in their retirement assets by electing to retain the BlackRock TDFs instead of choosing from a wide range of prudent alternative target date families offered by competing TDF providers. He alleges that, in light of the BlackRock TDF's performance shortcomings and their "underperformance" compared to "the TDF universe" and other performance metrics, the Defendant did not act consistent with the minimum fiduciary standards of care. The Plaintiff commenced the action on Aug. 10, 2022. The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Jan. 6, 2023. The Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Jan. 27, 2023. She brings causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA Sections 404(a)(1)(A), (B), and (D), 29 U.S.C. Section 1104(a)(1)(A), (B), and (D); failure to monitor fiduciaries and co-fiduciary breaches; and, in the alternative, knowing breach of trust. She seeks both damages and equitable relief. The Defendant filed its motion to dismiss the amended complaint on Feb. 16, 2023. The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed an amicus brief in support of the Defendant's motion to dismiss on Feb. 27, 2023. First, Judge Torres grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Section 404(a)(1)(A) cause of action for failure to state a claim. She finds that the Plaintiff does not contest the Defendant's argument that the Plaintiff asserts a breach of loyalty cause of action without any supporting facts. Therefore, Judge Torres deems the Plaintiff's breach of the duty of loyalty claim under ERISA abandoned. Even if the Plaintiff had not abandoned that claim, she agrees with the Defendant that the amended complaint does not contain sufficient factual allegations to state a claim of breach of the duty of loyalty under ERISA. Next, Judge Torres grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Section 404(a)(1)(B) cause of action for failure to state a claim. After a diligent search of the amended complaint, she concludes that it does not contain sufficient factual allegations to state a claim of breach of the duty of prudence under ERISA. The amended complaint invites the Court to speculate about, e.g., performance woes and other issues with the BlackRock TDFs. These deficiencies pervade other allegations in the amended complaint, including those based on comparators and other performance metrics. Hence, the Plaintiff's conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a claim. Judge Torres also grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Section 404(a)(1)(D) cause of action for failure to state a claim. For the same reasons that she dismisses the Plaintiff's breach of the duty of loyalty claim, she dismisses his claim that the Defendant did not comply with Plan documents. Lastly, grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's failure to monitor fiduciaries, co-fiduciary breaches, and knowing breach of trust causes of action for failure to state a claim. She says the Plaintiff's claims for failure to monitor fiduciaries, co-fiduciary breaches, and in the alternative, knowing breach of trust, are derivative of their underlying fiduciary breach claim. The Defendant requests that the amended complaint be dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiff requests leave to amend should the Court finds the amended complaint deficient in any manner to cure such deficiencies. The Plaintiff has already amended his complaint once. But, because the deficiencies described in this order might be cured by amendment, he may amend his complaint. Accordingly, Judge Torres denies the Defendant's request to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice and grants the Plaintiff's request for leave to amend. In view of her analysis, Judge Torres grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice. She dismisses the Plaintiff's amended complaint without prejudice. The Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint. In addition, the case management conference scheduled for June 20, 2023, was adjourned sine die. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 62, 93, and 94. A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3uuttz87 from Leagle.com. AGB INC: Rivera Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Machine Operators ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSELINE GAITAN RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AGB, INC. d/b/a ZIP CLOTHES and ALAINE G. BARON, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-04577 (E.D.N.Y., June 20, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread of hours compensation, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements and for pregnancy discrimination in violation of the New York Executive Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a machine operator from in or about 2021 to in or about May 2023. AGB, Inc., doing business as Zip Clothes, is an operator of a custom embroidery business, located at 569 Acorn Street, Deer Park, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com ALLIANCE FOR MULTICULTURAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- EDITH SALMERON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIANCE FOR MULTICULTURAL COMMUNITY SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-02266 (S. D. Tex., June 21, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Salmeron was employed by the Defendant as a grant accountant. ALLIANCE FOR MULTICULTURAL COMMUNITY SERVICES operates as a non-profit organization. The Organization promotes financial, education, employment, housing, wellness, and refugee services for low income people to achieve their goals for self-sufficiency and improve their quality of life. AMCS serves refugees, immigrants, and underserved residents in the State of Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq. SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC 5612 Chaucer Drive Houston, TX77005 Telephone: (281) 885-8844 Facsimile: (281) 885-8813 Email: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com AMAZON.COM INC: Asks Court to Trim Discovery in Alexa Privacy Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Christopher Brown of Bloomberg Law reports that Plaintiffs alleging Amazon.com Inc. deceptively marketed its Alexa technology and used it to listen in on their conversations shouldn't be able to piggyback on a Federal Trade Commission investigation to get additional discovery, the company told a federal court. The plaintiffs' demand for all documents produced in any governmental matter related to Alexa recordings would capture a massive swath of irrelevant material, Amazon said on June 20, 2023 in its opposition to the plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery. Amazon has already provided all documents arguably relevant to the lawsuit that were provided to the FTC. [GN] APRIA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, May Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- RITA MAY; and TAMMIE CREEK, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. APRIA HEALTHCARE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01072-JMS-MJD (S.D. In., June 21, 2023) is a class action on behalf of a class of persons impacted by the Defendant's failure to safeguard, monitor, maintain and protect highly sensitive Personal Health Information and Personally Identifiable Information (collectively "Sensitive Information"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that as a result of the Defendant's lax data security concerning its systems and servers, nearly 2 million of Defendant's patients have had sensitive details of their lives and identities accessed, viewed and stolen by malicious cybercriminals. These patients have been placed in an immediate and continuing risk of harm from fraud, identity theft, and related harm caused by the Data Breach. The Defendant's conduct, consequently, required the Plaintiffs and the Class to have to undertake time-consuming, and often costly, efforts to mitigate the actual and potential harm caused by the Data Breach's exposure of their Sensitive Information, including by, among other things, placing freezes and alerts with credit reporting agencies, contacting their financial institutions, closing or modifying financial accounts, reviewing and monitoring their credit reports and accounts for unauthorized activity, changing passwords on potentially impacted websites and applications, and requesting and maintaining accurate medical records, says the suit. 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 Plaintiffs are represented by: Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq. Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. Winston Hudson, Esq. Laura Edmondson, Esq. THE JOHNSON FIRM 610 President Clinton Ave., Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 372-1300 Email: chris@yourattorney.com tyler@yourattorney.com winston@yourattorney.com ledmondson@yourattorney.com -and- Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Rachel K. Tack, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com rachel.tack@zimmreed.com APRIA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Secure Info From Hackers, Kramer Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL KRAMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APRIA HEALTHCARE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01066-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind., June 20, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, ands violation of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, California Consumer Records Act, and California Unfair Competition Law. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the protected health information and personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated patients and customers stored within its network following a data breach between from April 5, 2019 to May 7, 2019 and again from August 27, 2021, through October 10, 2021. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breaches. As a result, the PII and PHI of the Plaintiff and Class members were compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Apria Healthcare LLC is a pharmaceutical services and equipment provider based in Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Mary Kate Dugan, Esq. Natalie A. Lyons, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com mdugan@cohenandmalad.com nlyons@cohenandmalad.com - and - Stephen R. Basser, Esq. Samuel M. Ward, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 Facsimile: (619) 230-1874 E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com - and - John G. Emerson, Esq. EMERSON FIRM, PLLC 2500 Wilcrest, Suite 300 Houston, TX 77042 Telephone: (800) 551-8649 Facsimile: (501) 286-4659 APRIA HEALTHCARE: Hohenbery Sues Over Third Party Access of Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHAD HOHENBERY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APRIA HEALTHCARE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01074-JRS-MJD (S.D. Ind., June 20, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, declaratory judgment, and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the protected health information (PHI) and personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated patients and customers stored within its network following a data breach between from April 5, 2019 to May 7, 2019 and again from August 27, 2021, through October 10, 2021. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breaches. As a result, the PII and PHI of the Plaintiff and Class members were compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Apria Healthcare LLC is a pharmaceutical services and equipment provider based in Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Anderson Berry, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 239-4778 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com - and - Terence R. Coates, Esq. Dylan J. Gould, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 E. Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.com AUTOZONERS LLC: Contreras Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- Miguel Contreras, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AUTOZONERS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV09969 was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, State of California, to the United States District Court, Central District of California on June 20, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04841. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges 11 causes of action against Defendant: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to pay all Wages and Minimum Wages in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Provide Meal Periods in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Provide Rest Periods in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Timely Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements in Violation of Labor Code and Failure to Maintain Accurate Records; Failure to Provide Sick Pay in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Provide COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment in Violation of Labor Code; Waiting Time Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code; Failure to Provide Suitable Seating in Violation of Labor Code; and Violations of Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Evan R. Moses, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART PC 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 239-9800 Fax: (213) 239-9045 Email: evan.moses@ogletreedeakins.com - and - Alexandra M. Asterlin, Esq. Eric E. Suits, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 840-3150 Facsimile: (916) 840-3159 Email: alexandra.asterlin@ogletree.com eric.suits@ogletree.com BARCLAYS BANK: Class Deal in Sonterra Suit Wins Prelim. Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SONTERRA CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD., RICHARD DENNIS, and FRONTPOINT EUROPEAN FUND, L.P., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BARCLAYS BANK PLC, COOPERATIEVE CENTRALE RAIFFEISEN-BOERENLEENBANK B.A., DEUTSCHE BANK AG, LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, UBS AG, JOHN DOE NOS. 1-50, and BARCLAYS CAPITAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-3538 (VSB) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York enters an order preliminarily approving the class action settlement with Deutsche bank, scheduling a hearing for final approval thereof, and approving the proposed form and program of notice to the class. Representative Plaintiffs Richard Dennis and Fund Liquidation Holdings LLC (individually and as assignee and successor-in-interest to FrontPoint Asian Event Driven Fund L.P. and Sonterra Capital Master Fund, Ltd.) and the Settlement Class, have applied for an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement of the Action against Defendant Deutsche Bank in accordance with the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement entered into on March 31, 2022 between the Representative Plaintiffs and Deutsche Bank. Judge Broderick has read and considered the Settlement Agreement and accompanying documents. The Parties have consented to the entry of the Order. Solely for purposes of the Settlement, the Settlement Class is preliminarily certified and maintained as a class action, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Settlement Class is defined as: All Persons or entities that transacted in a Sterling LIBOR-Based Derivative at any time from Jan. 1, 2005 through at least Dec. 31, 2010 (Class Period), provided that, if Representative Plaintiffs expand the Class in any subsequent amended complaint, class motion, or settlement, the defined Class in this Agreement will be expanded so as to be coterminous with such expansion. Excluded from the Settlement Class are the Defendants and any parent, subsidiary, affiliate or agent of any Defendant or any co-conspirator whether named as a Defendant, and the United States Government. Judge Broderick appoints Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP as the Class Counsel; A.B. Data, Ltd. as the Settlement Administrator; and Richard Dennis and Fund Liquidation Holdings LLC as the Representatives of the Settlement Class. A hearing will be held on Nov. 16, 2023, at 11:00 a.m. via telephone using the dial-in 888-363-4749 and access code 2682448 before the undersigned to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement. The foregoing date, time, and venue of the Fairness Hearing will be set forth in the Class Notice but will be subject to adjournment or change by the Court without further notice to the Class Members, other than that which may be posted at the Court or on the Settlement website at www.sterlingliborsettlement.com. The Court reserves the right to approve the Settlement at or after the Fairness Hearing with such modifications as may be consented to by the Parties and without further notice to the Settlement Class. The terms of the Settlement Agreement are preliminarily approved. The terms of the Distribution Plan, the Supplemental Agreement, and the Proof of Claim and Release also are preliminarily approved as within the range of reasonableness, fairness, and adequacy. All proceedings in the Action as to Deutsche Bank, other than such proceedings as may be necessary to implement the proposed Settlement or to effectuate the terms of the Settlement Agreement, are stayed and suspended until further order of the Court. All Class Members and their legally authorized representatives, unless and until they have submitted a valid request for exclusion from the Settlement Class are preliminarily enjoined: (i) from filing, commencing, prosecuting, intervening in, or participating as a plaintiff, claimant, or class member in any other lawsuit or administrative, regulatory, arbitration, or other proceeding in any jurisdiction based on the Released Claims; (ii) from filing, commencing, or prosecuting a lawsuit or administrative, regulatory, arbitration, or other proceeding as a class action on behalf of any Class Members (including by seeking to amend a pending complaint to include class allegations or seeking class certification in a pending action), based on the Released Claims; and (iii) from attempting to effect an opt-out of a group, class, or subclass of individuals in any lawsuit or administrative, regulatory, arbitration, or other proceeding based on the Released Claims. Within 70 days after entry of the Order, the Settlement Administrator will cause copies of the post card notice, in the form (without material variation) of Exhibit 3 to the Joint Declaration of Vincent Briganti and Christopher Lovell dated July 29, 2022, to begin being mailed by United States first class mail, postage prepaid, as described in the proposed notice program attached to the Declaration of Linda V. Young, dated July 29, 2022. The mailings will be substantially completed no later than 99 days after the date of the entry of the Order. Commencing no later than 70 days after entry of the Order, the Settlement Administrator will cause to be published a short form notice. Prior to the Effective Date of the Settlement, all reasonable notice and administration costs up to $500,000 may be paid as set forth in the Settlement Agreement without further order of the Court. The Settlement Administrator will maintain a Settlement website, www.sterlingliborsettlement.com, beginning on the first date of mailing notice to the Class and remaining until the termination of the administration of the Settlement. The website may be amended as appropriate during the administration of the Settlement. The Settlement Administrator will maintain a toll-free interactive voice response telephone system containing recorded answers to frequently asked questions, along with an option permitting callers to speak to live operators or to leave messages in a voicemail box. Judge Broderick approves, in form and substance, the post card notice, the long form notice, the short form notice, Proof of Claim and Release, and the website as described herein. At least 42 days prior to the Fairness Hearing, the Settlement Administrator will serve and file a sworn statement attesting to compliance with the notice provisions of the Order. Except for good cause shown, no person other than the Class Counsel and Deutsche Bank's counsel will be heard and no papers, briefs, pleadings, or other documents submitted by any Class Member or any governmental entity will be considered by the Court unless, not later than 28 days prior to the Fairness Hearing, the Class Member or the governmental entity files with the Court a statement of the objection, as well as the specific legal and factual reasons for each objection. Objectors may be required to make themselves available to be deposed by any Party in the Southern District of New York or the county of the objector's residence or principal place of business within seven days of service of the objector's timely written objection. Discovery concerning any purported objections to the Settlement will be completed no later than 14 days before the Fairness Hearing. The Class Counsel, Deutsche Bank's counsel, and any other Persons wishing to oppose timely-filed objections in writing may do so not later than seven days before the Fairness Hearing. Any Request for Exclusion from the Settlement by a Class Member must be sent in writing by U.S. first class mail (or, if sent from outside the U.S., by a service that provides for guaranteed delivery within five or fewer calendar days of mailing) to the Settlement Administrator at the address in the long form notice and received no later than 28 days before the Fairness Hearing. The Settlement Administrator will promptly log each Request for Exclusion that it receives and provide copies of the log or Request for Exclusion to Class Counsel and Deutsche Bank's counsel as requested. The Settlement Administrator will furnish the Class Counsel and the counsel for Deutsche Bank with copies of any and all objections, notices of intention to appear, and other communications that come into its possession (except as otherwise expressly provided in the Settlement Agreement) within two Business Days of receipt thereof. Within five Business Days following the Exclusion Bar Date, the Settlement Administrator will prepare an opt-out list identifying all Persons, if any, who submitted a timely and valid Request for Exclusion from the Settlement Class, as provided in the Settlement Agreement, and an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the opt-out list. The Settlement Administrator will provide the counsel for Deutsche Bank and the Class Counsel with copies of any Requests for Exclusion and any written revocations of Requests for Exclusion as soon as possible after receipt by the Settlement Administrator and, in any event, within two Business Days after receipt by the Settlement Administrator and, in no event, later than five Business Days after the Exclusion Bar Date. All Proofs of Claim and Release will be submitted by the Class Members to the Settlement Administrator as directed in the long form notice and must be postmarked no later than 60 days after the Fairness Hearing. The Settlement Administrator will maintain a copy of all paper communications related to the Settlement for a period of one year after distribution of the Net Settlement Fund and will maintain a copy of all electronic communications related to the Settlement for a period of three years after distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, after which time all such materials will be destroyed, absent further direction from the Parties or the Court. Judge Broderick preliminarily approves the establishment of the Settlement Fund defined in the Settlement Agreement as a qualified settlement fund pursuant to Section 468B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder. She appoints Citibank, N.A. to act as the Escrow Agent for the Settlement Fund. The Class Counsel will file their motions for payment of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, incentive awards, and for final approval of the Settlement at least 42 days prior to the Fairness Hearing; and reply papers, if any, will be filed no later than seven days before the Fairness Hearing. If the Settlement is approved by the Court following the Fairness Hearing, a Final Approval Order and Final Judgment will be entered as described in the Settlement Agreement. The Court's preliminary certification of the Settlement Class and appointment of Representative Plaintiffs as class representatives are without prejudice to, or waiver of, the rights of any non-settling Defendant to contest any other request by the Representative Plaintiffs to certify a class. The Court's findings in the Preliminary Approval Order will have no effect on the Court's ruling on any motion to certify any class in the Action, or appoint class representatives, and no Person may cite or refer to the Court's approval of the Settlement Class as binding or persuasive authority with respect to any motion to certify such class or appoint class representatives. A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yvjpyyve from Leagle.com. BECCAIR LLC: Robertson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beccair, LLC. The case is styled as Jasmine Robertson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Beccair, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-05108-KPF (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Beccair, LLC doing business as Briogeo -- https://www.briogeohair.com/ -- offers a full selection of clean, natural and effective hair care products that are built to treat every hair type and texture.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com BERKELEY THERAPY: Dickson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Berkeley Therapy Institute, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Ingrid Maria Dickson, an individual, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Transdev Services, Inc., Transdev North America, Inc., Case No. 23CV036358 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., June 16, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." The Berkeley Therapy Institute (BTI) -- https://www.bti.org/ -- is a licensed non-profit community mental health clinic, and has been serving the Bay Area since 1972.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LIPELES LAW GROUP, APC 880 Apollo St., Ste. 336 El Segundo, CA 90245-4783 Phone: 310-322-2211 Fax: 310-322-2252 Email: kevin@kallaw.com BIRKENSTOCK MIDTOWN: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Birkenstock Midtown, LLC. The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Birkenstock Midtown, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-05062-GHW (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Birkenstock Midtown, LLC -- https://birkenstockmidtown.com/ -- is in the Shoes, Orthopedic business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com BLUEMERCURY INC: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bluemercury, Inc. The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Bluemercury, Inc. doing business as: M-61, Case No. 1:23-cv-04480 (E.D.N.Y., June 16, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bluemercury -- https://bluemercury.com/ -- is a leading luxury beauty retailer offering the best cosmetics, skin care, makeup, perfume, hair, and bath and body.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com BOARD OF TRUSTEES: Whitaker-Pine Suit Removed to S.D. Indiana ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Susan Whitaker-Pine, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE FLAVIUS J. WITHAM MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Case No. 49D01-2305-PL-020025 was removed from the Indiana Commercial Court, Marion County, Indiana, to the United States District Court Southern District of Indiana on June 21, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-01080-TWP-MJD. The Plaintiff alleges that Witham engaged in unlawful wiretapping and invaded her privacy by allegedly using the Meta Pixel on Witham's public website. Because the alleged conduct challenged by Plaintiff was undertaken pursuant to the federal government's extensive efforts to build a nationwide health information technology infrastructure over the past two decades, this case is removable under the Federal Officer Removal statute.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Tyler J. Moorhead, Esq. Philip R. Zimmerly, Esq. BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS LLP 111 Monument Circle, Suite 2700 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 684-5000 Fax: (317) 684-5173 (Fax) Email: TMoorhead@boselaw.com PZimmerly@boselaw.com - and - Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq. Michelle R. Gomez, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1801 California Street, Ste. 4400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 861-0600 Fax: (303) 861-7805 BOB MACKIE DESIGN: Robertson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bob Mackie Design Group, Ltd. The case is styled as Jasmine Robertson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Bob Mackie Design Group, Ltd., Case No. 1:23-cv-05112-JMF (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bob Mackie Design Group Limited -- https://www.bobmackie.com/ -- designs and vends products through its website. The Company offers special edition barbies, home furnishings, luggage, art painted by Bob Mackie and fashion products for women.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com BOUTIQUE TERE: Robertson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boutique Tere, Inc. The case is styled as Jasmine Robertson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Boutique Tere, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-05117-KPF (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Boutique Tere, Inc., doing business as Marissa Collections, operates as an apparel store. The Company offers dresses, tops, pants, skirts, coats, and jackets, as well as handbags, shoes, jewelries, beauty products, gifts, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com BPS DIRECT LLC: Tucker Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Arlie Tucker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BPS DIRECT, LLC, Cabela's Retail MO, LLC, Case No. 6:22-cv-03285 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, 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-02295-MAK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. BPS Direct, LLC, doing business as Bass Pro Shops (BPS) -- https://www.basspro.com/shop/en -- is an American privately held retailer which specializes in hunting, fishing, camping, and other related outdoor recreation merchandise.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Fax: (612) 336-2940 Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 South Washington Avenue, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179 Phone: (612) 339-6900 Fax: (612) 339-0981 Email: Khriebel@locklaw.com - and - MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq. THE FINLEY FIRM PC 3535 Piedmont Road, Building 14, Suite 230 Atlanta, GA 30305 Phone: (404) 978-6971 Fax: (404) 320-9978 The Defendant is represented by: Rachel Aleeza Straus, Esq. Jessica Wahl, Esq. SHOOK HARDY AND BACON LLP 2049 Century Park East Suite 3000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (424) 285-8330 Fax: (424) 204-9093 BPS DIRECT: Cornell Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Heather Cornell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BPS Direct, LLC doing business as: Bass Pro Shops, Case No. 1:23-cv-00020 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, 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-02294-MAK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Dispute. BPS Direct, L.L.C, doing business as Bass Pro Shops -- https://about.basspro.com/ -- is an American privately held retailer which specializes in hunting, fishing, camping, and other related outdoor recreation merchandise.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: Gary@lcllp.com nickc@lcllp.com The Defendant is represented by: Erin Leffler, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L. L. P. Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street, Suite 3000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 278-2555 Fax: (215) 278-2594 BPS DIRECT: Hernandez Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Marilyn Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BPS Direct, LLC doing business as: Bass Pro Shops, Case No. 1:23-cv-00413 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 16, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02338-MAK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Misappropriation of Trade Secrets. BPS Direct, L.L.C, doing business as Bass Pro Shops -- https://about.basspro.com/ -- is an American privately held retailer which specializes in hunting, fishing, camping, and other related outdoor recreation merchandise.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th Street, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 540-7200 Fax: (202) 540-7201 Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com - and - Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 923 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (610) 234-6487 Email: jjagher@fklmlaw.com - and - Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall St., 14th Fl. New York, NY 10004 Phone: (646) 357-1194 Email: snathan@hausfeld.com The Defendant is represented by: Caitlin Rose Convery, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, LLP 1800 K Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 783-8400 Fax: (202) 783-4211 BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Garza Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brinker International Inc. The case is styled as Jonathan Garza, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Brinker International Inc. d/b/a Chilis, Case No. 2:23-cv-04848 (C.D. Cal., June 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Brinker International, Inc. -- https://brinker.com/ -- is an American multinational hospitality industry company that owns Chili's and Maggiano's Little Italy restaurant chains.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trinette Gragirena Kent, Esq. LEMBERG LAW LLC 1100 West Town and Country Road Suite 1250 Orange, CA 92868 Phone: (480) 247-9644 Fax: (480) 717-4781 Email: tkent@lemberglaw.com BUDDY BAR CASTING: Ayala Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mario Ayala, individually, and on behalf of the State of California, and others similarly situated and aggrieved v. BUDDY BAR CASTING, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV11952 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 25, 2023), is brought against the Defendants, pursuant to California's Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"), to recover civil penalties (75% payable to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and 25% payable to Aggrieved Employees) for the Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code for unpaid minimum and overtime wages. The Defendant failed to compensate the Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees for all hours worked, resulting in the underpayment of minimum and overtime wages. the Defendant failed to compensate the Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees for all hours worked by virtue of, the Defendant' automatic deduction and time rounding policies, and failure to relieve employees of all duties/employer control during unpaid meal periods or otherwise unlawful practices for missed or improper meal periods. The Defendant implemented a policy and/or practice of rounding meal period start and end times and/or automatically deducting at least thirty minutes per shift for meal periods, despite having actual and/or constructive knowledge that the Plaintiff and other Aggrieved Employees were subject to the Defendant' control during purported meal periods and/or were otherwise not afforded lawful meal periods, depriving the Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees of all wages owed, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee with a job title of general labor. The Defendants own, operate, manage a business specializing in the manufacturing of aluminum castings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. Jamie Serb, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (866) 276-7637 Fax: (310) 510-6429 Email: zach@crosnerlegal.com jamie@crosnerlegal.com C.R. ENGLAND INC: Midden Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Dennis Midden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. C.R. ENGLAND, INC., a Utah Corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CIV SB 2309124 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court, Central District of California on June 21, 2023, and assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-01215-CJC-AFM. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that C.R. England failed to pay minimum wages as required by California Labor Code; failed to pay timely wages in violation of Labor Code; failed to pay timely wages during employment in violation of Labor Code; failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of Labor Code; failed to reimburse necessary business expenses in violation of Labor Code; and violated California's Unfair Competition Law.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Drew R. Hansen, Esq. Seth M. Goldstein, Esq. NOSSAMAN LLP 18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1800 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 949.833.7800 Facsimile: 949.833.7878 Email: dhansen@nossaman.com sgoldstein@nossaman.com CABELA'S INC: Calvert Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Brian Calvert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cabela's Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-01460 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, 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-02293-MAK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Misappropriation of Trade Secrets. Cabela's Inc. -- http://stores.cabelas.com/-- is an American retailer that specializes in hunting, fishing, boating, camping, shooting and other outdoor recreation merchandise.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: Gary@lcllp.com nickc@lcllp.com The Defendant is represented by: Erin Leffler SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L. L. P. Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street, Suite 3000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 278-2555 Fax: (215) 278-2594 CABELA'S INC: Montecalvo Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Peter Montecalvo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cabela's Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-11837 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 14, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02282-MAK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Cabela's Inc. -- http://stores.cabelas.com/-- is an American retailer that specializes in hunting, fishing, boating, camping, shooting and other outdoor recreation merchandise.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian C Gudmundson, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED PLLP 80 South 8th St., Suite 1100 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 341-0400 Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com - and - Carey Alexander, Esq. Ethan Samuel Binder, Esq. SCOTT & SCOTT LLP THE HELMSLEY BLDG 230 Park Ave., 17th Fl New York, NY 10169 Email: calexander@scott-scott.com - and - Michael J. Laird, Esq. Rachel Kristine Tack, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 341-0400 Email: michael.laird@zimmreed.com - and - Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. SCOTT & SCOTT LLP 405 Lexington Ave 40th Fl New York, NY 10174 Phone: (212) 223-6444 Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com The Defendant is represented by: Alan Y. Wong, Esq. Emyr T. Remy, Esq. SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP 1 Federal Street, Suite 2540 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 531-1677 CABELA'S LLC: Durham Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Timothy Durham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cabela's LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01630 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central 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-02306-MAK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Cabela's -- https://www.cabelas.com/shop/en -- is an American retailer that specializes in hunting, fishing, boating, camping, shooting and other outdoor recreation merchandise.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis J. Flynn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR. 6057 Metropolitan Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90036 Phone: (314) 662-2836 - and - MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq. THE FINLEY FIRM PC 3535 Piedmont Road, Building 14, Suite 230 Atlanta, GA 30305 Phone: (404) 978-6971 Fax: (404) 320-9978 The Defendant is represented by: Rachel Aleeza Straus, Esq. Jessica Wahl, Esq. SHOOK HARDY AND BACON LLP 2049 Century Park East Suite 3000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (424) 285-8330 Fax: (424) 204-9093 CADWALADER WICKERSHAM: Perotti Voluntarily Dismissed Privacy Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Meghan Trib of Bloomberg Law reports that the plaintiff that brought a proposed class action against New York law firm Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft claiming that it was at fault for exposing personal data during a November 2022 cyberattack voluntarily dismissed his lawsuit on June 22, 2023. Ohio-based attorney Patrick Perotti dismissed his lawsuit with prejudice in a new filing in the Southern District of New York. The claims of "the putative, uncertified class" are dismissed without prejudice, the filing said. Perotti was represented by Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber; Levin Sedran & Berman; and Goldenberg Schneider. Lawyers for Perotti declined to comment on the dismissal. Cadwalader did not respond to a request for comment. Perotti filed the lawsuit back in April, alleging that more than 93,000 people had identifying information compromised and were at risk of credit fraud or identity theft during a cyberattack that Cadwalader suffered back in November 2022. The law firm sent notices, which were viewed by Bloomberg Law, to potentially affected parties stating that between Nov. 15 and 16 "an unauthorized third party" gained remote access to its systems. The data breach moved many of Cadwalader's internal systems offline and prompted them to wipe firm-issued laptop hard drives, according to various media reports. The case is Perotti v. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, S.D.N.Y., 1:23-cv-03063, 4/12/23 To contact the reporter on this story: Meghan Tribe in New York at mtribe@bloomberglaw.com To contact the editors responsible for this story: Chris Opfer at copfer@bloombergindustry.com; John Hughes at jhughes@bloombergindustry.com; Alessandra Rafferty at arafferty@bloombergindustry.com [GN] CAMBRIAN HOMECARE: Fails to Properly Pay Caregivers, Pulido Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ ARACELI PULIDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAMBRIAN HOMECARE and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV14458 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 21, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to comply with meal and rest periods, inaccurate wage statements, unlawful deductions, failure to timely pay wages, failure to produce employment records, inaccurate records, unreimbursed business expenses, sick leave violations, failure to pay vested vacation/paid time off, and failure to timely pay all wages upon separation of employment. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a caregiver from in or around September 2020 through in or around June 2022. Cambrian Homecare is a home health care service in Long Beach, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. Jamie Serb, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: zach@crosnerlegal.com jamie@crosnerlegal.com CAPEL INCORPORATED: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capel, Incorporated. The case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Capel, Incorporated, Case No. 1:23-cv-05057-LJL (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Capel Rugs -- https://capelrugs.com/ -- has been manufacturing braided rugs in the USA for over 100 year.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ara Vahe Naljian, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 584-5575 Email: analjian@steinsakslegal.com CATHYJON ENTERPRISES: Ramos Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- Alver De Jesus Ramos, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. CATHYJON ENTERPRISES, INC. a California Corporation, CALIFORNIA FAUCETS, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 30-2023-01325473-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 16, 2023, and assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-01101-JVS-JDE. The Plaintiff premises his claims on Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated the Labor Code by: failing to provide Plaintiff with meal and/or rest periods in accordance with California law; failing to pay Plaintiff premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods; failing to pay Plaintiff all wages, including overtime and double time wages, for time worked; failing to provide Plaintiff with accurate itemized wage statements; failing to timely pay Plaintiff wages owed at separation; failing to timely pay Plaintiff during his employment tenure; failing to reimburse Plaintiff for all necessary business expenses; failing to pay Plaintiff properly by paying him via gift cards and pay cards; and failing to provide Plaintiff a place of employment that is safe and healthful.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq. Jennifer A. Riley, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60603-3433 Phone: +1 312 499 6700 Fax: +1 312 499 6701 Email: gmaatman@duanemorris.com jariley@duanemorris.com - and - Nick Baltaxe, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5450 Phone: +1 213 689 7400 Fax: +1 213 689 7401 Email: nbaltaxe@duanemorris.com - and - Nathan K. Norimoto, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP Spear Tower One Market Plaza, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94105-1127 Phone: +1 415 957 3000 Fax: +1 415 957 3001 Email: Nnorimoto@duanemorris.com CENTERVILLE CLINICS: Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------ Jane Doe, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CENTERVILLE CLINICS INC., Case No. 23STCV10449 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Washington County, Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on June 15, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01107-NR. The complaint alleges, in essence, that: Centerville owes various duties to Plaintiff and the putative class members—arising out of their patient-provider relationship--"to protect and to safeguard" their personal information from "unauthorized disclosure," Centerville breached those duties by failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect Plaintiff and the putative class members' PI from unauthorized disclosure and by disclosing their PI to third parties through the use of data tracking technologies (e. g., the Meta Pixel and related technology) on Centerville's website and online platforms without patient authorization, and, as a result, Centerville caused various harms to Plaintiff and the putative class members. The Plaintiff asserts claims of invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion), breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, violations of Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: John R. Gotaskie, Jr., Esq. FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP BNY Mellon Center 500 Grant Street, Suite 2500 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: 412.391.1334 Email: jgotaskie@foxrothschild.com - and - Matthew S. Freedus, Esq. FELDESMAN TUCKER LEIFER FIDELL LLP 1129 20th Street, N.W., 4th Floor Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202.466.8960 Email: mfreedus@ftlf.com CENTRAL PARK WEST: Hirsch Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Park West Dental Studio, PLLC. The case is styled as Benjamin Hirsch, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Central Park West Dental Studio, PLLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-05260-JLR (S.D.N.Y., June 21, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Central Park West Dental Studio -- http://cpwdentalstudio.com/-- offers one of the most comprehensive dental services to patients of all ages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Javier Luis Merino, Esq. DANN LAW FIRM North Brunswick, NJ 08902, Suite 101 Phone: (201) 355-3440 Fax: (216) 373-0536 Email: jmerino@dannlaw.com CGM INC: Youngblood Files Suit in N.D. Georgia ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CGM, Inc. The case is styled as Stephanie R. Youngblood, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CGM, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02656-SEG (N.D. Ga., June 14, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. CGM Incorporated -- https://cgmbuildingproducts.com/ -- is a quality focused manufacturer of high performance building products was established in 1967.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mason A. Barney, Esq. Tyler J Bean, Esq. SIRI GLIMSTAD LLP-NY 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (212) 532-1091 Email: mbarney@sirillp.com tbean@classlawdc.com - and - Michael Ross Hirsh HIRSH LAW OFFICE 2295 Towne Lake Pkwy., Ste. 116-181 Woodstock, GA 30189 Phone: (678) 653-9907 Email: Michael@Hirsh.law CGM LLC: Wolf Files Suit in N.D. Georgia ---------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CGM, LLC. The case is styled as Joshua Wolf, individually, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated v. CGM, LLC, CGM, Inc., CGM Management, Inc. doing business as: CGM, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02720-SEG (N.D. Ga., June 16, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. CGM -- https://www.cgmllc.net/ -- is a software development firm that develops and produces software solutions for CLECs and other telecom service providers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew E. Mize, Esq. BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 515 Park Avenue Louisville, KY 40208 Phone: (615) 254-8801 - and - Joseph B. Alonso, Esq. AW LAW, LLC 1708 Peachtree Street, Suite 207 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (678) 928-4472 Fax: (678) 928-4472 Email: jalonso@alonsowirth.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Fax: (317) 636-2593 Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS, LLP-WI 613 Williamson Street, Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Phone: (608) 237-1775 Fax: (608) 509-4423 Email: sam@turkestrauss.com CHARLOTTE STONE SHOES: Alexandria Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Charlotte Stone Shoes, Inc. The case is styled as Erika Alexandria, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Charlotte Stone Shoes, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-05067-JPC (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Charlotte Stone Shoes, Inc. -- https://charlotte-stone.com/ -- sells women's shoes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com CLOUD 9 RECORDING: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cloud 9 Recording, Inc. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Cloud 9 Recording, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-05137 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cloud 9's Recording Studio -- https://cloud9recording.com/ -- specialise in top-quality music recording & production for artists.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal CMG MEDIA: Filing of Class Cert. Bid in Hawkins Extended to Dec. 9 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hawkins v. CMG Media Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-04462 (N.D. Ga., Filed Nov. 08, 2022), the Hon. Judge J. P. Boulee entered an order that the Plaintiff's deadline to move for class certification is extended through and including December 9, 2023. The suit alleges violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. CMG Media is an American media conglomerate principally owned by Apollo Global Management in conjunction with Cox Enterprises.[CC] COMPASS GROUP: Faces Hayes FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Wages in E.D. Ark. ------------------------------------------------------------------- BRITIANY HAYES and CASSANDRA QUAIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COMPASS GROUP USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00572-BRW (E.D. Ark., June 19, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act and for wrongful termination. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as hourly-paid employees in White Hall, Arkansas. Compass Group USA, Inc. is a provider of meals and meal preparation services, housekeeping, cleaning, waste management, maintenance, and other services, headquartered in Little Rock, Arkansas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Chris Burks, Esq. Stewart Whaley, Esq. WH LAW 1 Riverfront Place, Suite 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Telephone: (501) 891-6000 E-mail: chris@wh.law stewart@wh.law DAYBREAK SOLAR: Court Dismisses Cunningham's Amended TCPA Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CRAIG CUNNINGHAM, Plaintiff v. DAYBREAK SOLAR POWER, LLC, Defendant, Civil Case No. 4:22-cv-00599-O (N.D. Tex.), Judge Reed O'Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. On Dec. 23, 2021, Cunningham alleges he received a pre-recorded call from Daybreak. He states that the message started off saying "Hi, this is Brian Lee calling on behalf of The-Solar-Project.com." He describes The-Solar-Project.com as not being linked to any "specific entity," and therefore, he alleges that it is a "trade or marketing name" used by the Defendant. He states the call then continued through the Defendant's alleged employee "Yesenia." In subsequent calls with the Defendant's employees, the Plaintiff claims that at no point did they deny calling him. As the Defendant did not deny calling him, the Plaintiff concludes that Daybreak called him directly. He did not consent to receiving such calls. The Plaintiff initially filed the lawsuit on Jan. 7, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The case was transferred to this Court on July 14, 2022. The Defendant filed its original Motion to Dismiss on Aug. 4, 2022. The Court granted the motion and granted the Plaintiff leave to amend his original complaint. The Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on Feb. 9, 2023. He brings a class action on behalf of the "Robocall Class," which includes "all persons within the United States: (1) to whose cellular telephone number or other number for which they are charged for the call (2) Defendant (or an agent acting on behalf of Defendant) placed a telemarketing call (3) within the four years prior to the filing of the Complaint (4) using an identical or substantially similar pre-recorded message used to place telephone calls to Plaintiff." Cunningham also brings claims on behalf of the "NCTSA Class," which includes "all North Carolina Telephone Subscribers whose (1) telephone numbers received calls using a recorded message player (2) from or on behalf of Defendant (3) from four years prior to the filing of the Complaint." The Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated Section 227(b) and Section 227(c) of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and Section 75-100 of the North Carolina Telephone Solicitations Act ("NCTSA"). The Defendant filed the present Motion to Dismiss on Feb. 23, 2023. The Plaintiff filed his Response on March 9, 2023. The Defendant filed its Reply on March 23, 2023. Judge O'Connor turns first to the Plaintiff's TCPA claims. The Defendant contends the Plaintiff fails to sufficiently plead direct liability. Judge O'Connor finds that (i) the Plaintiff fails to provide any facts in support of the assertion that The-Solar-Project is simply a "trade or marketing" name used by the Defendant; (ii) the Plaintiff has not sufficiently pled facts indicating the Defendant is directly liable for any alleged TCPA violation; (iii) the Plaintiff in his Amended Complaint still does not make any allegation that the Defendant was vicariously liable; and (iv) the Plaintiff alleges no facts indicating that the Defendant had any sort of control over The-Solar-Project.com. Turning to the Plaintiff's NCTSA claim, Judge O'Connor, for the reasons he discussed, likewise finds the Plaintiff fails to plead facts sufficiently showing the Defendant's liability. As the Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently plead facts to support his claims under the TCPA and NCTSA, Judge O'Connor dismisses the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2023 Order & Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/3cndy62e from Leagle.com. DENTALPLANS.COM: Bradley's Bid to Compel Reply to Deposition OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DEBORAH BRADLEY v. DENTALPLANS.COM, et al., Civil Action No. CCB-20-1094 (D. Md.), Judge Catherine C. Blake of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's motion to compel Cigna to provide certain responses to her deposition. The named Plaintiff in this class action lawsuit, Bradley, has asked the Court to compel Cigna, one of the Defendants, to provide certain responses to her deposition noticed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). On April 28, 2020, Bradley sued DentalPlans.com, a distributor of Cigna's dental discount plans, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Section 227. After Bradley amended her complaint to bring in Cigna, Cigna moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the Court denied the motion, and the parties commenced fact discovery, working toward a deadline of Feb. 15, 2023. Fact discovery is now complete with the exception of the Plaintiff's outstanding request for a 30(b)(6) deposition of Cigna, which the Court has granted the parties leave to conduct outside the initial fact discovery window and which has not yet taken place due to the current dispute. Bradley noticed the 30(b)(6) deposition at issue on Jan. 12, 2023, identifying 27 proposed deposition topics. Cigna responded to the notice on March 8, 2023, objecting to a number of the proposed topics on various grounds. Although the parties were able to reach agreement on 23 of the proposed topics through subsequent conferrals, they have been unable to resolve disputes as to four remaining topics despite good faith discussion. As a result of that stalemate, on March 14, 2023, the parties requested a discovery conference under the procedures set forth in the initial scheduling order, asking the Court to define the scope of the 30(b)(6) deposition. On April 10, 2023, the parties filed letter briefs setting out the nature of the dispute and their respective positions. On April 11, 2023, the Court held a discovery conference during which it invited the parties to supplement their letter briefs with additional materials within two weeks. The parties did not file such supplements, but instead conferred and resolved at least two of the disputed deposition topics, Topics 7 and 8. They have remained at an impasse, however, as to Topics 15, 17, 20, and 21. The Court held a second discovery conference on June 12, 2023, to discuss these four outstanding topics. At that conference, the parties provided their positions on the disputed issues. Judge Blake now resolves the dispute as to the outstanding deposition topics assuming the deposition will proceed as planned. Should the parties ultimately agree to defer the deposition, her ruling should nonetheless provide instructive guidance for future disputes. Topic 15 asks the deponent to identify any and all discipline or warnings you have initiated or participated in, concerning allegations of TCPA violations, prerecorded-voice telemarketing, or internal do-not-call violations. Topic 17 asks the deponent to identify Cigna's policies, practices, procedures, and training relating to the TCPA, the use of a prerecorded voice in outbound phone calls, call consent, do-not-call requests, telemarketing, and call-related complaints, whether as to Cigna or as to third parties like DentalPlans through which it has derived business. Topic 20 asks the deponent to identify any and all complaints (whether resulting in a lawsuit or not), grievances, investigations, or actual or threatened litigation from private individuals, business bureaus (such as the BBB), and government entities regarding alleged nonconsensual calling or the TCPA -- and any corresponding response or investigation -- along with: (1) the number of such, and (2) the number of such attributable to DentalPlans." Finally, Topic 21 asks the deponent to identify all audits, investigations, disciplinary actions, trainings, and other actions Cigna has taken, if any, to try to prevent violations of the TCPA by it or DentalPlans, as well as the circumstances that gave rise to such actions, the dates such actions occurred, and the outcome. Cigna objects to topics 15, 17, 20, and 21 as irrelevant and overburdensome. It argues that these topics are irrelevant (and, correspondingly, overburdensome) to the extent they cover complaints about calls beyond those made by DentalPlans in connection with the products at issue. The Plaintiff responds that these topics are relevant beyond Cigna's relationship with DentalPlans because, to the extent Cigna exercised oversight over other vendors but not DentalPlans, they are probative of ratification (and thus an agency relationship between Cigna and DentalPlans), and to the extent Cigna received complaints related to other vendors but failed to take corrective action, they are probative of whether Cigna's alleged violations were knowing and willful (and thus trigger treble damages under the TCPA). After considering the parties' contentions, Judge Blake concludes that, at this stage in the litigation, Topics 15, 17, 20, and 21 must be limited to testimony related to calls made by DentalPlans in connection with the products at issue. As for the Plaintiff's ratification theory, ratification is the affirmance of a prior act done by another, whereby the act is given effect as if done by an agent acting with actual authority. It is difficult to imagine how deposition testimony on Cigna's relationship with non-DentalPlans vendors could produce probative evidence that Cigna "affirmed" DentalPlans' specific conduct, and such an expansive line of inquiry would severely burden the defendant. As for the knowledge theory, Judge Blake agrees that lawsuits, enforcement actions, consumer complaints, and other evidence of a widespread problem, met with a failure to act, may be evidence of a knowing and willful TCPA violation. Given the uncertain relevance of the information at this stage of the case, however, and the burden on Cigna, the motion will nevertheless be denied except as to calls made by DentalPlans in connection with the products at issue. This ruling may be revisited if necessary at the damages phase of the litigation. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part as set forth in the Memorandum and Order. A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2023 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mtenthbz from Leagle.com. DIGMEE HOLDING: Robertson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Digmee Holding Company, Inc. The case is styled as Jasmine Robertson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Digmee Holding Company, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-05120-PGG-VF (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. DigMEE is a boutique consulting firm that specializes in e-commerce strategy, platform and partner selections, execution and digital marketing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com DISH NETWORK: Turley Files Suit in D. Colorado ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DISH Network, LLC. The case is styled as Christie Turley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. DISH Network, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01346-SP (D. Colo., May 26, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. DISH Network Corporation -- http://www.dish.com/-- is an American television provider and the owner of the direct-broadcast satellite provider Dish, commonly known as Dish Network, and the over-the-top IPTV service, Sling TV. Additionally, Dish offers mobile wireless service, Dish Wireless.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Michael Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45208 Phone: (513) 381-2333 Fax: (513) 766-9011 Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Suhr Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNI SUHR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HEALTH BENEFIT EXCHANGE AUTHORITY, d/b/a DC Health Link, Case No. 1:23-cv-00694-RJL (D.D.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time to file her motion for class certification, which pursuant to Local Civil Rule 23.1 is due to be filed within 90 days after the filing on her complaint, which was filed on March 15, 2023. The Plaintiff requests that the Court order the parties to propose a class certification deadline at their initial scheduling conference. The Plaintiff Suhr, along with plaintiffs in several related cases, Meranda v. District of Columbia Health Benefit Exchange Authority (DCHBX) et al., Case No. 23-cv-00737 (filed Mar. 17, 2023); McAteer v. DCHBX, Case No. 1:23-cv-01043 (filed Apr. 14, 2023), and Caston et al. v. DCHBX, et al., Case No. 23-cv-01065 (filed Apr. 17, 2023) filed a Consent Motion to Consolidate Cases on May 11, 2023. The Consolidation Motion remains pending and, if granted, would allow plaintiffs to file an amended consolidated complaint. Previously, this Court has granted uncontested extensions for DCHBX to respond to the complaints in this matter and each of the Related Cases to July 17, 2023, in light of the pending Consolidation Motion. As of today's date, June 13, 2023, the Consolidation Motion is still ending. DC Health Benefit Exchange Authority implements a health care exchange (HBX) program in the District of Columbia. A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qZIqT4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com dperry@masonllp.com DONALD J. TRUMP: Collier Files Suit in D. Columbia -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Donald J. Trump. The case is styled as Irina Collier, and for all similarly situated v. Donald J. Trump, Case No. 1:23-cv-01820-UNA (D.D.C., June 15, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Donald John Trump -- https://www.donaldjtrump.com/ -- is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. DONALD TRUMP: Court OK's Denson Rule 23 Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA DENSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-04737-PGG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon, Judge Paul G. Gardephe entered an order granting the Lead Plaintiff Jessica motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 13, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Pu1Qtn at no extra charge.[CC] DUPONT SPECIALITY: Fails to Pay Operators' OT Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- MCKENZIE POLLOCK, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. DUPONT SPECIALITY PRODUCTS USA, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01937-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, June 15, 2023) alleges that the Defendant fails to pay employees overtime wages, under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. Despite clocking in and beginning work that was integral and indispensable to their job duties before the scheduled start of their shifts, the Defendant allegedly did not pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated production employees for their pre-shift work. Thus, the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly production employees for all overtime work performed because of its policy or practice of not paying employees for pre-shift work, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly chemical operator at its location in Circleville, Ohio from Spring 2020 until May 2023. She and other similarly situated hourly production employees regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek but were not at paid one-and-one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 as a result of the Defendant's unlawful policy or practice, the Plaintiff adds. The Defendant is engaged in the development, production, and sale of specialty materials, chemicals, and agricultural products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com EL FINO HAT: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against El Fino Hat Corporation. The case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. El Fino Hat Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-04483 (E.D.N.Y., June 16, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. El Fino Hat Corporation is a corporation located in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com EMPIRE PACKING: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Johnson Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EMPIRE PACKING COMPANY, LLC f.k.a. EMPIRE PACKING COMPANY, L.P., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00380-JPH (S.D. Ohio, June 20, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated workers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly non-exempt worker from approximately January 2020 through May 2023. Empire Packing Company, LLC is a meat processing company, with its principal place of business located at 4780 Alliance Dr., Mason, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher St. NW, Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com hans@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 1360 E. 9th St., Ste. 808 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com EMPYREAN SERVICES: Bates Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Robert Bates, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EMPYREAN SERVICES, LLC, Case No. GD-23-006578 was removed from the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on June 14, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01091-NR. The Plaintiff asserts, on behalf of himself and the class, the following claims under California law: failure to pay wages; failure to provide compensation for missed meal and rest periods; violations of record keeping requirements; waiting time penalties; and violation of unfair competition law.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Justin J. Boron, Esq. Nicole T. DuGan, Esq. FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP 1600 Market Street, Suite 1210 Philadelphia, PA, 19103 Email: Justin.boron@fmglaw.com Nicole.DuGan@fmglaw.com ENCOMPASS HEALTH: Fuller Sues Over Nurses' Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- KAYE FULLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENCOMPASS HEALTH CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00669 (D. Del., June 20, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated workers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ms. Fuller has worked for Encompass as a Licensed Practical Nurse at Encompass' West Tennessee Rehabilitation Hospital in Jackson, Tennessee since approximately November 2020. Encompass Health Corporation is a healthcare company, with its headquarters in Birmingham, Alabama. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sue L. Robinson, Esq. Brain E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 N. Market St., 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 Facsimile: (302) 777-0301 E-mail: srobinson@farnanlaw.com bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.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 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com ENZO BIOCHEM: Bynum Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Records ---------------------------------------------------------- Dorinda Bynum, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ENZO BIOCHEM, INC., ENZO CLINICAL LABS, INC. and LAB CORPORATION OF AMERICAN HOLDINGS, Case No. 2:23-cv-04474 (E.D.N.Y., June 16, 2023), is brought concerning the Defendants' failure to safeguard the Plaintiff's medical and financial records and failing to carry the burden and the resulting harm to Plaintiff and the Class even if the Defendants had obligations to safeguard this information. Medical and financial records represent the most sensitive information available concerning a person's private affairs. These records reveal intimate and personal aspects of the human condition, such as illnesses that might carry social stigma and details about substance abuse, family planning and mental health. Congress has passed legislation under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") in order to protect this highly confidential data, because in the wrong hands, bad actors may target and exploit the most sensitive and vulnerable populations among the public. On May 30, 2023, Defendants confirmed that they had suffered a ransomware attack that disrupted its computer systems ("Data Breach"). Enzo Biochem detected the attack on April 6, 2023, and waited approximately two months before informing the public and the 2.47 million members of the Class. Information compromised in the Data Breach included highly sensitive data that represents a gold mine for data thieves. This includes names, addresses, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, financial information, medical information and health insurance information (collectively, the "Personal Information") and includes personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") as defined by HIPAA that Defendants collected and maintained. As a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiff and the Class Members experienced damages from: theft of their Personal Information and the resulting loss of privacy rights in that information; improper disclosure of their Personal Information; loss of value of their Personal Information; the amount of ongoing reasonable identity defense and credit monitoring services made necessary as mitigation measures; Defendants' retention of profits attributable to Plaintiff's and other customers' Personal Information that Defendants failed to adequately protect; economic and non-economic impacts that flow from imminent, and ongoing threat of fraud and identity theft to which Plaintiff are now exposed to; ascertainable out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time allocated to fixing or mitigating the effects of this data breach; and overpayments of Defendants' products and/or services which Plaintiff purchased, says the complaint. The Plaintiff had her Personal Information compromised in the Data Breach. Enzo Biochem defines itself as "a pioneer in molecular diagnostics, leading the convergence of clinical laboratories, life sciences, and intellectual property through the development of unique diagnostic platform technologies that provide numerous advantages over previous standards."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin G. Cooper, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (973) 994-1700 Email: kcooper@carellabyrne.com - and - Matthew R. Mendelsohn, Esq. Adam M. Epstein, Esq. MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (973) 228-9898 Email: mrm@mazieslater.com aepstein@mazieslater.com ENZO BIOCHEM: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Mullane Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- MARY ANN MULLANE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENZO BIOCHEM, INC.; and ENZO CLINICAL LABS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-04573 (E.D.N.Y., June 21, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected medical and health information stored within the Defendants' information networks and servers, including, without limitation, protected health information or/and personally identifiable information. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, by obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI, Defendants assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals. These duties arise from HIPAA and other state and federal statutes and regulations, as well as common law principles. The Defendants disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required, and appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, the PII and PHI of Plaintiff and Class Members were compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party, an undoubtedly nefarious third party that seeks to profit off this disclosure by defrauding the Plaintiff and Class Members in the future, and are entitled to damages, says the suit. ENZO BIOCHEM, INC. researches, develops, and manufactures health care products based on molecular biology and genetic engineering techniques. The Company also provides diagnostic services to the medical community. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Toomey, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 11 Times Square 640 8th Ave., 10th Fl. New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 688-0782 Email: mtoomey@barrack.com - and - Stephen R. Basser, Esq. Samuel M. Ward, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 Facsimile: (619) 230-1874 Email: sbasser@barrack.com sward@barrack.com - and - John G. Emerson, Esq. EMERSON FIRM, PLLC 2500 Wilcrest, Suite 300 Houston, TX 77042 Telephone: (800) 551-8649 Facsimile: (501) 286-4659 Email: jemerson@emersonfirm.com ENZO CLINICAL: Pastore Sues Over Disclosure of Info to 3rd Party ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT PASTORE, EMILY MARTORANO, and GIOMAR REYES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ENZO CLINICAL LABS, INC. and ENZO BIOCHEM, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-04636 (E.D.N.Y., June 21, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of implied contract, and violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act, the Customer Records Act, the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Constitution's Right to Privacy, the Unfair Competition Law, the New York Constitution's Right to Privacy, and the New York General Business Law. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the protected health information and personally identifiable information of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated patients stored within their network following a data breach between April 4, 2023, and April 6, 2023. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the PII and PHI of the Plaintiffs and Class members were compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party, says the suit. Enzo Clinical Labs, Inc. is a clinical reference laboratory operator, with its principal place of business at 28 Liberty Street, New York, New York. Enzo Biochem, Inc. is a biotechnology company, with its principal place of business at 81 Executive Blvd. Suite 3, Farmingdale, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Justin S. Nematzadeh, Esq. NEMATZADEH PLLC 101 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 909 New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (646) 799-6729 E-mail: jsn@nematlawyers.com - and - Julie C. Erickson, Esq. Elizabeth A. Kramer, Esq. Kevin M. Osborne, Esq. ERICKSON KRAMER OSBORNE, LLP 44 Tehama St. San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 635-0631 E-mail: julie@eko.law elizabeth@eko.law kevin@eko.law EUROMARKET DESIGNS: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Euromarket Designs, Inc. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Euromarket Designs, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04477-FB-TAM (E.D.N.Y., June 16, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Euromarket Designs Inc., doing business as Crate & Barrel -- http://www.crateandbarrel.com/-- provides household consumer products as an international furniture and home decor retail store headquartered in Northbrook, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com EVIL BIKES: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Evil Bikes, LLC. The case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Evil Bikes, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04991-MKV (S.D.N.Y., June 14, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Evil Bikes -- https://www.evil-bikes.com/ -- is a Bellingham-based bicycle company, focused on producing high-quality mountain and gravel bikes that push the existing boundaries of the sport.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ara Vahe Naljian, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 584-5575 Email: analjian@steinsakslegal.com EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Young Files FCRA Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information Solutions, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Meghan Young, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-03312-MAS-RLS (D.N.J., June 15, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. -- https://www.experian.com/ -- operates as an information services company. The Company offers credit information, analytical tools, and marketing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (347) 526-4093 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com FANATICS LLC: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fanatics, LLC. The case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Fanatics, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-05043-PAE-SLC (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Fanatics, Inc. -- https://fanaticsinc.com/ -- is an American manufacturer and online retailer of licensed sportswear, sports collectibles, NFTs, trading cards, and sports merchandise, as well as sports betting and iGaming.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ara Vahe Naljian, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 584-5575 Email: analjian@steinsakslegal.com FANDANGO MEDIA: Faces Jackson VPPA Suit for Disclosing Info to FB ----------------------------------------------------------------- SONYA JACKSON, JASON GOLDSTEIN, and TAMMY HUTTEMEYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FANDANGO MEDIA, LLC, Case No. 2023LA000631 (Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty., June 15, 2023) sues the Defendant for disclosing to Facebook the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiffs and members of the Class, in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. The Defendant transmitted Plaintiffs' and the Class members' Facebook ID and event data. This information is sufficient to permit an ordinary person to identify a specific individual's video viewing behavior. Accordingly, the Defendant transmitted event data alongside the identifiers so that it could better target advertisements. The Plaintiffs and members of the Class did not provide the Defendant with any form of consent—either written or otherwise—allowing it to disclose their PII to third parties, says the suit. On behalf of themselves and the members of the Class, the Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief; injunctive and equitable relief as is necessary to protect the interests of the Plaintiffs and the Class by requiring Defendant to comply with VPPA's requirements for protecting a consumer's PII; statutory damages of $2,500 for each violation of the VPPA; and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and other litigation expense. Plaintiff Jason Goldstein is a domiciliary of Florida. He created a Facebook account in 2008. While signed into his Fandango account, he frequented the Fandango Website to watch video clips during the Class Period in the state of Florida. Plaintiff Sonya Jackson is a domiciliary of Illinois. In 2009, Plaintiff Jackson created a Facebook account. While signed into her Fandango account, the Plaintiff Jackson frequented the Fandango Website to watch video clips during the Class Period in the state of Illinois. The Defendant develops, owns, and operates a website titled "Fandango," that allow users to catch the newest trailers, browse Rotten Tomatoes scores, find the latest showtimes, and buy tickets to the right movie at the right time with ticketing to more than 33,000 screens nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Street, Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 984-0000 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com - and - Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Max S. Roberts, Esq. Christopher R. Reilly, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com mroberts@bursor.com creilly@bursor.com FEDEX GROUND: Ortiz-Dixon Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tayler Ortiz-Dixon, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB 2304643 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 14, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04700. The Complaint brings putative class claims for an alleged: unfair competition; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to reimburse employees for required expenses; failure to provide wages when due; and failure to pay sick pay wages.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Evan R. Moses, Esq. Alexander M. Chemers, Esq. Melis Atalay, Esq. Omar M. Aniff, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKNS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 south Hope Street, suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 Email: evan-moses@ogletree.com zander.chemers@ogletree.com omar.amff@ogletree.com FEEL THE WORLD: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Feel the World, Inc. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Feel the World, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-05084 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Feel The World, Inc., doing business as Xero Shoes -- http://www.xeroshoes.com/-- is a brand of lightweight minimalist footwear manufactured by Feel the World Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com FINICITY CORPORATION: Lawrence Sues Over Deceptive Data Collection ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kaitlyn Lawrence, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FINICITY CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-01005-DJC-AC (E.D. Cal., May 26, 2023), is brought seeking to enjoin Finicity Technologies from its deceptive data collection practices, and seeks to obtain actual and statutory damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorneys' costs and fees. Finicity is a criminal enterprise that mimics various national and regional banks, tricking financial technology ("FinTech") application users into giving Finicity their bank account usernames and passwords. Finicity designs fake login pages on FinTech applications. These login pages use counterfeit bank trademarks and cyberpirated URLs to impersonate banks and fool app users into giving away their bank account usernames and passwords. Finicity is hired by FinTech companies to link users' bank accounts to their proprietary websites and smartphone applications. In other words, Finicity is hired to be a digital mailman, i.e., send packets of information from the FinTech app to the bank website. But being just a mailman doesn't pay well. Being the mailman who opens the mail, reads it, and sells financial intelligence reports on potential creditors or high net worth individuals, on the other hand, pays very well. To build these reports, Finicity wants 24/7, unlimited permissions and access to users' accounts. And for that, Finicity needs usernames and passwords. So instead of just linking bank accounts between the FinTech apps and the banks, Finicity deceptively and surreptitiously seeks out users' bank login credentials by impersonating the banks itself. Finicity calls what it does "consumer-permissioned data" collection. The Federal Bureau of Investigation calls it something else: "Spoofing is when someone disguises a website URL to convince you that you are interacting with a trusted source." For these reasons, the Plaintiff seeks relief in this action individually, and on behalf of all individuals whose bank account usernames and passwords were collected by Finicity for violations of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act with the predicate criminal violation of trafficking banking and financial services using counterfeit marks. The Plaintiff also seeks relief in this action individually, and on behalf of all individuals whose bank account usernames and passwords were collected by Finicity for violations of the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act and unjust enrichment under Utah common law and equity. The Plaintiff Lawrence also seeks relief on behalf of a subclass of Californian residents for violations of California's Anti-Phishing Act, says the complaint. The Plaintiff downloaded the Every Dollar app on her smartphone and linked her PNC bank account to the app. While on the app, she was presented with a fake login screen designed by Defendant Finicity Corporation, which featured the PNC trademark and URL. Finicity is a criminal enterprise that mimics various national and regional banks, tricking financial technology ("FinTech") application users into giving Finicity their bank account usernames and passwords.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. Brittany S. Scott, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: sbogdanovich@bursor.com bscott@bursor.com FLEO LLC: Morgan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fleo LLC. The case is styled as Paradise Morgan, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Fleo LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-05102 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. FLEO -- https://fleo.com/ -- is a clothing brand that offers products such as leggings, shorts, tops, sweatshirts, sports bras, singlets, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com FOCUSRITE GROUP US: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Focusrite Group Us Inc. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Focusrite Group Us Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-05225-JGK (S.D.N.Y., June 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Focusrite -- https://focusrite.com/en -- is a global music and audio products group that develops and markets proprietary hardware and software products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com FORTE DATA SYSTEMS: Morales Files TCPA Suit in D. Kansas -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forte Data Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Kurt Morales, II, Brandon Callier, Lucas Horton, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Movants v. Forte Data Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-05260-JLR (D. Kan., June 21, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Forte Data Systems -- https://www.fortedata.com/ -- helps call center owners with speedy software, excellence in customer service and 20 years' worth of deep knowledge expertise.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony E. LaCroix, Esq. LACROIX LAW FIRM, LLC 1600 Genessee, Suite 956 Kansas City, MO 64102 Phone: (816) 399-4380 Fax: (816) 399-4380 Email: tony@lacroixlawkc.com FRESENIUS MANAGEMENT: Noone Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------- Chaelyn Noone, an individual v. FRESENIUS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., a corporation; Does 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. 30-2023-01324245-CU-WT-CJC was removed from the Circuit Court for the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 15, 2023, and assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-01064. The Complaint alleges causes of action against Defendant for: Intentional Misrepresentation, False Promise, Negligent Misrepresentation, Pregnancy Discrimination, Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Retaliation in Violation of FEHA, Late Payment of Wages, Itemized Wage Statement Violations, Retaliation – Cal. Code Section 98.6(a) Violation, Retaliation – Cal. Code Section 1102.5(b) Violation, Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy, and Unlawful Business Practices.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Amy L. Lessa, Esq. Darcey M. Groden, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92121 Phone: (858) 597-9600 Facsimile: (858) 597-9601 Email: alessa@fisherphillips.com dgroden@fisherphillips.com FRIEDMAN BROKERAGE: Ct. Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Peoria ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Grove of Peoria LLC v. Friedman Brokerage Company LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-02109-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows: -- Rule 16 scheduling conference The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference approximately 30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is filed. The conference will generally be conducted by telephone. -- Discovery plan The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least three calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference If the parties agree on all matters contained in the discovery plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16 scheduling conference be cancelled. -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most hearings by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to appear for an in-person hearing. -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the discovery deadline has already passed The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all discovery disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even if the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to conduct discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the Court, they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived. -- Settlement conferences and mediation The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to Judge Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or mediation. A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NqsdO3 at no extra charge.[CC] FUGRO USA LAND: Patterson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fugro USA Land, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Sandon Patterson, and on all others similarly situated v. Fugro USA Land, Inc., Fugro (USA) Holdings Inc., Does 1-100, Case No. 23CV003496 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., June 20, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Fugro USA Land, Inc. -- https://www.fugro.com/ -- support construction projects with pin-point positioning, monitoring, and visualisation services.[BN] FUN IN TRAMPOLINE: Filing for Conditional Cert. Due Feb. 2, 2024 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEAH LIAPPES, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. FUN IN TRAMPOLINE PARK, LLC; YAO ZHENG; HE LIN; QING QI LIN; AND MEIXI ZHENG, Case No. 3:23-cv-00439-VAB (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Victor A. Bolden entered an order adopting the following schedule for pre-trial deadlines based on the parties' Rule 26(f) Report: -- Amended pleadings due by: June 23, 2023 -- Initial disclosures due by: June 30, 2023 -- Designation of expert witnesses on Oct. 13, 2023. any issues on which the party bears the burden of proof due by: -- Depositions of such expert witnesses Dec. 22, 2023 shall be completed by: -- Designation of expert witnesses on Nov. 17, 2023 any issues on which the party does not bear the burden of proof due by: -- Depositions of such expert witnesses Dec. 22, 2023 shall be completed by: -- Damages analysis due by: Nov. 17, 2023 or within 30 days after receipt of all documents and information sufficient to support a damages claim, whichever is later: -- Depositions of fact witnesses shall Dec. 22, 2023 be completed by: -- All discovery shall close by: Dec. 22, 2023 -- Any motion for conditional Feb. 2, 2024 certification due by: -- Any motion for class certification Feb. 2, 2024 under Rule 23 due by: -- Dispositive motions due by: Feb. 16, 2024 -- Joint trial memorandum is due March 22, 2024 by, or 30 days after the Court rules on any dispositive motions: A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JqoWx1 at no extra charge.[CC] GAT AIRLINE: Manu Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GAT Airline Ground Support. The case is styled as Ulualofaiga Manu, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. G.A.T. Airline Ground Support, Inc., Does 1-10, Case No. 23CV003422 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., June 20, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." GAT Airline Ground Support -- https://wearegat.net/ -- has been providing quality airline ground, passenger, and cargo support services for more than 40 Years.[BN] GAVRIELI BRANDS: Alexandria Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gavrieli Brands, LLC. The case is styled as Erika Alexandria, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Gavrieli Brands, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-05068-ALC (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Gavrieli Brands, doing business as Tieks -- https://tieks.com/ -- is a privately-held designer and seller of split-sole, ballet flat shoes for women.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY: Day Files Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Geico Casualty Company, et al. The case is styled as Jessica Day, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Geico Casualty Company, Geico Indemnity Company, Geico General Insurance Company, Defendants; California Department of Insurance, Ken Allen, Movants; Case No. 2:23-mc-00091-FMO-RAO (C.D. Cal., June 20, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. GEICO Casualty Company -- https://www.geico.com/ -- operates as an insurance company. The Company offers auto, motorcycle, home, renters, flood, life, general liability, travel, and business insurance services.[BN] The Movants are represented by: Jack C. Nick, Esq. Business Litigation 300 South Spring Street, Suite 1702 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Phone: (213) 269-7123 Email: jack.nick@doj.ca.gov GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS: Baltimore Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Marcia Baltimore, Steve Cothren, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Generac Power Systems, Inc., Generac Holdings Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-00217 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on June 14, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00772-LA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. Generac Holdings Inc. -- https://www.generac.com/ -- commonly referred to as Generac, is a Fortune 1000 American manufacturer of backup power generation products for residential, light commercial and industrial markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William A. Kershaw, Esq. Ian James Barlow, Esq. Stuart C. Talley, Esq. KERSHAW TALLEY BARLOW PC 401 Watt Ave-Ste 1 Sacramento, CA 95864 Phone: (916) 779-7000 Fax: (916) 244-4829 Email: bill@ktblegal.com ian@ktblegal.com stuart@ktblegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael J. Gill, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 S Wacker Dr Chicago, IL 60606-4637 Phone: (513) 579-6400 Fax: (513) 579-6457 Email: mgill@mayerbrown.com - and - John S. Hahn MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K St NW Washington, DC 20006 GMRI INC: Gaye Suit Removed to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------- Shawn Gaye, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. GMRI, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Case No. 37-2023-00012535-CU-OE-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on June 20, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01144-L-JLB. The Plaintiff's Complaint contains eleven causes of action alleging: unfair competition in violation of California Business and Professional Code; failure to pay minimum wages in violation of California Labor Code; failure to pay overtime wages in violation of California Labor Code; failure to provide required meal periods in violation of California Labor Code; failure to provide required rest periods in violation of California Labor Code; failure to provide accurate itemized statements in violation of California Labor Code; failure to reimburse employees for required expenses in violation of California Labor Code; failure to provide wages when due in violation of California Labor Code; failure to pay sick pay wages in violation of California Labor Code; discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"); and (k) constructive discharge and other adverse employment actions in violation of public policy.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Julie A Dunne, Esq. Matthew Riley, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92121-2133 Phone: 858.677.1400 Fax: 858.677.1401 Email: julie.dunne@us.dlapiper.com matthew.riley@us.dlapiper.com GN TRANSPORTATION: Lee Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Lucas Lee, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GN TRANSPORTATION LLC, a Wisconsin corporation; CJ LOGISTICS AMERICA, LLC, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV09033 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 14, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04704. The Complaint asserts seven causes of action including: failure to pay lawful wages including overtime; failure to provide lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; failure to pay employee expenses; failure to timely pay wages during employment; failure to timely pay wages at termination; failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements; and violations of the Unfair Competition Law.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Y. Angela Lam, Esq. MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP 444 West Lake Street, Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312.222.0800 Facsimile: 312.222.0818 Email: yalam@michaelbest.com GOOGLE LLC: Plaintiffs Seek Provisional Class Status ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE I, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-02431-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for a preliminary injunction ordering Google to comply with its statutory and common law obligations by doing the following: 1. Prohibit Google from continuing to acquire Health Information from Health Care Providers through Tracking Technologies associated with Google's advertising systems and products, including Google Analytics, Google Ads, Google Display Ads, Google Tag Manager, Google APIs and YouTube (Google Source Code). 2. Prohibit Google from using patients' Health Information that it has collected from Health Care Providers through its use of Google Source Code. 3. Order Google to take all reasonable steps to immediately preserve, maintain, sequester, segregate, and impound all data, documents, and information, including electronically stored information, that may be potentially relevant to this Action, and to confirm in writing that it has done so along with the specific steps it has taken, including to identify the types or categories of data being preserved. 4. Provisionally certify the following class pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for purposes of entering preliminary injunctive relief: "All persons in the United States whose Health Information was obtained by Google from their Health Care Provider." 5. Appoint John Doe I, John Doe II, Jane Doe I, Jane Doe II, Jane Doe III, Jane Doe IV and Jane Doe V as representatives of the Class and appoint the Plaintiffs' counsel, Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC, Kiesel Law LLP, and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, as interim class counsel. Google LLC is an American multinational technology company focusing on artificial intelligence, online advertising, search engine technology, cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce, and consumer electronics. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 13, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qVQYKx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq. Nicole Ramirez, Esq. KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910 Telephone: (310) 854-4444 Facsimile: (310) 854-0812 E-mail: kiesel@kiesel.law koncius@kiesel.law ramirez@kiesel.law - and - Michael W. Sobol, Esq. Melissa Gardner, Esq. Jallé H. Dafa, Esq. Douglas Cuthbertson, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: msobol@lchb.com mgardner@lchb.com jdafa@lchb.com dcuthbertson@lchb.com - and - Jason ‘Jay’ Barnes, Esq. Eric Johnson, Esq. An Truong, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC 112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 784-6400 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 E-mail: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com ejohnson@simmonsfirm.com atruong@simmonsfirm.com GOOGLE LLC: Plaintiffs Seek to Seal Portions of Smith's Declaration ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE I, et al. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-02431-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their administrative motion to seal portions of Declaration of Richard M. Smith. The case concerns the Google's unlawful tracking, collection, and monetization of Americans’ private health information from Health Care Provider web properties in the United States. The Plaintiffs have a compelling reason to seal the aforementioned information. the Plaintiffs ask the Court to seal PII. Google is an American multinational technology company focusing on artificial intelligence, online advertising, search engine technology, cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce, and consumer electronics. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 13, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44fLOr9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq. Nicole Ramirez, Esq. KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910 Telephone: (310) 854-4444 Facsimile: (310) 854-0812 E-mail: kiesel@kiesel.law koncius@kiesel.law ramirez@kiesel.law - and - Michael W. Sobol, Esq. Melissa Gardner, Esq. Jalle H. Dafa, Esq. Douglas Cuthbertson, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: msobol@lchb.com mgardner@lchb.com jdafa@lchb.com dcuthbertson@lchb.com - and - Jason ‘Jay’ Barnes, Esq. Eric Johnson, Esq. An Truong, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC 112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 784-6400 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 E-mail: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com ejohnson@simmonsfirm.com atruong@simmonsfirm.com GULF COAST MOLECULAR: Jackson Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gulf Coast Molecular Laboratories, LLC. The case is styled as Gerard Jackson, invidivually on and behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gulf Coast Molecular Laboratories, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-01001-MWB (M.D. Pa., June 16, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Gulf Coast Molecular Laboratories -- https://www.gcmolecular.com/ -- is an industry leading, high complexity, full-service independent clinical laboratory.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. BRODERICK LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (508) 221-1510 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Jeffrey M. Bower BOWER LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC 403 South Allen Street, Suite 210 State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 234-2626 Fax: (814) 237-8700 Email: jbower@bower-law.com HARD ROCK: Files Motion to Dismiss DiBenedetto Gambling Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ John O'Brien of Legal Newsline reports that class action lawyers suing over change in casinos can't stack coins not paid to gamblers high enough to meet the standard for suing in federal court. So says the owner of Hard Rock Hotel & Casino in Atlantic City, N.J., who recently filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought last year by Vincent DiBenedetto. The case says gamblers who put vouchers in machines to cash out only receive the full dollar amount, while the remaining change is not paid. Under the federal Class Action Fairness Act, federal courts have jurisdiction over class actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. "Plaintiff has made a grave miscalculation," the motion to dismiss says. "Boardwalk 1000 has retained, at most, $434,002.99 worth of expired gaming obligations at the time the Complaint was filed. "Even taking into account statutory damages, punitive damages and attorneys fees, it is difficult, if not impossible, to imagine that Plaintiff could recover $5 million." According to his class action, which was filed by lawyers Spencer Sheehan and James Chung of New York, DiBendetto visited the Hard Rock Cafe in Atlantic City between June and October of 2022. He alleges that when he "cashed out his balances," he received a printed voucher with the balance owed and that when he cashed in the vouchers, he only received the whole dollar amount instead of the full ticket amount. DiBendetto further alleges that when he received the cash-out vouchers from the machines instead of coins, he either inserted new tickets into the slots or discarded them due to "time, inconvenience and obstacles to redeeming them." He claims there is also no "meaningful" instruction available to players on where to cash in the remaining balance and that the practice "lures" customers to make more wagers while deterring them from waiting in long lines at cashier windows to redeem the full ticket amount. DiBendetto also claims Hard Rock is unlawfully withholding coins remaining on cash-out tickets in order to increase profits. The motion also says the case has no business being filed in New York. Boardwalk 1000 is a citizen of New Jersey with no employees, properties or assets in New York, the motion says. And considering New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act should apply to the case, claims made under New York's and Florida's similar laws should be tossed, Boardwalk 1000 argues. "Fourth, the Eastern District of New York is an improper venue for this action," the motion says. "Boardwalk 1000 does not reside in New York, and no 'substantial event or omission giving rise to the claim' occurred in New York. "Instead, nearly all (if not all) of the material events to Plaintiff's claims occurred in New Jersey." Should the New York judge hearing the case not dismiss it entirely, they should transfer it to New Jersey, Boardwalk 1000 says. [GN] HAWKEYE MEDTECH: 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. HAWKEYE MEDTECH, INC., a Maryland corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-01912-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff files a "placeholder" motion for class certification to protect against any potential attempt by Hawkeye, to moot its claims through the tendering of individual relief. The Plaintiff files this motion to prevent a "pick-off" of its claims. 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). Thus, in order to protect against any alternative pick-off attempt following CampbellEwald, the Plaintiff seeks to maintain this "placeholder" motion for class certification, like the named plaintiffs in Wilson. The Plaintiff proposes the following class definition: "All persons who on or after four years prior to the filing of this action were successfully sent telephone facsimile messages." Hawkeye is an e-healthcare platform for healthcare providers, and patients to arrange virtual, convenient appointments. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 12, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NILo7k 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 HERITAGE LIFE: Compton Files Suit in N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Heritage Life Insurance Company. The case is styled as Kyle Compton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Heritage Life Insurance Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-03827 (N.D. Ill., June 16, 2023). The nature suit is stated as Other P.I. for Contract Dispute. Heritage Life -- https://www.heritageli.com/ -- was founded in 1957 as a life and disability company.[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 HERTZ CORPORATION: Sconce Suit Removed to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kyle Sconce, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0003738 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court Eastern District of California on June 21, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-at-00524. The Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action against Defendant: failure to pay wages including overtime in violation of Labor Code; failure to provide meal periods in violation of Labor Code and IWC wage orders; failure to provide rest periods in violation of Labor Code and IWC wage orders; failure to pay reporting time pay; failure to pay timely wages in violation of Labor Code; failure to timely pay wages during employment in violation of Labor Code; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of Labor Code; failure to indemnify necessary business expenses in violation of Labor Code; unauthorized deduction of wages in violation of Labor Code; violation of Labor Code; and violation of Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Andrew Weissler, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 8001 Forsyth Boulevard, Ste 1500 St. Louis, MO 63105 Phone: (314) 480-1926 Facsimile: (314) 480-1505 Email: AJ.Weissler@huschblackwell.com HOBBY HOUSE: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hobby House Needleworks L.L.C. The case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Hobby House Needleworks L.L.C., Case No. 1:23-cv-04999-KPF (S.D.N.Y., June 14, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hobby House Needleworks -- https://hobbyhouseneedleworks.com/ -- is an online store filled with hand-dyed linens, cotton and silk floss, folk art and Americana cross stitch patterns, needlepoint canvases, and all kinds of needlework accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ara Vahe Naljian, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 584-5575 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com HONEST COMPANY: Completion of Class Settlement Due July 28 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cody Dixon v. The Honest Company, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-07405-MCS-PLA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarsi entered an order on stipulation setting post-class certification case schedule as follows: Event Date Deadline to Complete Settlement July 28, 2023 Conference or Mediation: Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Sept. 22, 2023 Expert Disclosure (Initial): Sept. 29, 2023 Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal): Oct. 27, 2023 Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Nov. 10, 2023 Last Date to Hear Motions: Feb. 26, 2024 Final Pretrial Conference: May 13, 2024 Jury Trial: May 28, 2024 Honest Company is an American digital-first consumer goods company, based in Los Angeles and founded by actress Jessica Alba. A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qXRo3g at no extra charge.[CC] HYUNDAI MOTOR: Hageman Files Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hyundai Motor America. The case is styled as Brenda Hageman, Richard Price, Timothy Sage, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. 8:23-cv-01045 (C.D. Cal., June 14, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Hyundai Motor America -- http://www.hyundaiusa.com/us/en-- doing business as Hyundai Motor North America is the operating subsidiary that oversees all operations of Hyundai Motor Company in Canada, Mexico, and the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trinette Gragirena Kent, Esq. LEMBERG LAW LLC 43 Danbury Road 3rd Floor Wilton, CT 06897 Phone: (203) 653-2250 Fax: (203) 653-3424 Email: tkent@lemberglaw.com HYUNDAI MOTOR: Stern Sues Over Breach of Contract ------------------------------------------------- Andrew J. Stern, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, a Delaware corporation; DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV11871 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 25, 2023), is brought for damages, injunctive relief and other available legal and equitable remedies, for violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Business Practice, Unfair Competition Law, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and restitution resulting from the actions of the Defendant in intentionally misleading the public (collectively "Consumers") who lease and/or finance HYUNDAI vehicles through HYUNDAI FINANCES ("FINANCE"), a division of HYUNDAI, with respect to the terms and conditions for said Consumers to purchase said vehicles prior to or at the end of their lease agreements with FINANCE. On December 19, 2019, Plaintiff leased a 2020 Hyundai Tucson, VIN KM8J23A48LU145815 ("Vehicle") from one of HYUNDAI's authorized dealerships for a lease term of 3 years ("Lease Term"). With respect to the Vehicle, Plaintiff entered into a California Motor Vehicle Lease Agreement ("Lease Agreement") with FINANCE, like other persons similarly situated. The Lease Agreement gave Plaintiff the option to purchase the Vehicle at any time prior to the end of the Lease Term. The Plaintiff's lease on the Vehicle was due to expire on December 18, 2022, and in July 2022, Plaintiff was discussing purchasing the Vehicle with a sales manager at Keyes Hyundai Motors in Van Nuys, California, the location from which Plaintiff had leased the Vehicle. At that time, the Vehicle only had about 11,000 miles on it after almost 3 years of being driven under the Lease Agreement. As of July 2022, Plaintiff's "buy-out" for the Vehicle was $17,000.00. On August 4, 2022, the Vehicle was stolen. The Vehicle was recovered several days later, but Plaintiff's insurance company, Farmers Insurance determined that the Vehicle was a "total loss." On September 15, 2022, Plaintiff received a letter from Farmers, informing him that Farmers had obtained a pay-off figure from HYUNDAI for the Vehicle of $24,905.00, rather than the approximate $17,000.00 which Plaintiff owed on the Vehicle. The letter from Farmers went on to state that after calculating the actual cash value of the Vehicle, plus sales taxes, license/transfer fees and deducting both Plaintiff's insurance deductible of $1,000.00 and the $24,905.00 claimed by HYUNDAI for the Vehicle, Plaintiff was entitled to $2,613.65 as his "net" insurance claim proceeds. The basis of FINANCE's claim for a $24,905.00 "pay-off" for the Vehicle was that Lease Agreement provided that HYUNDAI was entitled to the "reasonable market value" of a vehicle that is stolen during the Lease Term and determined to be a total loss. Said provision of the Lease Agreement is an unconscionable provision in the Lease Agreement, in that it effectively voids and removes Plaintiff's right to purchase the Vehicle prior to the end of the Lease Term. In addition to the above, after FINANCE was paid the $24,905.00 for the "pay-off" of the Vehicle, Plaintiff received a bill from HYUNDAI, claiming that Plaintiff still owed HYUNDAI an additional amount of $510.30 on the Vehicle ("Additional Pay-off Amount"). When Plaintiff spoke to a representative of FINANCE to find out why HYUNDAI was claiming that Plaintiff owed the Additional Pay-off Amount, Plaintiff was told that the $510.30 was the difference between Mr. Stern's $1,000 deductible, that had been taken off the total amount due to HYUNDAI for the Vehicle and certain credits due to Plaintiff from HYUNDAI. Notwithstanding said explanation, on August 31, 2022, HYUNDAI sent Framers a letter stating, in essence, that the pay-off for the Vehicle was $24,905.00 and that in consideration of said amount HYUNDAI would "release and transfer all of it right, title and interest in and to the vehicle to Farmers Insurance, 'AS IS'..." Despite HYUNDAI's August 31, 2022, letter and the fact that HYUNDAI was paid the $24,905.00 requested by HYUNDAI in said letter, HYUNDAI continues to harass Plaintiff for the Additional Pay-off Amount, threatening to sue Plaintiff and report Plaintiff's delinquent payment to credit agencies, thereby adversely reflecting on Plaintiff's credit rating. As a result of the actions and omissions of HYUNDAI the Plaintiff has suffered damages, and harm, which include, but are not limited to the following: Loss of Money; Decrease in Plaintiff's credit rating; and Stress, aggravation, frustration, loss of trust, loss of serenity and loss of confidence dealing with car manufacturers in general, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual who was a resident of the Count of Los Angeles, State of California. HYUNDAI was engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling, leasing and financing automobile vehicles under the brand name "Hyundai."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohsen Parsa, Esq. MOHSEN PARSA, INC., A Professional Law Corporation 2030 Main Street, Suite 1300 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (949) 394-6930 Fax: (949) 377-3156 Email: mp@parsalaw.com IL REALTY: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Stewart Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stewart v. IL Realty Investments, LLC a Dissolved Illinois limited liability company d/b/a Motel 6 et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01132-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows: -- Rule 16 scheduling conference The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference approximately 30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is filed. The conference will generally be conducted by telephone. -- Discovery plan The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least three calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference If the parties agree on all matters contained in the discovery plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16 scheduling conference be cancelled. -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most hearings by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to appear for an in-person hearing. -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the discovery deadline has already passed The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all discovery disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even if the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to conduct discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the Court, they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived. -- Settlement conferences and mediation The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to Judge Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or mediation. A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JwL0Gm at no extra charge.[CC] IMA FINANCIAL GROUP: Zerbe Files Suit in D. Kansas -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against IMA Financial Group, Inc. The case is styled as Jason Zerbe, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. IMA Financial Group, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-02242-HLT-ADM (D. Kan., May 26, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. IMA Financial Group, Inc. -- https://imacorp.com/ -- is an integrated financial services company focused on protecting the assets of its widely varied client base.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson Street, Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Phone: (608) 237-1775 Fax: (608) 509-4423 Email: raina@turkestrauss.com - and - Richard S. Fisk, Esq. BEAM-WARD, KRUSE, WILSON & FLETES, LLC 8645 College Boulevard, Suite 250 Overland Park, KS 66210-1871 Phone: (913) 339-6888 Fax: (913) 339-9653 Email: rfisk@bkwflaw.com IMPOSSIBLE DIAMOND: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Impossible Diamond, Inc. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Impossible Diamond, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-05101 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Impossible Diamond captures carbon from the air and transform it into diamonds.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com INSURANCE EXPRESS.COM: Metzler Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Insurance Express.com, Inc. The case is styled as Christian Metzler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Insurance Express.com, Inc., Case No. 9:23-cv-80920-DMM (S.D. Fla., June 15, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Insurance Express.com Inc. -- https://www.insuranceexpress.com/ -- is an Insurance company located in West Palm Beach, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 31 Samana Drive Miami, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com - and - Stefan Louis Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A. 201 S Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor Miami, Fl 33131 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Fax: (888) 498-8946 Email: law@stefancoleman.com INTELLIHARTX LLC: Fails to Safeguard Info, Perrone Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ LAUREN PERRONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTELLIHARTX, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01224-JRK (N.D. Ohio, June 21, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment/quasi contract, breach of confidence, and injunctive/declaratory relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the protected health information and personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated patients and customers stored within its network following a data breach on or about January 30, 2023 or earlier. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the PII and PHI of the Plaintiff and Class members were compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Intellihartx, LLC is a healthcare revenue cycle company located in Findlay, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Wiest, Esq. Chris Wiest, Atty at Law, PLLC 25 Town Center Blvd, Suite 104 Crestview Hills, KY 41017 Telephone: (513) 257-1895 Facsimile: (859) 495-0803 E-mail: chris@cwiestlaw.com - and - Mason Barney, Esq. Tyler Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 S. Flower Street, Ste. 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 376-3739 E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com INTERCONTINENTAL CAPITAL: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Sergio Lopez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INTERCONTINENTAL CAPITAL GROUP, INC. AND DUSTIN DIMISA, Case No. 2:23-cv-04464 (E.D.N.Y., June 16, 2023), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Articles 6 and 19, the New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations 142-2.2, to recover unpaid earned overtime compensation and for other relief. The Defendants failed to make and maintain true and accurate records of all the time worked by the Plaintiff and other loan officers. Defendants knew or should have known that the Plaintiff and other loan officers worked in excess of 40 hours during each week of their employment. The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff and have not paid other loan officers' time-and-a-half their regular rates of pay for time worked in excess of 40 hours each week. Defendants managed the Plaintiff's and other loan officers' employment, including the amount of overtime worked. Defendants dictated, controlled, and ratified the wage and hour and all related employee compensation policies. The Defendants' failure to pay proper wages in a timely manner were made without good faith, willful, and with reckless disregard for the Plaintiff' and other loan officers' rights; and the Plaintiff and other loan officers have been damaged by such failures, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a loan officer at the Defendants' office. Intercontinental Capital Group, Inc. ("IHLC") is a New York corporation with locations in various regions throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Erik H. Langeland, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF ERIK H. LANGELAND, PC 733 Third Avenue, 16th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 354-6270 Fax: (646) 650-2782 Email: elangeland@langelandlaw.com IPSWITCH INC: Faces Pipes Suit Over Third Party Access to Info -------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER PIPES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IPSWITCH, INC. and PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-11394 (D. Mass., June 21, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the protected health information (PHI) and personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network following a data breach on or about May 27, 2023. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the PII and PHI of the Plaintiff and Class members were compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party. Ipswitch, Inc. is a software company, with a principal place of business located at 15 Wayside Road, 4th Floor, Burlington, Massachusetts. Progress Software Corporation is a software company, with a principal place of business located at 15 Wayside Road, Suite 4, Burlington, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Pastor, Esq. PASTOR LAW OFFICE PC 63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 742-9700 Facsimile: (617) 742-9701 E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com - and - Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Tina Wolfson, Esq. Deborah De Villa, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com ddevilla@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 621-2000 Facsimile: (312) 641-5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com ISHOPSHOPS INC: Ligon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against IShopShops, Inc. The case is styled as Denette J. Ligon, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. IShopShops, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-05090 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. ShopShops -- https://shopshopslive.com/ -- is a livestream, interactive global shopping marketplace that connects brick and mortar retailers with consumers on their mobile devices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com JCOMMERCE HOLDINGS: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jcommerce Holdings, LLC. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Jcommerce Holdings, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-05227 (S.D.N.Y., June 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The JCommerce Group -- https://www.jcommercegroup.com/ -- is the market leader in servicing the Ecommerce needs of the global Jewish community.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal JOHNSON GOURMET DELI: Ochoa Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------------ Luis Antonio Ortiz Ochoa, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JOHNSON GOURMET DELI & GRILL INC. RAFIK ALMAMLOUH; HISHAM MUSLEH a/k/a Jimmy, and SALEH ALSHATAF, Case No. 515585/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., May 25, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Defendants in bad faith violated the Minimum Wage Act and Wage Theft Prevention Act, and the Miscellaneous Industries Wage Order promulgated pursuant thereto, and that Defendants are therefore liable to the Plaintiff for unpaid or underpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, statutory damages, prejudgment interest, post judgment interest, attorney fees, costs, expenses, injunctive relief, and such other and further relief made available by law. The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the NYLL by engaging in pattern and practice of failing to pay its employees, including Plaintiff, overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. The Plaintiff alleges pursuant to NYLL and New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) that he is entitled to recover from the Defendants: unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid spread-of-hours premium, up to five thousand dollars per Plaintiff for Defendants' failure to provide a Time of Hire Notice detailing rates of pay and payday, up to five thousand dollars per Plaintiff for Defendants' failure to provide a paystub that accurately and truthfully lists employee's hours along with the employee's name, employer's name, employer's address and telephone number, employee's rate or rates of pay, any deductions made from employee's wages, any allowances claimed as part of the minimum wage, and the employee's gross and net wages for each pay day, liquidated damages equal to the sum of unpaid "spread of hours" premium, unpaid overtime in the amount of twenty five per cent under NYLL, and one hundred percent after April 9, 2011 under NY Wage Theft Prevention Act, 9% simple prejudgment interest provided by NYLL, post Judgment interest, and attorney's fees and costs, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a Grill man/ Deli Worker at the Defendant's business. The Defendant operates Johnson Gourmet Deli & Grill located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq. Tiffany Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC JP MORGAN: Shteierman Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A., et al. The case is styled as Yitchok Isaac Shteierman, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A., Chase Auto Finance, Inc., Subaru of America, Inc. doing business as: Subaru Motors Finance, Case No. 7:23-cv-05064 (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com/-- doing business as Chase, is an American national bank headquartered in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com KANSAS, MO: Melton Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Thomas Melton, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. THE CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, Case No. 2216-CV28161 was removed from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on June 14, 2023, and assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-00409-RK. The Plaintiff's Collective Action Petition filed in the State Court Action asserts claims against the Defendant for violations of the Missouri Minimum Wage Law, ("MMWL") and the Fair Labor Standards Act, ("FLSA") individually and on behalf of others similarly situated.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Samantha J. Monsees, Esq. Melody L. Rayl, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 4622 Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 910 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (816) 842-8770 Fax: (816) 842-8767 Email: smonsees@fisherphillips.com mrayl@fisherphillips.com KING FUELS: Fails to Pay Clerk's OT Wages Under FLSA, Qureshi Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jamal Qureshi, and all others similarly situated v. King Fuels, Inc., ZRN, LLC, Zaki Niazi, Mohammed Naeem Niazi, Mohammed Razi Niazi and Saud Zaki Niazi, Case No. 4:23-cv-02193 (S.D. Tex., June 15, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid wages, including overtime wages, from the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and Members of the Plaintiff Class routinely worked in excess of 40 hours a week at Defendants' request, yet did not receive overtime wages. Additionally, the Defendants required the Plaintiff and Members of the Plaintiff Class to routinely work some hours each week off-the-clock, and Defendants failed to pay any wages for these hours, the lawsuit alleges. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks to represent a class comprised of current and former employees of all Gas Stations who (a) were paid at a straight-time hourly rate for hours worked in excess of 40 in any workweek during the relevant period, and/or (b) worked off-the-clock hours without receiving any wages for such hours worked. From July 6, 2021, until February 20, 2022, the Defendants employed Mr. Qureshi as a clerk at one of their Gas Stations. The Defendants own, control and operate multiple gasoline stations/convenience stores in the Houston and surrounding areas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq. ALI S. AHMED, P.C. 430 W. Bell Street Houston, TX 77019 Telephone: (713) 898-0982 E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com KINKISHARYO INTERNATIONAL: Court Accepts Armendariz Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Noe Armendariz v. Kinkisharyo International, LLC et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-08757-JAK-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an order taking the Plaintiff's motion for class certification under submission. The Court inquires whether settlement efforts at this time would be productive. The Court orders counsel to meet and confer and, on or before June 22, 2023, file a joint report stating their collective and/or respective position(s) regarding whether it would be productive for them to participate in a formal settlement process and, if so, whether settlement discussions would be more productive prior to or after an order is issued ruling on the Motion. Kinkisharyo provides customized solutions for urban transit agencies. The Company designs and manufactures railcars. A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NgR8na at no extra charge.[CC] LAWN ENFORCEMENT: Seeks Reconsideration of May 2023 Order --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALFREDO TERAN, ELIBERTO PEREZ AMBROSIO, BALTAZAR CALDERON, JR., ISMAEL GUEL, PATRICIO MARTINEZ, RICARDO TERAN, TRINIDAD TERAN, XAVIER TERAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. LAWN ENFORCEMENT, INC., JAMIE WALKER, individually, FLSA Opt-In Collective Action and JASON BRADEN, individually, Case No. 2:22-cv-02338-JTF-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for reconsideration and/or status conference regarding the Court's Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification due to the Sixth Circuit's newly adopted standard for conditional certification or notice. On September 30, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for conditional class certification and for the issuance of court-supervised notice. The Defendants filed their response in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion on December 28, 2022. The Court entered an Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion on May 18, 2023. The day after the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion (May 19, 2023) the Sixth Circuit updated the operative standard under which notice of a collective action may be sent to other similarly situated employees, establishing a "strong likelihood" standard. Lawn Enforcement provides residential and commercial design, build and maintenance for lawns and landscapes. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 13, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ns2zJ7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: J. Russ Bryant, Esq. JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 759-1745 E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com LENDING FORCE: Brooks Suit Removed to M.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jatamara Brooks, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Lending Force, LLC, Case No. 2023-CA-009128-O was removed from the Circuit Court of the Hillsborough County, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on June 14, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-01335-KKM-AEP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated Constitutional - State Statute. Lending Force -- https://lendingfrc.com/ -- is a professional mortgage broker company that focuses on finding the right loan for our borrowers at a wholesale price point.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Peerce Howard, Esq. Amanda J. Allen, Esq. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM Suntrust Financial Center 401 E Jackson Street Truist Place, Suite 2340 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 500-1500 Fax: (813) 435-2369 Email: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Robert A Stines, Esq. SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL LLP 201 N Franklin Street, Ste. 3550 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 488-2920 Email: rstines@sgrlaw.com LENNAR CORPORATION: Tuso Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------ Richard Tuso, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LENNAR CORPORATION a Delaware registered corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-22264-RKA (S.D. Fla., June 20, 2023), is brought against Defendant to stop the Defendant from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by making telemarketing calls to consumers without consent including calls to phone numbers that are registered on the National Do Not Call registry ("DNC") and to consumers who have expressly requested that the calls stop. Lennar places solicitation calls to consumers to solicit real estate transactions. Unfortunately, some of these calls from Lennar are being placed to consumers without consent, including to consumers that registered their phone numbers on the DNC, as per the Plaintiff's experience. To make matters worse, Lennar lacks a sufficient opt-out system to ensure that a consumer who notifies Lennar to stop calling them will be removed from their calling list. Placing cold calls, or unsolicited calls to consumers appears to be a core part of Lennar's business. In response to these calls, Plaintiff brings forward this case seeking injunctive relief requiring the Defendant to cease from violating the TCPA, as well as an award of statutory damages to the members of the Class and costs, says the complaint. The Plaintiff registered his cell phone number on the DNC on July 2, 2003. Lennar is a homebuilder that sells homes throughout the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN PLLC 66 West Flagler Street, Suite 900 Miami, FL 33130 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Email: law@stefancoleman.com - and - Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, Floor 4 Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com LIFE STRATEGIES: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Singleton Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DERRICK SINGLETON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LIFE STRATEGIES COUNSELING, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-00562-LPR (E.D. Ark., June 15, 2023) seeks to recover overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The Defendant allegedly paid Plaintiff and other Mental Health Professionals only for hours which they billed, which generally consisted of the hours they spent with clients. However, the Plaintiff and other Mental Health Professionals were required to complete work which was ancillary to meeting with clients and was not considered by the Defendant to be billable work, such completing patient documentation, charting, scheduling and preparing for therapy sessions. On average, the Plaintiff estimates he billed and was paid for 25 hours each week, but he regularly worked over 40 hours per week, the suit says. The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs as a result of the Defendant's policies and practice of failing to pay proper overtime compensation. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid employee from May of 2013 until the present. He works as a Mental Health Professional and was primarily responsible for providing counseling services to Defendant's clients. Defendant owns and operates counseling service centers throughout Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Ford, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (800) 615-4946 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: daniel@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com LONG BEACH, CA: Guma Files Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The City of Long Beach, et al. The case is styled as Daniel Guma, Michael D'Antoni, Kevin Horn, Timothy Lyons, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. The City of Long Beach, All County Hook Up Towing, Inc. d/b/a All County Towing & Recovery, All County Towing & Recovery, Joseph Calvagno, Individually, Case No. 2:23-cv-04529 (E.D.N.Y., June 20, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil Rights Act. Long Beach -- https://www.longbeach.gov/ -- is a city in Los Angeles County, California, United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew J. Campanelli, Esq. CAMPANELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1757 Merrick Avenue, Suite 204 Merrick, NY 11566 Phone: (516) 746-1600 Fax: (516) 746-2611 Email: ajc@campanellipc.com LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Walters Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- Todd Walters, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public v. LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA INC. (D/B/A/ LENSCRAFTERS), an Ohio corporation and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2023-01317752-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court, Central District of California on June 20, 2023, and assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-01099. The Complaint asserts the following 7 causes of action: Failure to Pay All Wages Earned for All Hours Worked and Other compensable Hours at the Correct Rates of Pay; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Breaks; Failure to Indemnify; Wage Statement Penalties; Waiting Time Penalties; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Noah J. Woods, Bar No. 264823 Heidi E. Hegewald, Bar No. 326834 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101.3577 Phone: 619.232.0441 Fax: 619.232.4302 Email: nwoods@littler.com hhegewald@littler.com LYONS MAGNUS: Initial Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wayne Catalano, Karen Radford, Christy Deringer, Tomoko Nakanishi, Veronica Pereyra, Roberta Sinico, Barbara Speaks, and Edmond Dixon, individually on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Lyons Magnus, LLC and TRU Aseptics, LLC, Case No. 7:22-cv-06867-KMK (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e): 1) preliminarily approving this proposed class action settlement; 2) preliminarily certifying the class for settlement purposes; and 3) granting approval of the proposed notice plan. Lyons Magnus produces and markets a wide array of products for the global foodservice and food ingredient channels. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 12, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JwFhAy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Joseph Lipari, Esq. Jeremy Francis, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C. 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12061 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com francisj@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and – Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. David C. Magagna Jr., Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com dmagagna@lfsblaw.com Eric - and – M. Poulin Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq. Blake G. Abbott, Esq. Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 614-8888 E-mail: roy@akimlawfirm.com blake@akimlawfirm.com pauld@akimlawfirm.com - and – Kiley Grombacher, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP 31365 Oak Crest Dr., Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA E-mail: Kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com - and – Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 1700 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 E-mail: baylstock@awkolaw.com MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Moore Files Suit in Del. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Macquarie Infrastructure. The case is styled as Helen Moore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, Case No. N23M-06-081 (Del. Super. Ct., New Castle Cty., June 16, 2023). The case type is stated as " Civil-Miscellaneous-MISS-Issuance of Subpoena." Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation -- http://www.micinc.com/-- owns, operates and invests in a diversified group of infrastructure businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dean Roland, Esq. COOCH & TAYLOR PA-WILMINGTON 1000 W St 10th Fl Wilmington, DE 19899 Phone: (302) 984-3851 Fax: (302) 984-3939 Email: droland@coochtaylor.com MAJOR LEAGUE: Faces Class Suit Over Systemic Age Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Shaikin and Mike Digiovanna of Los Angeles Time report that Major League Baseball "blacklisted" older scouts and used analytics and the pandemic as "pretext for coordinated and systemic discrimination based on age," a group of formerly employed veteran scouts alleged in a lawsuit filed on June 21, 2023. The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Denver, names MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred, the league office and each of the 30 major league clubs as defendants. Robert Goodman, the lead attorney representing the scouts, said they drew "inspiration" from the minor league players who sued over violations of federal and state wage laws and settled with the league for $185 million. In this case, the suit alleges violations of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and 12 states' laws against age discrimination. "We believe the commissioner and the owners colluded to eliminate veteran personnel because of salaries," said Rick Ingalls, who helped organize the scouts into plaintiffs. Ingalls was let go by the Cincinnati Reds in 2018 after a 37-year career as a Southern California-based amateur scout, the first 20 years with the Angels. "When Major League Baseball makes a big deal about traditions, and honoring those traditions, and then it does something like this, it's destroying its own brand," Goodman said. "If you're trying to be America's pastime and then suddenly people who have been involved in America's pastime for 30 or 40 or 50 years are completely locked out, there is something wrong." The suit names 17 plaintiffs, ranging in age from 55 to 71, all but one of whom had scouted for at least 24 years. The suit asks the court to let the litigation proceed as a class action in which "over 100 older scouts" would be expected to join. If that happens, the potential liability for lost former and future wages plus damages could exceed $100 million. Beyond the "Moneyball" trend that favored video analysts over scouts, the suit claims MLB under Manfred undertook several discriminatory actions against older scouts: first, the elimination of league notifications that a scout was no longer employed by one team and thus available for hire by other teams; second, the use of a "blacklist" to identify older scouts who should not be hired by any team; and, third, the leveraging of the pandemic as "an opportunity to terminate an entire class of older employees." Said co-counsel Mitch Abeita: "These guys largely haven't provided any information that the scouts did anything wrong. All they did was get older. The law says you cannot banish someone just because of their age." MLB issued a statement in response to the filing. "We do not comment on pending litigation," the statement read. "However, we look forward to refuting these claims in court." Ingalls, 71, who lives in Long Beach, was 67 when he said the Reds let him go and "hired a 27-year-old kid to do my job," he said. He filed an age-discrimination suit against the team that was resolved out of court. He began taking Social Security payments and the pension he accrued earlier in his career -- most teams have discontinued pension plans during the last decade -- and says he is "actually OK" financially. But the more stories he heard of scouts in their mid-50s and older who were let go without the safety net he had, the more he worked to organize them as a group and to spearhead an effort to recoup their financial losses. "These guys, when they're let go, they're not given a year of severance, they have no health insurance, no paycheck," Ingalls said. "A lot of guys who are 55-60 when they're fired can't take pensions without penalties until they're 65. They can't get Social Security until they're 62. They have no health insurance." "A lot of these guys who we're fighting for are losing their homes. They have kids, and the cost of [health] insurance is off the charts.". Chris Smith, 64, spent the final 18 years of his 30-year scouting career with the Dodgers before being let go in 2020. Smith also filed an age-discrimination suit that was resolved out of court, then joined with Ingalls in gathering scouts to pursue legal action. "It became painfully obvious what was going on as an industry," said Smith, who managed in the Angels minor league system and coached at Loyola Marymount before joining the scouting ranks. "It just happened again and again and again." "We all understand that there are changes when there is a regime change, but I've been in the business for 40 years, and I've never seen anything close to this. . . . The term they used was a 'natural reduction in workforce.'" "This was not a natural reduction in workforce. This was, 'You're all gone.' That, in itself, is a problem." Major league teams still employ scouts in the post-"Moneyball" era, but the essence of the lawsuit is that what was billed as a drive for efficiency and streamlining was used as a fig leaf for disposing of older and higher-salaried scouts. Scouts who work for decades often sign short-term contracts, renewable at the team's discretion every year or two. Their highly specialized skills do not easily translate to other industries. "There's a group of guys who got let go who were 65 or older -- they had to alter their plans, but they're at retirement age and better off," Smith said. "But what about this group of guys who are 55-58 with 30-35 years in this industry? What are you gonna do? And there's a bunch of them like that." "This is all they've done for 30-35 years, and now they're out on the streets. They have no insurance in a pandemic. Some teams gave severance packages, some did not. Financially, there needs to be some compensation for a guy who was making a decent living and is now driving a school bus." Rick Ragazzo, 63, spent two decades of his 34-year scouting career with the San Francisco Giants and another decade in Los Angeles, as vice president of pro scouting/player personnel under former Dodgers general manager Ned Colletti. "We believe the commissioner and the owners colluded to eliminate veteran personnel because of salaries." -- Veteran scout Rick Ingalls He was at the end of his fifth year as a major league scout for the Atlanta Braves when he said general manager Alex Anthopoulos and then-assistant GM Perry Minasian -- now the Angels' general manager -- told him "they didn't need pro scouts," Ragazzo said. "They dissolved the department. They blamed it on COVID." Struggling to find another job in baseball, Ragazzo, a longtime Leona Valley resident, started his own management consulting company "just to survive," he said. He opted to begin taking his pension at age 62, forfeiting the extra $1,500 a month he would have made had he waited until 66½. He dipped into his 401(k) savings to pay college tuition for three of his four kids and for health insurance premiums for his family. "It's kind of hard to reinvent yourself at 60," Ragazzo said, "when you've spent 30-plus years in a career." [GN] MDL 2262: Fact Discovery in Baltimore v. BoA Due April 4, 2024 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Bank of America Corporation et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-05450 (S.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 5, 2011), the Hon. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Deadline for substantial completion Sept. 7, 2023 of Defendants rolling production of all document discovery relating to the Upstream Issues and class certification in the OTC action: -- Close of fact discovery (including April 4, 2024 depositions) concerning the Upstream Issues and class certification in the OTC action: -- Close of expert discovery (including Sept. 13, 2024 depositions) concerning the Upstream Issues and class certification in the OTC action: -- Deadline to file summary judgment motions Oct. 4, 2024 on the Upstream Issues, Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion to certify the OTC class with respect to the Foreign Defendants, Deadline to file motions to exclude experts concerning the Upstream Issues and OTC class certification: -- Deadline for service of privilege logs, Oct. 10, 2023 if any, concerning the Upstream Issues and class certification in the OTC action: -- Deadline to serve Hague requests to obtain Oct. 23, 2023 testimony abroad concerning the Upstream Issues or class certification in the OTC Action: -- Deadline for parties to propound Jan. 19, 2024 interrogatories and RFAs concerning the Upstream Issues or class certification in The OTC action: -- Deadline to notice fact depositions Feb. 2, 2024 concerning the Upstream Issues or class certification in the OTC action: -- Close of fact discovery (including Feb. 4, 2024 depositions) concerning the Upstream Issues and class certification in the OTC action: -- Deadline for parties to serve April 19, 2024 opening expert reports concerning the Upstream Issues and OTC class certification: -- Deadline for parties to serve rebuttal June 18, 2024 Expert reports concerning the Upstream Issues and OTC class certification: The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act. The Baltimore case is consolidated in Libor-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation MDL No. 2262. The Plaintiffs argue that their actions involve a primarily local transaction between an Ohio business and its local bank, and that the action does not involve any antitrust claims. These arguments are unconvincing. A review of the Cicchini Enterprises complaint demonstrates that the action shares multiple issues with actions already in the MDL concerning alleged manipulation of the London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor), the Court says. The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company headquartered at the Bank of America Corporate Center in Charlotte, North Carolina, with investment banking and auxiliary headquarters in Manhattan. A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/435UAHs at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2262: Fact Discovery in DBP&FRS v. BoA Due April 4, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as City of Dania Beach Police & Firefighters' Retirement System v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-03128 (S.D.N.Y., Filed May 9, 2011), the Hon. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Deadline for substantial completion Sept. 7, 2023 of Defendants rolling production of all document discovery relating to the Upstream Issues and class certification in the OTC action: -- Close of fact discovery (including April 4, 2024 depositions) concerning the Upstream Issues and class certification in the OTC action: -- Close of expert discovery (including Sept. 13, 2024 depositions) concerning the Upstream Issues and class certification in the OTC action: -- Deadline to file summary judgment motions Oct. 4, 2024 on the Upstream Issues, Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion to certify the OTC class with respect to the Foreign Defendants, Deadline to file motions to exclude experts concerning the Upstream Issues and OTC class certification: -- Deadline for service of privilege logs, Oct. 10, 2023 if any, concerning the Upstream Issues and class certification in the OTC action: -- Deadline to serve Hague requests to obtain Oct. 23, 2023 testimony abroad concerning the Upstream Issues or class certification in the OTC Action: -- Deadline for parties to propound Jan. 19, 2024 interrogatories and RFAs concerning the Upstream Issues or class certification in The OTC action: -- Deadline to notice fact depositions Feb. 2, 2024 concerning the Upstream Issues or class certification in the OTC action: -- Close of fact discovery (including Feb. 4, 2024 depositions) concerning the Upstream Issues and class certification in the OTC action: -- Deadline for parties to serve April 19, 2024 opening expert reports concerning the Upstream Issues and OTC class certification: -- Deadline for parties to serve rebuttal June 18, 2024 Expert reports concerning the Upstream Issues and OTC class certification: The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act. The Dania case is consolidated in Libor-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation MDL No. 2262. The Plaintiffs argue that their actions involve a primarily local transaction between an Ohio business and its local bank, and that the action does not involve any antitrust claims. These arguments are unconvincing. A review of the Cicchini Enterprises complaint demonstrates that the action shares multiple issues with actions already in the MDL concerning alleged manipulation of the London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor), the Court says. The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company headquartered at the Bank of America Corporate Center in Charlotte, North Carolina, with investment banking and auxiliary headquarters in Manhattan. A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JEdXQY at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2262: Fact Discovery in De Velde v. BoA Due April 4, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as De Velde v. Bank of America Corporation et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-06120 (S.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 31, 2011), the Hon. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Deadline for substantial completion Sept. 7, 2023 of Defendants rolling production of all document discovery relating to the Upstream Issues and class certification in the OTC action: -- Close of fact discovery (including April 4, 2024 depositions) concerning the Upstream Issues and class certification in the OTC action: -- Close of expert discovery (including Sept. 13, 2024 depositions) concerning the Upstream Issues and class certification in the OTC action: -- Deadline to file summary judgment motions Oct. 4, 2024 on the Upstream Issues, Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion to certify the OTC class with respect to the Foreign Defendants, Deadline to file motions to exclude experts concerning the Upstream Issues and OTC class certification: -- Deadline for service of privilege logs, Oct. 10, 2023 if any, concerning the Upstream Issues and class certification in the OTC action: -- Deadline to serve Hague requests to obtain Oct. 23, 2023 testimony abroad concerning the Upstream Issues or class certification in the OTC Action: -- Deadline for parties to propound Jan. 19, 2024 interrogatories and RFAs concerning the Upstream Issues or class certification in The OTC action: -- Deadline to notice fact depositions Feb. 2, 2024 concerning the Upstream Issues or class certification in the OTC action: -- Close of fact discovery (including Feb. 4, 2024 depositions) concerning the Upstream Issues and class certification in the OTC action: -- Deadline for parties to serve April 19, 2024 opening expert reports concerning the Upstream Issues and OTC class certification: -- Deadline for parties to serve rebuttal June 18, 2024 Expert reports concerning the Upstream Issues and OTC class certification: The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act and Racketeering (RICO) Act. The De Velde case is consolidated in Libor-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation MDL No. 2262. The Plaintiff argues that their actions involve a primarily local transaction between an Ohio business and its local bank, and that the action does not involve any antitrust claims. These arguments are unconvincing. A review of the Cicchini Enterprises complaint demonstrates that the action shares multiple issues with actions already in the MDL concerning alleged manipulation of the London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor), the Court says. The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company headquartered at the Bank of America Corporate Center in Charlotte, North Carolina, with investment banking and auxiliary headquarters in Manhattan. A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44sQpX2 at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2262: Fact Discovery in Schwab Money v. BoA Due April 4, 2024 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Schwab Money Market Fund et al., v. Bank of America Corporation et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-06412 (S.D.N.Y., Filed Sept. 14, 2011), the Hon. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Deadline for substantial completion Sept. 7, 2023 of Defendants rolling production of all document discovery relating to the Upstream Issues and class certification in the OTC action: -- Close of fact discovery (including April 4, 2024 depositions) concerning the Upstream Issues and class certification in the OTC action: -- Close of expert discovery (including Sept. 13, 2024 depositions) concerning the Upstream Issues and class certification in the OTC action: -- Deadline to file summary judgment motions Oct. 4, 2024 on the Upstream Issues, Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion to certify the OTC class with respect to the Foreign Defendants, Deadline to file motions to exclude experts concerning the Upstream Issues and OTC class certification: -- Deadline for service of privilege logs, Oct. 10, 2023 if any, concerning the Upstream Issues and class certification in the OTC action: -- Deadline to serve Hague requests to obtain Oct. 23, 2023 testimony abroad concerning the Upstream Issues or class certification in the OTC Action: -- Deadline for parties to propound Jan. 19, 2024 interrogatories and RFAs concerning the Upstream Issues or class certification in The OTC action: -- Deadline to notice fact depositions Feb. 2, 2024 concerning the Upstream Issues or class certification in the OTC action: -- Close of fact discovery (including Feb. 4, 2024 depositions) concerning the Upstream Issues and class certification in the OTC action: -- Deadline for parties to serve April 19, 2024 opening expert reports concerning the Upstream Issues and OTC class certification: -- Deadline for parties to serve rebuttal June 18, 2024 Expert reports concerning the Upstream Issues and OTC class certification: The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act and Racketeering (RICO) Act. The Schwab Money case is consolidated in Libor-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation MDL No. 2262. The Plaintiffs argue that their actions involve a primarily local transaction between an Ohio business and its local bank, and that the action does not involve any antitrust claims. These arguments are unconvincing. A review of the Cicchini Enterprises complaint demonstrates that the action shares multiple issues with actions already in the MDL concerning alleged manipulation of the London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor), the Court says. The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company headquartered at the Bank of America Corporate Center in Charlotte, North Carolina, with investment banking and auxiliary headquarters in Manhattan. A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44nkiYU at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2262: Fact Discovery in Schwab v. BoA Due April 4, 2024 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Schwab Short-Term Bond Market Fund, et al., v. Bank of America Corporation et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-06409 (S.D.N.Y., Filed Sept. 14, 2011), the Hon. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Deadline for substantial completion Sept. 7, 2023 of Defendants rolling production of all document discovery relating to the Upstream Issues and class certification in the OTC action: -- Close of fact discovery (including April 4, 2024 depositions) concerning the Upstream Issues and class certification in the OTC action: -- Close of expert discovery (including Sept. 13, 2024 depositions) concerning the Upstream Issues and class certification in the OTC action: -- Deadline to file summary judgment motions Oct. 4, 2024 on the Upstream Issues, Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion to certify the OTC class with respect to the Foreign Defendants, Deadline to file motions to exclude experts concerning the Upstream Issues and OTC class certification: -- Deadline for service of privilege logs, Oct. 10, 2023 if any, concerning the Upstream Issues and class certification in the OTC action: -- Deadline to serve Hague requests to obtain Oct. 23, 2023 testimony abroad concerning the Upstream Issues or class certification in the OTC Action: -- Deadline for parties to propound Jan. 19, 2024 interrogatories and RFAs concerning the Upstream Issues or class certification in The OTC action: -- Deadline to notice fact depositions Feb. 2, 2024 concerning the Upstream Issues or class certification in the OTC action: -- Close of fact discovery (including Feb. 4, 2024 depositions) concerning the Upstream Issues and class certification in the OTC action: -- Deadline for parties to serve April 19, 2024 opening expert reports concerning the Upstream Issues and OTC class certification: -- Deadline for parties to serve rebuttal June 18, 2024 Expert reports concerning the Upstream Issues and OTC class certification: The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act and Racketeering (RICO) Act. The Schwab case is consolidated in Libor-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation MDL No. 2262. The Plaintiffs argue that their actions involve a primarily local transaction between an Ohio business and its local bank, and that the action does not involve any antitrust claims. These arguments are unconvincing. A review of the Cicchini Enterprises complaint demonstrates that the action shares multiple issues with actions already in the MDL concerning alleged manipulation of the London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor), the Court says. The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company headquartered at the Bank of America Corporate Center in Charlotte, North Carolina, with investment banking and auxiliary headquarters in Manhattan. A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/446sblO at no extra charge.[CC] MIKE ALBERT: Reese Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Drivers ------------------------------------------------------ JASON REESE and KEVIN BENNETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MIKE ALBERT LEASING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00383-MRB (N.D. Ohio, June 21, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, and failure to timely pay wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio Constitution. Plaintiffs Reese and Bennett worked for the Defendant as drivers from approximately January 2018 to the present and from approximately June 2021 to September 2022, respectively. Mike Albert Leasing, Inc. is a vehicle transportation and delivery company, with its principal place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 50 Public Square, Suite 1900 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Facsimile: (440) 846-1625 E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com - and - Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 310 Strongsville, OH 44136 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Facsimile: (440) 846-1625 E-mail: kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com MOON MAGIC: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Garcia Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOON MAGIC BEAUTY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-014826 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Ct., Broward Cty., June 19, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending unwanted text message solicitations to the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers to promote its products or services. Specifically, the Defendant made text message sales calls that promoted Moon Magic and violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls and that did not connect the recipient to either the caller or the Defendant. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, seeks liquidated damages, says the suit. Moon Magic Beauty, LLC is a beauty shop, with its principal place of business in Broward County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Telephone: (202)709-5744 Facsimile: (866) 893-0416 E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com NABORS COMPLETION: Hudson Recovers $155K in Unpaid Wages Plus Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JIMMY HUDSON, JR, Petitioner v. NABORS COMPLETION & PRODUCTION SERVICES CO., a DelaHudson corporation, now known as C&J Well Services, Inc., Respondent, Case No. 2:23-cv-0761-DDP-JPRx (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California orders that Hudson will recover against NABORS in the amount of: a. $154,712.63 in unpaid wages; b. $134,934.26 in interest through March 3, 2022; c. continuing interest from March 4, 2022, in the amount of $42,39 daily until paid in full; d. $150,263.74 in attorneys' fees and $4,174.50 in costs, as awarded by the Arbitrator; and e. additional post-arbitration attorneys' fees in the amount of $9,480 and for costs in the amount of $402. On April 2, 2015 two former employees of NABORS, Brandyn Ridgeway and Tim Smith, filed a putative class action alleging, among other things, claims under Labor Code 1194(a) and 1771 for failure to pay the minimum prevailing wage and overtime, under Labor Code 226(e) for failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements under Labor Code 226(a), and for related interest and penalties, as well as attorneys' fees and costs, (CACD Case No. 2:15-cv-03436-DDP-VBKx; "Ridgeway class action"); On June 29, 2015, NABORS brought a motion to compel arbitration of Ridgeway and Smith's individual claims pursuant to 9 U.SC. Section 2, the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") and a written arbitration agreement that included a class action waiver. Oct. 13, 2015, this Court denied NABORS' motion to compel arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement unenforceable. NABORS timely appealed the denial of its motion to compel arbitration. On Feb. 13, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal issued a Memorandum which reversed the Court's order denying the motion and remanded with instructions. On March 30, 2018, Hudson, a putative class member in the Ridgeway class action, commenced an individual arbitration at JAMS. Hudson's individual claims were adjudicated by JAMS Arbitrator Hon. Franz E. Miller (Ret.) resulting in an Interim Award issued Aug. 23, 2022 and a Final Arbitration Award issued Jan. 9, 2023, in favor of Hudson. On Feb. 1, 2023, Hudson filed the instant Petition to Confirm Final Arbitration Award, For Further Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and to Enter Judgment Against Nabors; Nabors appeared, filed an answer and filed a crossclaim to vacate the Final Award. On June 5, 2023, the Court issued its Order Re: Petitioner's Motion To Confirm Final Arbitration Award And For Further Attorneys' Fees And Costs granted Hudson's motion and confirmed the Final JAMS Arbitration Award issued by Arbitrator Hon. Franz E. Miller (Ret.) in the Arbitration JAMS Case No. 1220058994 and denied NABORS' request to vacate the award. Therefore, Hudson will recover against NABORS in the amount of $154,712.63 in unpaid wages, $134,934.26 in interest through March 3, 2022, continuing interest from March 4, 2022, in the amount of $42,39 daily until paid in full, $150,263.74 in attorneys' fees, and $4,174.50 in costs, as awarded by the Arbitrator. Additional post-arbitration attorneys' fees in the amount of $9,480 and for costs in the amount of $402. A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2023 Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n6vjw7c from Leagle.com. NABORS COMPLETION: Ortiz Recovers $226.8K in Unpaid Wages Plus Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RAMIRO ORTIZ, Petitioner v. NABORS COMPLETION & PRODUCTION SERVICES CO., a DelaOrtiz corporation, now known as C&J Well Services, Inc., Respondent, Case No. 2:23-cv-01526-DDP-JPRx (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California orders that Ortiz will recover against NABORS in the amount of: a. $226,836.34 in unpaid wages; b. $215,698.70 in interest through July 19, 2022, continuing interest at the rate of 10% per annum until wages and interest are paid in full; c. $128,771.31 in attorneys' fees and $1,591.91 in costs, as awarded by the Arbitrator; and d. additional post-arbitration attorneys' fees in the amount of $8,731.50 and for costs in the amount of $402. On April 2, 2015 two former employees of NABORS, Brandyn Ridgeway and Tim Smith, filed a putative class action alleging, among other things, claims under Labor Code Section 1194(a) and 1771 for failure to pay the minimum prevailing wage and overtime, under Labor Code Section 226(e) for failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements under Labor Code Section 226(a), and for related interest and penalties, as well as attorneys' fees and costs, (CACD Case No. 2:15-cv-03436-DDP-VBKx; "Ridgeway class action"); On June 29, 2015, NABORS brought a motion to compel arbitration of Ridgeway and Smith's individual claims pursuant to 9 U.SC. Section 2, the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") and a written arbitration agreement that included a class action waiver. On Cot. 13, 2015, the Court denied NABORS' motion to compel arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement unenforceable. NABORS timely appealed the denial of its motion to compel arbitration. On Feb. 13, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal issued a Memorandum which reversed the Court's order denying the motion and remanded with instructions. On March 30, 2018, Petitioner Ortiz, a putative class member in the Ridgeway class action, commenced an individual arbitration at JAMS. Ortiz's individual claims were adjudicated by JAMS Arbitrator Elliot K. Gordon, Esq. resulting in an Interim Award issued Jan. 3, 2022 and a Final Arbitration Award issued Feb. 27, 2023, in favor of Ortiz. On March 1, 2023, Ortiz filed the instant Petitions to Confirm Final Arbitration Award, For Further Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and to Enter Judgment Against Nabors; Nabors appeared, filed an answer and filed a crossclaim to vacate the Final Award. On June 5, 2023, the Court issued its Order Re: Petitioner's Motion To Confirm Final Arbitration Award And For Further Attorneys' Fees And Costs granted Ortiz's motion and confirmed the Final JAMS Arbitration Award issued by Arbitrator Elliot K. Gordon, Esq. in the Arbitration JAMS Case No. 1220058999 and denied NABORS' request to vacate the award. Therefore, Judge Pregerson orders that Ortiz will recover against NABORS in the amount of $226,836.34 in unpaid wages, $215,698.70 in interest through July 19, 2022, continuing interest at the rate of 10% per annum until wages and interest are paid in full, $128,771.31 in attorneys' fees, and $1,591.91 in costs, as awarded by the Arbitrator. Additional post-arbitration attorneys' fees in the amount of $8,731.50 and for costs in the amount of $402. A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2023 Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/mvyfmacy from Leagle.com. Richard E. Donahoo -- rdonahoo@donahoo.com -- Sarah L. Kokonas -- skokonas@donahoo.com -- DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES Tustin, CA. NEW MEXICO: Garcia-Ibarra Must File Section 2254 Habeas Petition ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, EUGENIO GARCIA-IBARRA, Petitioner v. GEORGE STEVENSON, et al., Respondents, Case No. 23-cv-0108 JB-KRS (D.N.M.), Magistrate Judge Kevin R. Sweazea of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico enters an order on Garcia-Ibarra's 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 Habeas Petition. Garcia-Ibarra is incarcerated and proceeding pro se. Fellow inmate Rick Stallings signed the Petition under oath on behalf of Garcia-Ibarra. Stallings states he has Garcia-Ibarra's permission to do this habeas appeal. Judge Sweazea states that pro se parties cannot sign documents or prosecute a federal action on behalf of other litigants. As the Tenth Circuit explained, the competence of a layman is clearly too limited to allow him to risk the rights of others. If Garcia-Ibarra seeks habeas relief, he must sign and file his own pleading. The Clerk's Office will mail him a blank Section 2254 petition, a blank in forma pauperis motion, and a reference copy of the opening pleading signed by Stallings. The docket will be updated to reflect Garcia-Ibarra's address at the Western New Mexico Correctional Facility (WNMCF) in Grants, New Mexico, rather than Stalling's address at the Lea County Correctional Facility. Garcia-Ibarra must then return the signed Section 2254 petition within 30 days of entry of the Order. By the same deadline, he must either prepay the $5 habeas filing fee or, alternatively, file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Any in forma pauperis motion must attach an inmate account statement reflecting transactions for a six-month period. All filings must include the case number (23-cv-0108 JB-KRS). If Garcia-Ibarra fails to timely comply with both directives (i.e., file a signed Section 2254 petition and address the $5 habeas filing fee), this case may be dismissed without further notice. Based on the foregoing, Judge Sweazea orders the Clerk's Office to modify the docket to reflect Garcia-Ibarra's current address as: Eugenio Garcia-Ibarra, # 88844 Western New Mexico Correctional Facility P.O. Box 800 Grants, New Mexico 87020 The Clerk's Office will mail Garcia-Ibarra a blank Section 2254 petition; a blank motion to proceed in forma pauperis; and a reference copy of the opening pleading signed by Stallings. Within 30 days of entry of the Order, Garcia-Ibarra must: (1) sign and file a Section 2254 petition; and (2) prepay the $5 filing fee or, alternatively, file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis along with an inmate account statement reflecting transactions for a six-month period. A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/39jjzfyr from Leagle.com. NEW YORK CITY: DOC's Contempt Has Been Purged, Appeals Court Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN THE MATTER OF JOSEPH AGNEW, ET AL., Petitioners-Respondents v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Respondent-Appellant, Index No. 813431/21E, Appeal No. 470, Case No. 2022-04421 (N.Y. App. Div.), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department: a. unanimously reverses, without costs, the order and judgment of Judge Elizabeth A. Taylor of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered Aug. 11, 2022; and b. vacates the judgment, declaring that the Respondent's contempt has been purged. Judge Taylor, inter alia, upon a determination that the Respondent failed to purge itself of the contempt order dated May 13, 2022, enters order and judgment in favor of the Petitioners and against the Respondent in the amount of $100 for each missed escort to the infirmary from Dec. 11, 2021 through January 2022. In this proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, the Court, by order dated Dec. 3, 2021, permitted the Petitioners to maintain the case as a class action, describing the certified class as "all current and future people incarcerated in New York City Department of Correction [DOC] facilities who have been or will be denied access to medical care based on DOC's failure to discharge its ministerial duties." Also by order dated Dec. 3, 2021, the Court granted a writ of mandamus, finding that the Petitioners have demonstrated that DOC has failed to comply with its nondiscretionary duties regarding the Petitioners' access to medical care, and ordering DOC to immediately comply with the following duties": (a) provide the Petitioners with access to sick call on weekdays, excluding holidays, and to make sick call available at each facility to all persons in DOC custody a minimum of five days per week within 24 hours of a request, or at the next regularly scheduled sick call, whichever is first; and (b) safely keep in the New York City jails each person lawfully committed to DOC custody by providing sufficient security for the movement of incarcerated persons to and from health services, and by not prohibiting or delaying incarcerated persons' access to care, appropriate treatment, or medical or dental services. After a hearing, the Court issued an order and judgment, dated May 13, 2022, which, among other things, granted the Petitioners' motion to hold DOC in civil contempt of the mandamus order, but ruled that DOC may purge itself of the contempt by, within 30 days of the May 2022 order, submitting proof of substantial compliance with its duties set forth in the December 2021 order. In the August 2022 order on appeal, the Court found that the only evidence submitted regarding access to the infirmary during the purge period is evidence that the Respondent only failed to produce inmates, due to lack of escort availability, for 186 out of 42,177 clinic appointments that were scheduled. Thus, it held that DOC failed to purge its contempt because it failed to address whether any appointments were not scheduled in the first place due to escort shortages. The Appellate Division finds that this was an improvident exercise of discretion since DOC did not violate any clear and unequivocal mandate set forth in the Dec. 3, 2021 mandamus order. It notes that DOC is specifically prohibited from screening sick-call requests. This issue, it says, was not raised by the parties before Supreme Court, and the Court should not have sua sponte based its contempt finding on DOC's failure to address this matter in the absence of a clearly expressed and unequivocal mandate. The Appellate Division rejects the Petitioners' argument that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. The Petitioners failed to preserve their arguments as to nonproductions attributable to other reasons, and the Appellate Division declines to review them. A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2023 Order & Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/msyrj52h from Leagle.com. Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Amy McCamphill of counsel), for the Appellant. Milbank LLP, New York (Katherine Kelly Fell -- kfell@milbank.com -- of counsel), for the Respondents. NEW YORK, NY: Underpays Motor Vehicle Supervisors, Kassel Says -------------------------------------------------------------- RONNIE KASSEL, ALEXANDR SHNICER, AVERIL BURKE-ST. MARTHE, and DORIAN DUKES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF NEW YORK and the NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-05211 (S.D.N.Y., June 20, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to compensate the Plaintiffs and similarly situated workers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs are current and former employees of the Defendants, City of New York and the New York City Police Department, in the positions of motor vehicle supervisor and senior motor vehicle supervisor. City of New York is a public agency with principal office and place of business located at Broadway and Park Row, New York, New York. The New York City Police Department is an administrative division of the City of New York, with its principal office located at One Police Plaza, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq. Sarah M. Block, Esq. McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 833-8855 E-mail: gkm@mselaborlaw.com smb@mselaborlaw.com - and - Hope Pordy, Esq. SPIVAK LIPTON, LLP 1040 Avenue of the Americas 20th Floor New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 765-2100 E-mail: hpordy@spivaklipton.com NISSAN NORTH: Faces Suit Over Defective Electronic Braking Systems ------------------------------------------------------------------- John Hanson, Esq. of LegalScoops reports that consumers who bought or leased a 2021–2022 Nissan Maxima, Sentra, or Versa model equipped with an autonomous electronic braking system (or EBS) should know that California lemon laws and other state and federal laws may force Nissan to either "buy the vehicle back" or significantly compensate those experiencing the alleged EBS defect. Fill out the form below for free information on how to seek compensation, or call us at 1-855-678-6881. What is the EBS defect, and what does the Nissan class action allege? The class action lawsuit Bereda et al. v. Nissan North America, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-00098, was filed on February 15, 2022, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The Complaint in the class action lawsuit alleges that 2021 and 2022 Nissan Maxima, Sentra, and Versa models equipped with an autonomous forward emergency braking system may detect obstacles not in fact there, causing the car to automatically brake without a need to do so. The EBS defect may also deactivate itself and distract drivers from the road. According to the class action, the EBS defect can occur without warning and cause the sudden and unexpected stopping of the vehicle. The Plaintiffs allege in the class action lawsuit that Nissan knew about the EBS brake defect but continued to market the vehicles as safe and reliable. On April 19, 2022, Nissan filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, which the Court denied on March 17, 2023, ruling that the drivers had sufficiently pled their claims, having bought their vehicles from Nissan dealerships. Currently, there are no pre-trial or trial dates in this class action lawsuit, although there is a status conference set in this case for July 6, 2023. Fill out the form below for free information on how to seek compensation, or call us at 1-855-678-6881. How many Nissan vehicles are affected by the EBS defect? Although the exact number of vehicles affected is unknown, based on the number of Nissan Maxima, Sentra, and Versa vehicles manufactured for sale in the U.S. between 2020 and 2022, the number of potentially affected vehicles is around 325,000. Does the Nissan EBS defect violate the vehicle warranty? Almost every new Nissan vehicle comes with a 3-year/36,000-mile limited warranty and a 5-year limited powertrain warranty. Nissan also offers optional extended warranties. The class action lawsuit alleges that Nissan provided an express written warranty directly to purchasers or lessees of these vehicles, warranting that Nissan would repair and replace defects in material and workmanship free of charge that occurred during the applicable warranty periods. The class action claims Nissan has breached the warranty by failing to repair and replace the defective EBS system or buy back the vehicles as promised by the Warranty or required by law. Are Nissan vehicles with the EBS defect unsafe? According to the class action complaint, a vehicle with a defective EBS system that makes it prone to stop unexpectedly at high speeds poses a serious safety risk. The lawsuit claims the EBS brake defect poses such a safety concern that the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration's (or NHTSA) Office of Defect Investigations has received and is reviewing consumer complaints about the EBS defect. What legal options do you have? Fill out the form below for free information on how to seek compensation, or call us at 1-855-678-6881. When seeking relief for defective vehicles, what to do can be a complex decision, as it can depend on many factors. For instance, the following factors may impact whether you have a lemon law claim for a vehicle buyback: How old is your Nissan car? Has the EBS defect occurred in your car? Have you taken the car in for repairs on more than one occasion? Did you purchase or lease the car new? Is the car still under warranty? In what state do you live? Nissan has offered nothing to resolve the EBS defect to individual consumers and has not settled the class action lawsuit. We can help you sort through these questions and make an informed decision. California residents may qualify for a vehicle repurchase under state law Under California's lemon law and other state and federal laws, consumers who bring an individual lawsuit and show their vehicles qualify as a "lemon" because they experienced the EBS defect, and it cannot be repaired may force Nissan to either "buy the vehicle back" or provide other significant compensation. While there are no guarantees and each case is different, this can mean a large cash refund and payoff of your loan or lease, as it could be as much as everything you paid for the vehicle and everything you owe: monthly payments, down payments, tax, finance charges, and license and registration. You may even qualify for two times your money back. What Nissan would have to buy your vehicle back for has nothing to do with how much the car is currently worth. California law has a formula that starts with you getting all your money back and then taking certain deductions and exclusions away from your payment. Those deductions and exclusions are challenging to understand and can be fought against by knowledgeable lemon law attorneys. The Song-Beverly Warranty Act, California Civil Code §1793.2(d)(1), is a California state law that requires manufacturers to repair defects after a reasonable number of repair attempts. What is "reasonable" is not part of hard and fast rules - safety defects such as defects in the EBS should be fixed immediately, for example. The defects must be important and "substantially impair the vehicle's use, value, OR safety." California Civil Code Sections 1793.22(e)(2). Under California Civil Code Sections 1793.2(d)(1), manufacturers must promptly offer repurchase or replacement of the Vehicle they cannot fix in a reasonable time frame. In addition, California Civil Code Sections 1794(c) and §1793.2(d) provides that customers are entitled to a civil penalty up to two times the actual damages if manufacturers acted "willfully" (meaning knowingly, but not necessarily with wrongful or malicious intent) in ignoring or failing its duty under Song-Beverly. Finally, under Civil Code Sections 1794(d), manufacturers such as Nissan must pay the plaintiff's attorney's fees and costs as part of the settlement. Fill out the form below for free information on how to seek compensation, or call us at 1-855-678-6881. Other states have similar laws; depending on the state, we can refer you to knowledgeable attorneys. What do I need to do? The class action lawsuit has yet to be settled or certified to move forward as a class action formally. Consider doing so now if you want to bring your own lemon law claim over the EBS defect. You can opt-out when you receive the class action notice, or the class may be defined as those people who have not sued or settled their claims, and you could be automatically opted out of the settlement. There is no reason to wait. Please fill out the form below for a free lemon law consultation. Get a free and fast lemon law consultation. There is much to consider in deciding whether to pursue a lemon law claim. We can help you sort through these questions and make an informed decision about your options. Don't settle for small dollar payments or possible future "fixes" that may not work without speaking to a qualified lemon law attorney with your best interest in mind. For a free lemon law consultation, please complete the form below or call us at 1-855-678-6881.[GN] NOBLE ENERGY: Court Refuses to Remand Phelps Suit to State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PHELPS OIL AND GAS, LLC, on behalf of itself and a class of similarly situated royalty owners, Plaintiff v. NOBLE ENERGY, INC., and DCP MIDSTREAM, LP, Defendants, Civil Action No. 22-cv-02637-RM-SKC (D. Colo.), Judge Raymond P. Moore of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado: a. denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand; and b. grants in part the Defendants' Motion to Re-Enter Judgment. Before the Court are the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, asserting that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, and the Defendants' Motion to Re-Enter Judgment, asserting that the Court should re-enter judgment in the Defendants' favor or, in the alternative, re-file the dispositive motions that preceded the judgment (now vacated) that was entered after the Court erroneously denied the Plaintiff's previous motion to remand. Both Motions have been fully briefed. Noble produces natural gas from wells in Colorado and sells it to Defendant DCP Midstream ("DCP") pursuant to various agreements. DCP then processes and sells the gas in various forms. Royalty owners such as the Plaintiff receive royalties from Noble for the gas produced. A class action settlement known as the Holman Settlement governs the method by which the royalties owed to Plaintiff and the other members of the class were to be calculated from Jan. 1, 2008, going forward. In March 2010, the Defendants executed another agreement, known as the DCP Settlement, which governs certain payment and allocation issues between them. In August 2014, the Plaintiff filed its original class action Complaint in state court, asserting claims against the Defendants for, inter alia, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Central to its case is the allegation that the DCP Settlement shortchanged the Holman Settlement class out of royalties which they were owed. The following month, DCP removed the case to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction, where it was assigned to now Senior United States District Judge Robert E. Blackburn. The Plaintiff filed a motion to remand, arguing that the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement was not met but Judge Blackburn denied the motion. The litigation proceeded for about five years, during which the Plaintiff filed its Revised First Amended Class Action Complaint and Judge Blackburn dismissed or granted summary judgment on all the Plaintiff's claims except its breach of contract claim against Noble and its unjust enrichment claim against DCP. In September 2019, Judge Blackburn granted summary judgment in the Defendants' favor on those remaining claims and entered final judgment. The Plaintiff appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit agreed with the Plaintiff's jurisdictional argument, concluding that the amount-in-controversy requirement could not be satisfied by its claim alone; nor could the requirement be satisfied based on contingent, speculative, or collateral claims that could possibly occur as a result of the judgment. Therefore, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of the Plaintiff's motion to remand without addressing the merits of its other arguments. On remand, Judge Blackburn vacated several orders and the final judgment and remanded the matter to the District Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado. In October 2022, DCP removed the case a second time, this time based on the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). The new case was assigned to a different district judge. The Plaintiff has again moved to remand the matter to state court. The Defendants have moved to have the Court re-enter judgment in their favor based on the Court's prior orders or, alternatively, to have their dispositive motions from the previous case re-filed in the case, subject to any necessary supplemental briefing. Judge Moore first examines the Motion to Remand. The Plaintiff contends that the operative complaint, following the remand to state court, is the original Complaint it filed in August 2014, not the Amended Complaint it filed in December 2015 after removal. Without the civil theft and conversion claims that were added in the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff contends that Defendants cannot meet CAFA's $5 million threshold. In their Response, the Defendants first argue that the Plaintiff's arguments pertaining to the sufficiency of its Notice of Second Removal are merely procedural—as opposed to jurisdictional -- and have been waived because the Plaintiff failed to file its Motion within 30 days of the Notice, as required under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c). Judge Moore agrees with the Defendants that the Plaintiff's Motion, filed in February 2023, is untimely to the extent that it relies on alleged defects in the Notice. However, because district courts have an independent obligation to address their own subject-matter jurisdiction and can dismiss actions sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction, that is not the end of the inquiry. Judge Moore disagrees that the original Complaint is the operative complaint and further finds that that even if it were treated as such, the CAFA amount-in-controversy requirement would be satisfied in any event. First, he says the Amended Complaint was the operative complaint at the time of the removal pursuant to the Defendants' Notice of Second Removal. Second, the Amended Complaint was the operative complaint at the time of the removal pursuant to Defendants' Notice of Second Removal. Because he agrees with the Defendants' position that it has subject-matter jurisdiction, Judge Moore now considers the Defendants' Motion and how to proceed with the case. On the current record, he discerns no reason why the Court's previously vacated final judgment and orders could not be re-entered in the Defendants' favor now that the jurisdictional issue which prompted the Tenth Circuit's remand has been resolved. He is not persuaded by the Plaintiff's argument that the issue of class certification must be decided before the case can proceed. Under the circumstances, this would unnecessarily prolong the litigation. However, given the procedural posture and history of the case and the fact that the now vacated final judgment was initially entered more than three-and-a-half years ago, he provides an opportunity for supplemental briefing by the parties before proceeding. Accordingly, Judge Moore denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and directs the Clerk to re-file the in the case the following docket entries from Civil Case No. 14-cv-02604-REB-SKC: (1) DCP's Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff's Response, DCP's Reply, and DCP's Notice of Supplemental Authorities (ECF Nos. 108, 112, 118, 144); (2) Noble's Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff's Response, and Noble's Reply (ECF Nos. 143, 146, 148, 152, 190, 192); (3) Plaintiff's Motion to Amend or Clarify, Noble's Response, and Plaintiff's Reply (ECF Nos. 198, 203, 205); (4) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, Noble's Response, and Plaintiff's Reply (ECF Nos. 158, 135, 136, 150, 151); (5) DCP's Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff's Response, and DCP's Reply (ECF Nos. 227, 235, 239, 245); and (6) Noble's Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff's Response, and Noble's Reply (ECF Nos. 228, 229, 234, 238, 244, 250). For restricted filings, the Clerk will file both the redacted and restricted versions, maintaining the same level of restriction as to the latter. Judge Moore grants in part the Defendants' Motion and permits the parties to file supplemental briefs, not to exceed 25 pages, on July 31, 2023. Any further briefing will be subject to the Court's approval. A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/56jehdy3 from Leagle.com. PORT JERVIS, NY: Metzgar Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against the City of Port Jervis, et al. The case is styled as Leo Metzgar, individually, and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. City of Port Jervi; Kelly B. Decker, in his official capacity as Mayor; City of Port Jervis Common Council; City of Port Jervis Department of Public Works; City of Port Jervis Building Department, Case No. 1:23-cv-05198-JHR (S.D.N.Y., June 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Port Jervis -- https://www.portjervisny.gov/ -- is a city located at the confluence of the Neversink and Delaware rivers in western Orange County, New York, United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Johnston, Esq. JOHNSTON LAW LLC 1103 Stewart Avenue, Suite 200 Garden City, NY 11757 Phone: (516) 388-7611 Email: DJ@BellLG.com PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces Buxbaum FDCPA Suit Over Collection Letter ------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGMUND BUXBAUM v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Case No. 517638/2023 (N.Y. Sup., June 15, 2023) is a class action seeking to recover for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. On March 12, 2020, the Defendant filed a complaint against the Plaintiff for the collection of a debt. The Debt was primarily for personal, family or household purposes. The debt was assigned to the Defendant after the account was already in default. Accordingly, the Defendant was fully aware that the Plaintiff had counsel and that she was not allowed to be contacted in any way. However, on April 24, 2023, the Defendant sent a communication directly to the Plaintiff with respect to the alleged Debt, says the suit. The Plaintiff is concerned that without bringing this case to this Court that Defendant will continue to circumvent his attorney and federal debt collection rules and will continue to threaten the Plaintiff directly and harass the Plaintiff, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff is an individual who is a citizen of the State of New York residing in Kings County, New York. Portfolio Recovery is engaged in collections of debts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Balisok, Esq. BALISOK & KAUFMAN PLLC 251 Troy Ave Brooklyn, NY 11213 Telephone: (718) 928-9607 Facsimile: (718) 534-9747 E-mail: Joseph@LawBalisok.com Zalman@LawBalisok.com PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces Weiss FDCPA Suit Over Collection Letter ----------------------------------------------------------------- ZISSY WEISS v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Case No. 517636/2023 (N.Y. Sup., June 15, 2023) is a class action seeking to recover for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. On January 23, 2020, the Defendant filed a complaint against the Plaintiff for the collection of a debt. The Debt was primarily for personal, family or household purposes. The debt was assigned to the Defendant after the account was already in default. Accordingly, the Defendant was fully aware that the Plaintiff had counsel and that she was not allowed to be contacted in any way. However, on April 24, 2023, the Defendant sent a communication directly to the Plaintiff with respect to the alleged Debt, says the suit. The Plaintiff is concerned that without bringing this case to this Court that Defendant will continue to circumvent his attorney and federal debt collection rules and will continue to threaten the Plaintiff directly and harass the Plaintiff, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff is an individual who is a citizen of the State of New York residing in Kings County, New York. Portfolio Recovery is engaged in collections of debts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Balisok, Esq. BALISOK & KAUFMAN PLLC 251 Troy Ave Brooklyn, NY 11213 Telephone: (718) 928-9607 Facsimile: (718) 534-9747 E-mail: Joseph@LawBalisok.com Zalman@LawBalisok.com PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- MONIKA STAFFORD and HANNAH DAUGHERTY, Individually, and on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES OF EAST TENNESSEE, LLC., and GEORGE MASSENGILL, Individually, Case No. 3:23-cv-00209-CLC-JEM (E.D. Tenn., June 15, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs and others similarly situated hourly-paid housing staff members performed work for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week within weekly pay periods. For example, the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated routinely performed duties for the Defendants in excess of 15 hours per daily shift, seven days a week, at Defendants' client housing in this district but were paid only between $75 and $100 per week for their compensable work time, amounting to less than the required FLSA minimum wage and overtime rates of pay within weekly pay periods. Accordingly, they were responsible for up to 18 recovering clients (patients) who were lodged at the house in which they were responsible for such clients 24 hours a day, seven days per week. They were required to wake each client early in the morning and were responsible for their safety and health through the day and night. Typically, clients did not retire for the evening until around 10:00 p.m. The net effect of the Defendants' common plan and practice of not compensating the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated for their compensable time is that the Defendants have unjustly enriched themselves, and have enjoyed ill-gained profits at the expense of Plaintiffs and those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs contend. The proposed collective class of similarly situated persons is defined as: All current and former hourly-paid housing staff members (a/k/a "House Moms" and "House Dads") of the Defendants whose wages were offset and reduced by the Defendants' improper use of FLSA Section 203(m) credits for lodging – which resulted in unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation owed them - occurring anywhere in the United States within the three (3) years preceding the filing of this action ("Class Members"). The Plaintiffs worked as an hourly-paid housing staff member for the Defendants within this district during the three year period immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint. Psychiatric Services has several additional treatment centers for recovering drug addicts throughout the State of Tennessee, including, inter alia, in Athens, Knoxville, Smithville, Chattanooga, Smyrna, Jackson, Crossville, Lafollette, Louisville and Lebanon, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. James L. Holt, Jr., Esq. JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jholt@jsyc.com REED MOTORS: Fails to Pay Mechanics' Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- SERGIO SERRANO and JEFF SANTOS on behalf of themselves and as representative of other class members similarly situated v. REED MOTORS, INC., d/b/a REED NISSAN ORLANDO, Case No. 6:23-cv-01132 (M.D. Fla., June 15, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages owed to the Lead Plaintiffs and the Collective Members pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant has a pattern and practice of refusing to pay them wages lawfully earned in performing their job responsibilities, which includes paying each of them at the federal minimum wage standards, paying for overtime, failing to reimburse them for tools, and other materials purchased by them to perform their job responsibilities. The Lead Plaintiffs and the Collective Members were only compensated for "flagged hours," which sufficiently reduced the compensable hours included in their pay-out, effectively lowering their rate of pay in a manner which falls below the federal minimum wage rate, the Plaintiffs claim. On April 17, 2019, the Lead Plaintiffs received a paycheck stating that he worked 13 hours and was paid $416.00 (gross), but worked at least 60 hours, which is $.32 per hour below the federal minimum wage rate of $7.25 per hour for 2019. For this one week, he is owed a total of 406 $19.20 in unpaid federal minimum wages. The Lead Plaintiffs and putative members of the FLSA collective are/were individuals employed as automotive mechanics and service technicians by Reed Nissan to perform traditional maintenance, repair, and warranty services for Reed Nissan customers within the last four years. Reed Nissan is an authorized dealership of Nissan North America, Inc., the manufacturer, and distributor of all Nissan motor vehicles throughout the United States of America.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin K. Ross-Andino, Esq. ECLAT LAW, PA 307 Cranes Roost Boulevard 2010 Altamonte Springs, FL 32701 Telephone: (407) 636-7004 E-mail: kevin.ross@eclatlaw.com ROCKET MORTGAGE: Faces Another Class Suit Over TCPA Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Angelika Munger of The National Law Review reports that with every preparation for a trip out of the earth's atmosphere, one must first ensure the rocket is properly fueled! Rocket Mortgage may need to take a page out of NASA's playbook and double-check their "rocket fuel" as in all the numbers they are dialing on a daily basis. On June 19, 2023 the mortgage giant was hit with yet another class action lawsuit seeking injunctive and monetary relief, alleging violation of both the Do Not Call Registry, which carries a penalty of $500 – $1500 per each violation and the Internal Do Not Call list which carries a $1500 penalty per each violation. In the complaint, plaintiff Tuso, alleges that not only did they never request information from Rocket to start with but that when they did receive the unwanted calls and texts, their request to stop was ignored. Tuso began to receive simultaneous calls and text messages from Rocket on March 16th, Tuso replied STOP to a text and received confirmation that the request was being processed and may take up to 24 hours. Tuso then received the same welcome text again on March 20th followed by another phone call from Rocket Mortgage offering refinance products. While on the phone with an agent from Rocket explaining how they had opted out, Tuso received yet another text, this time from a specific banker at Rocket offering services. Yikes! It is vitally important that you are scrubbing the national DNC when necessary in your business practices and that your company implements and actively maintains an internal DNC list. [GN] ROM LLC: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Pannullo Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN PANNULLO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ROM LLC d/b/a STRETCH ZONE, Case No. 2:23-cv-00784-PP (E.D. Wis., June 15, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid straight time (regular) and/or agreed upon wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate the Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by failing to include all forms of non-discretionary compensation, such as monetary bonuses, commissions, premiums, incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and payments, in said employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes. The Defendant's failure to compensate its hourly paid, non-exempt employees for compensable work performed each workweek, including but not limited to at an overtime rate of pay, was intentional, and willful, the lawsuit claims. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees. The similarly situated employees include: All hourly-paid, non-exempt employees employed by Defendant within the three (3) years immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint (ECF No. 1) who received a form of compensation, such as a monetary bonus, commission, premium, incentive, award, and/or other reward and/or payment, during a workweek when said employees worked more than 40 hours during the representative time. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant in August 2022 and performed compensable work in the positions of Stretch Practitioner and Assistant General Manager primarily at Defendant's Glendale, Wisconsin and Oak Creek, Wisconsin locations. In May 2023, the Plaintiff's employment with Defendant ended. The Defendant is an entity that utilizes practitioner-assisted stretching.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com SDLA COURIER: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Wilder Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS B. WILDER, on behalf of the general public as private attorney general v. SDLA COURIER SERVICE, INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV13902 (Cal. Super., June 15, 2023) sues the Defendant for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Accordingly, the Defendants implemented policies and practices which led to the following Labor Code violations which include: (i) failure to provide meal periods for every work period exceeding more than 10 hours per day and failure to pay an additional hour's of pay or accurately pay an additional hour's of pay in lieu of providing a meal period; (ii) failure to provide rest breaks for every four hours or major fraction thereof worked and failure to pay an additional hour's of pay or accurately pay an additional hour's of pay in lieu of providing a rest period; (iii) failing to pay all wages earned and owed upon separation from Defendant's employ; (iv) failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (v) failing to reimburse expenses. As a result, the Plaintiff seeks penalties under Labor Code 2698, et. seq. on behalf of the general public as private attorney general and all other aggrieved employees. Mr. Wilder was employed by the Defendants in September 2021, as a Non-Exempt Employee with the title of Delivery Associate and worked during the liability period for the Defendants until his separation from the Defendants' employ in April 20, 2022. The Plaintiff's duties included inspections and pick-up and delivery of packages and scanning them into the system. SDLA Courier operates as a shipping and handling business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Hawkins, Esq. Gregory Mauro, Esq. Michael Calvo, Esq. Lauren Falk, Esq. Ava Issary, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Dr. Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: Court Adopts May 12 Special Master's Orders ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DR. JOSEPH CICCIO, et al. v. SMILEDIRECTCLUB, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00845 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Barbara D. Holmes entered adopting the Special Master's orders: -- The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification briefing schedule is denied as moot. -- The schedule for class certification motions set forth in the Special Master's order of May 12, 2023 at Docket No. 402 is adopted as the Court's order. On May 12, 2023, Special Master Samuel Funk entered a Sixth Amended Scheduling Order, which set a schedule for filing and briefing class certifications motions. SmileDirectClub is a teledentistry company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CMAEhQ at no extra charge.[CC] ST. LOUIS, MO: Class Settlement in Street Suit Wins Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ALICIA STREET, et al., Plaintiffs v. LT. COL. LAWRENCE O'TOOLE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:19 CV 2590 CDP (E.D. Mo.), Judge Catherine D. Perry of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, grants the Plaintiffs' Motions for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and for an Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs. The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Consent Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, the Memorandum in Support of the Motion and its Exhibits, the proposed Settlement Agreement, the Plaintiffs' Motion and Memorandum for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Service Awards, and all other papers filed in the action. The Court held a Final Approval Hearing on June 13, 2023, to consider the issues these motions present. At that hearing, the Class Counsel presented information about the implementation of the Settlement, which was entered into by the Parties on Feb. 28, 2023. On Feb. 6, 2022, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement. At that time, it certified the Class for settlement purposes and preliminarily appointed Plaintiffs Alicia Street, Ronald Harris, Fudail McCain, Ashley Theis, and Nicole Warrington as the Representatives of the Class. It preliminarily appointed Khazaeli Wyrsch, LLC and Campbell Law, LLC as the Class Counsel. It also approved the form and manner of the Notice Program and set a hearing date to consider final approval of the Settlement. Based on the filings and record in the case and the arguments presented at the June 13, 2023, fairness hearing, Judge Perry finds that the settlement of the action, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement, is in all respects fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of the Class members. Judge Perry says the Settlement Agreement provides a significant, definite benefit to class members: the vast majority of class members will receive $28,369.79, those who filed suits challenging the Defendants' alleged conduct before Dec. 6, 2022, will receive $43,000, and those with injuries caused by the events on Sept. 17, 2017, will receive appropriate, additional compensation. Although the settlement agreement allowed for payments of honorarium fees to the named class plaintiffs, they do not seek such awards because they are fully compensated by their payments as members of Group 2. The absence of any opt-outs or objections strongly indicates that the payments to the class are reasonable. Judge Perry also finds that the requested attorneys' fees and costs are fair and reasonable and should be paid from the Settlement in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. She says the Class Counsel should be awarded $1,638,000 to satisfy all attorneys' fees and $201,910.37 in litigation costs incurred in bringing the case, as set forth in the Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Service Awards. This amount is reasonable given the nature of the case and the work of the Class Counsel. Accordingly, Judge Perry grants the Plaintiffs' Motions for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and for an Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs without objection. The Parties will comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement with the terms of the Settlement being incorporated in the Order and accompanying Judgment. All members of the Settlement Classes, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns are bound by the Final Approval Order and Judgment. The four groups within the Settlement Classes are defined as: 1. Group 1: Class Members who, as of Dec. 6, 2022, did not file an individual lawsuit relating to the events of Sept. 17, 2017, and who are not members of Groups 3 or 4. 2. Group 2: Class Members who, as of Dec. 6, 2022, filed an individual lawsuit relating to the events of Sept. 17, 2017. 3. Group 3: Class Members who, whether they filed an individual lawsuit or not, provided medical records showing treatment for physical injuries caused by the events of Sept. 2017, that lasted more than three months. 4. Group 4: Class Members who, whether they filed an individual lawsuit or not, documented, by objective records, a permanent physical injury or physical disability caused by the events of Sept. 17, 2017, that cannot be fully resolved by medical intervention and that has significantly diminished their future earning abilities. The Defendants and their former, current, and future employees, officers, agents, servants, assigns, supervisors, representatives, elected and appointed officials, municipal judges, prosecutors, and any and all other persons or entities associated in any way with the City of St. Louis (the Defendants' Released Parties) are released from any and all claims, causes of action, liabilities, and demands, fixed or contingent, that were asserted by the Plaintiffs in the case as described in the Complaint in the action or that could have been, or should have been, asserted in the Complaint by the Plaintiffs or any member of the Settlement Class against the Defendants. If the Effective Date occurs, all Class Members will be deemed to have forever released and discharged the Released Claims as described in the Settlement Agreement. If the Effective Date does not occur for any reason whatsoever, the Settlement Agreement will be deemed null and void and will have no effect whatsoever. Each Settlement Class Member is and will be conclusively and forever bound by the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement will be preclusive in all pending and future lawsuits or other proceedings. It will be binding as to all the Released Claims. Attorney fees of $1,638,000, costs of $201,910.37, and settlement administration costs of $20,000 are fair and reasonable and should be paid from the settlement pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Judge Perry directs the Parties and their counsel to further implement and consummate this Settlement Agreement, the terms and provisions of which are incorporated by reference into this Order and accompanying Judgment. No later than 15 days after the Effective Date, Settlement Class Member Payments will be made from the Net Settlement Fund. The Settlement Administrator will issue the award of attorneys' fees and costs to Class Counsel pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Settlement Administration Costs will also be paid to the Settlement Administrator pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. If after 30 days of mailing, a check remains uncashed and money remains in the Settlement Fund, the remainder of the money in the Settlement Fund will revert to the City of St. Louis. The Releases in the Settlement Agreement are incorporated into the Order and Judgment and will become effective on the Effective Date of the Settlement. Each and every Settlement Class Member compromises, settles, and releases each and every one of the Released Claims against the Released Parties. In the event that the Effective Date occurs, the action will be deemed resolved and will be dismissed on the merits with prejudice and (except as provided in the Order or in the Settlement Agreement) without any additional costs and attorney fees to any party as against any other. The Class Counsel will file a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice against all Defendants within seven days of the City fully funding the Settlement Fund. Without affecting the finality of the Order and Judgment for purposes of appeal, the Court retains jurisdiction as to all matters relating to the administration, implementation, consummation, enforcement, and interpretation of the Settlement Agreement and the Order, and for any other necessary purpose. The Order and Judgment adjudicates all of the claims, rights and liabilities of the Parties to the Settlement, and is intended to be final and immediately appealable. A separate Final Judgment in accordance with the Memorandum and Order is entered on this date. A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2023 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2tn84483 from Leagle.com. TAKATA CORP: Court Grants Takata Airbag Class Suit Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shweta Watwe of Bloomberg Law reports that A federal court certified multiple classes of vehicle owners in a consumer fraud suit alleging FCA US LLC should have known about an airbag defect in the vehicles it sold that caused unsafe explosions. The airbags were made by Takata Corp. and used ammonium nitrate, which creates small explosions to inflate the airbags but can spark more dangerous explosions in high heat and humidity, the plaintiffs say. The US District Court for the Southern District of Florida's class certification approval, which was decided June 15 and docketed June 20, said the plaintiffs had adequately shown FCA knew about the dangers. [GN] TEXAS: Court Junks Grisham Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Grisham v. O'Daniel, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00139 (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge James Wesley Hendrix entered an order denying class certification and severing cases. The Plaintiffs are ten state prisoners, all housed in the Robertson Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), who are proceeding pro se. The Plaintiffs seek to proceed jointly and represent a class of "all TDCJ Residents confined within the TDCJ. They also seek emergency injunctive relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. And they seek reconsideration of another court's order transferring the case here, with a change of venue returning the case to their chosen forum. The Court denies Plaintiffs' requests for change of venue, to proceed jointly, for class certification, and for preliminary injunctive relief. The complaints of Matthew Baker, Scott Zirus, Timothy Cone, Dannie Carter, Eric Quinones, Benjamin Grisham, Corry Garcia, Zachary Guerra, and Jeffrey Johnson will be severed into separate actions as to each plaintiff. The Clerk is directed to assign each new civil action to the undersigned United States District Judge and to file a copy of the original complaint and this order in each of the new civil actions. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus -- Civil Rights. The Plaintiffs complain about the conditions of their confinement in the Robertson Unit. Specifica11y, they complain about both the quantity and quality of the food served at the Robertson Unit. They a1lege that the food portions are too small and are consistently watered down, resulting ln caloric deficiencies. They also claim that the meals offered are unbalanced and unvaried, resulting rn nutritional deficiencies. And they assert that they are given insufficient time to eat, compounding the caloric and nutritional deficiencies. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice is a department of the government of the U.S. state of Texas. A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NqlLqj at no extra charge.[CC] TEXAS: Court Junks Zirus Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zirus v. O'Daniel, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00135 (N.D. Tex., Filed June 13, 2023), the Hon. Judge James Wesley Hendrix entered an order denying class certification and severing cases. The Plaintiffs are ten state prisoners, all housed in the Robertson Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), who are proceeding pro se. The Plaintiffs seek to proceed jointly and represent a class of "all TDCJ Residents confined within the TDCJ. They also seek emergency injunctive relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. The Plaintiffs also seek reconsideration of another court's order transferring the case here, with a change of venue returning the case to their chosen forum. The Court denies Plaintiffs' requests for change of venue, to proceed jointly, for class certification, and for preliminary injunctive relief. The complaints of Matthew Baker, Scott Zirus, Timothy Cone, Dannie Carter, Eric Quinones, Benjamin Grisham, Corry Garcia, Zachary Guerra, and Jeffrey Johnson will be severed into separate actions as to each plaintiff. The Clerk is directed to assign each new civil action to the undersigned United States District Judge and to file a copy of the original complaint and this order in each of the new civil actions. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus -- Civil Rights. The Plaintiffs complain about the conditions of their confinement in the Robertson Unit. Specifica11y, they complain about both the quantity and quality of the food served at the Robertson Unit. They a1lege that the food portions are too small and are consistently watered down, resulting ln caloric deficiencies. They also claim that the meals offered are unbalanced and unvaried, resulting in nutritional deficiencies. And they assert that they are given insufficient time to eat, compounding the caloric and nutritional deficiencies. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice is a department of the government of the U.S. state of Texas. A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44d5jAI at no extra charge.[CC] TEXAS: Court Nixes Panus Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Panus, et al., v. O'Daniel, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00086 (N.D. Tex., Filed April 25, 2023), the Hon. Judge James Wesley Hendrix entered an order denying class certification and severing cases. The Plaintiffs are ten state prisoners, all housed in the Robertson Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), who are proceeding pro se. The Plaintiffs seek to proceed jointly and represent a class of "all TDCJ Residents confined within the TDCJ. They also seek emergency injunctive relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. And they seek reconsideration of another court's order transferring the case here, with a change of venue returning the case to their chosen forum. The Court denies Plaintiffs' requests for change of venue, to proceed jointly, for class certification, and for preliminary injunctive relief. The complaints of Matthew Baker, Scott Zirus, Timothy Cone, Dannie Carter, Eric Quinones, Benjamin Grisham, Corry Garcia, Zachary Guerra, and Jeffrey Johnson will be severed into separate actions as to each plaintiff. The Clerk is directed to assign each new civil action to the undersigned United States District Judge and to file a copy of the original complaint and this order in each of the new civil actions. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus -- Civil Rights. The Plaintiffs complain about the conditions of their confinement in the Robertson Unit. Specifica11y, they complain about both the quantity and quality of the food served at the Robertson Unit. They a1lege that the food portions are too small and are consistently watered down, resulting ln caloric deficiencies. They also claim that the meals offered are unbalanced and unvaried, resulting in nutritional deficiencies. And they assert that they are given insufficient time to eat, compounding the caloric and nutritional deficiencies. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice is a department of the government of the U.S. state of Texas. A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qX2WUi at no extra charge.[CC] TEXAS: Court Tosses Cone Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cone v. O'Daniel, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00136 (N.D. Tex., Filed June 13, 2023), the Hon. Judge James Wesley Hendrix entered an order denying class certification and severing cases. The Plaintiffs are ten state prisoners, all housed in the Robertson Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), who are proceeding pro se. The Plaintiffs seek to proceed jointly and represent a class of "all TDCJ Residents confined within the TDCJ. They also seek emergency injunctive relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. And they seek reconsideration of another court's order transferring the case here, with a change of venue returning the case to their chosen forum. The Court denies Plaintiffs' requests for change of venue, to proceed jointly, for class certification, and for preliminary injunctive relief. The complaints of Matthew Baker, Scott Zirus, Timothy Cone, Dannie Carter, Eric Quinones, Benjamin Grisham, Corry Garcia, Zachary Guerra, and Jeffrey Johnson will be severed into separate actions as to each plaintiff. The Clerk is directed to assign each new civil action to the undersigned United States District Judge and to file a copy of the original complaint and this order in each of the new civil actions. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus -- Civil Rights. The Plaintiffs complain about the conditions of their confinement in the Robertson Unit. Specifica11y, they complain about both the quantity and quality of the food served at the Robertson Unit. They a1lege that the food portions are too small and are consistently watered down, resulting ln caloric deficiencies. They also claim that the meals offered are unbalanced and unvaried, resulting in nutritional deficiencies. And they assert that they are given insufficient time to eat, compounding the caloric and nutritional deficiencies. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice is a department of the government of the U.S. state of Texas. A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/442SlGc at no extra charge.[CC] TEXAS: Court Tosses Quinones Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Quinones v. O'Daniel, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00138 (N.D. Tex., Filed June 13, 2023), the Hon. Judge James Wesley Hendrix entered an order denying class certification and severing cases. The Plaintiffs are ten state prisoners, all housed in the Robertson Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), who are proceeding pro se. The Plaintiffs seek to proceed jointly and represent a class of "all TDCJ Residents confined within the TDCJ. They also seek emergency injunctive relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. And they seek reconsideration of another court's order transferring the case here, with a change of venue returning the case to their chosen forum. The Court denies Plaintiffs' requests for change of venue, to proceed jointly, for class certification, and for preliminary injunctive relief. The complaints of Matthew Baker, Scott Zirus, Timothy Cone, Dannie Carter, Eric Quinones, Benjamin Grisham, Corry Garcia, Zachary Guerra, and Jeffrey Johnson will be severed into separate actions as to each plaintiff. The Clerk is directed to assign each new civil action to the undersigned United States District Judge and to file a copy of the original complaint and this order in each of the new civil actions. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus -- Civil Rights. The Plaintiffs complain about the conditions of their confinement in the Robertson Unit. Specifica11y, they complain about both the quantity and quality of the food served at the Robertson Unit. They a1lege that the food portions are too small and are consistently watered down, resulting ln caloric deficiencies. They also claim that the meals offered are unbalanced and unvaried, resulting in nutritional deficiencies. And they assert that they are given insufficient time to eat, compounding the caloric and nutritional deficiencies. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice is a department of the government of the U.S. state of Texas. A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44iFlM4 at no extra charge.[CC] TIAA-CREF: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 14 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lorraine H. Luciano, et al. v. TIAA-CREF, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-06726-RK-DEA (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Douglas E. Arpert entered an order on the following class certification briefing schedule: Event Proposed Deadline Motion for Class Certification: September 14, 2023 Opposition Papers: November 3, 2023 Reply Papers: November 24, 2023 TIAA-CREF is a provider of financial services in the academic, research, medical, cultural and governmental fields. A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NsnTOi at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Liza M. Walsh, Esq. WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA Three Gateway Center 100 Mulberry Street, 15th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 757-1100 Facsimile: (973) 757-1090 E-mail: lwalsh@walsh.law TIMESHARE HELP: Faces Lawrence Suit Over Deceptive Sales Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ REBECCA LAWRENCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TIMESHARE HELP SOURCE, LLC, COURTNEY KIRKPATRICK, CHARLES HEARN, SHERROD BANKS, GARY ADAMSON, DAN HUMAN, SCOTT JACKSON, EDUARDO BALDERAS, and JOHN or JANE DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01549-PAB-MDB (D. Colo., June 20, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for misrepresentation and deceptive sales practices; employment of a device, scheme or artifice to defraud; negligence; breach of contract; breach of implied contract; declaratory judgment and injunctive relief; conversion; unjust enrichment; civil violation of Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act; intentional infliction of emotional distress, punitive damages; fraudulent inducement, fraudulent transfer; and all claims applied to transferees-successor liability. According to the complaint, the Defendants use direct mail campaigns, along with telephone solicitations to lure consumers to high-pressure sales presentations at local hotels and restaurants. Consumers who attend the Defendants' presentations are subjected to hours-long sessions during which the Defendants strongly imply that it is in the consumers and their families' best interest to pay thousands of dollars to help them get out of their timeshares. During the group presentation, the Defendants make misleading and false representations that suggest they are legitimate companies and that they are working for, or affiliated with, reputable timeshare exchanges and developers, and that they are one of the few authorized or accredited timeshare exit companies. Having stoked consumers' fears and created a sense of urgency, the Defendants then charge consumers an exorbitant upfront fee to get out of their timeshares. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages, says the suit. Timeshare Help Source, LLC is a consulting firm, with its principal place of business at 525 N. Cascade Avenue, Colorado Springs, Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven A. Christensen, Esq. CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 9980 So. 300 West, Suite 200 Sandy, UT 84070 Telephone: (801) 676-6447 Facsimile: (888) 569-2786 E-mail: steven@christensenyounglaw.com TORISHIKI USA: Riana Sues Over Illegal Deductions From Gratuities ----------------------------------------------------------------- DEWI RIANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TORISHIKI USA CORP. d/b/a TORIEN RESTAURANT, SHOWA HOSPITALITY, LLC, JULIEN HAKIM, HIDEO YASUDA, and RODRIGO ACOSTA, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-05248 (S.D.N.Y, June 21, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for illegal deductions from gratuities pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Ms. Riana has been employed by the Defendants as a server at Torien Restaurant from mid-2022 through the present. Torishiki USA Corp., doing business as Torien Restaurant, is a restaurant owner and operator in Manhattan, New York. Showa Hospitality, LLC is a consortium that owns and operates a number of separately incorporated restaurants, including Torien, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. Denise A. Schulman, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 981-9587 TRATTORIA ROMANA: Fails to Pay Servers' Minimum Wages, Rovira Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ LISANDRO ROVIRA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TRATTORIA ROMANA, INC., Case No. 9:23-cv-80916-AMC (S.D. Fla., June 15, 2023) seeks to recover minimum wages, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Florida Minimum Wage Act, and Art. X, Sec. 24 of the Florida Constitution. The suit seeks for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial against the Defendant. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant: (i) failed provide the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated servers with statutory notice of taking a tip credit; (ii) required the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated Servers to perform non-tipped side duties and side work that exceeded 20% of all work performed in at least one or more workweeks; (iii) required the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated Servers to perform non-tipped duties and side work in excess of 30 continuous minutes during at least one shift; (iv) unlawfully retained the Plaintiff's and all other similarly situated Servers' tips to cover costs incurred during the course of business ("kickbacks"); (v) required the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated Servers to share portions of their tips with managers and/or supervisors; and (vi) failed to compensate the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated Servers at the lawful time-and-a- half/overtime rate for hours worked in excess of 40 per work-week. The Plaintiff seeks certification of six separate collectives: Tip Notice Collective: All restaurant servers who worked for the Defendant in Boca Raton, Florida, during the three (3) years preceding this lawsuit who did not receive proper notice from the Defendant that it would be taking a tip credit toward the required federal minimum wage. 80/20 Collective: All restaurant servers who worked for the Defendant in Boca Raton, Florida, during the three (3) years preceding this lawsuit who were required to spend more than 20% of any workweek performing non-tipped side duties and side work and did not receive the full applicable minimum wage for this work. Substantial Side Work Collective: All restaurant servers who worked for the Defendant in Boca Raton, Florida, on or after December 28, 2021, who were required to spend 30 or more continuous minutes on non-tipped duties and side work during any shift. Kickback Collective: All restaurant servers who worked for the Defendant in Boca Raton, Florida, who were required to use tips that they received directly from customers to provide unlawful kickbacks to the restaurant to cover costs that the Defendant incurred during the course of business. Unlawful Tip Pool Collective: All restaurant servers who worked for the Defendant in Boca Raton, Florida, during the three (3) years preceding this lawsuit, who were required to share their tips with ineligible employees, including but not limited to supervisors and/or assistant managers. Overtime Wage Collective: All Servers paid at a reduced minimum wage, who worked for the Defendant in Boca Raton, Florida during the three (3) years preceding this lawsuit who worked more than 40 hours in any workweek. The Plaintiff seeks certification of five separate classes as follows: Tip Notice Class: All restaurant servers who worked for the Defendant in Boca Raton, Florida, during the five (5) years preceding this lawsuit who did not receive proper notice from the Defendant that it would be taking a tip credit pursuant to Fla. Const. Art. X 24(c) and/or F.S. § 448.110. 80/20 Class: All restaurant servers who worked for the Defendant in Boca Raton, Florida, during the five (5) years preceding this lawsuit who were required to spend more than 20% of any workweek performing non-tipped side duties and side work and did not receive the full applicable Florida minimum wage. Substantial Side Work Class: All restaurant servers who worked for the Defendant in Boca Raton, Florida, on or after December 28, 2021, who were required to spend 30 or more continuous minutes on non-tipped duties and side work during any shift. Kickback Class: All restaurant servers who worked for the Defendant in Boca Raton, who were required to use tips that they received directly from customers to provide unlawful kickbacks to the restaurant to cover costs that the Defendant incurred during the course of business. Unlawful Tip Pool Class: All restaurant servers who worked for the Defendant in Boca Raton, Florida, during the five (5) years preceding this lawsuit, who were required to share their tips with ineligible employees, including but not limited to supervisors and/or assistant managers From 2008, until April 11, 2023, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Server in its restaurant at 499 E. Palmetto Park Rd., Boca Raton, Florida. Trattoria Romana is a restaurant specializing in "Italian dining."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com - and - Andrew Obeidy, Esq. OBEIDY & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 2755 E. Oakland Park Blvd. Suite 225 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33306 Telephone: (305) 892-5454 Facsimile: (954) 206-6955 E-mail: andrew@obdlegal.com TREVOR HALL: Brown Bid for Class Certification Stricken ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISAAC BROWN, v. TREVOR HALL, Former Police Officer, et al, Case No. 3:23-cv-00537-BJD-LLL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Brian J. Davis entered an order striking the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and the Plaintiff's amended complaint. A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JuinJT at no extra charge.[CC] TUG ROBERT: Order on Objections to Peaslee's Proof of Claim Vacated ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In re: TUG ROBERT J. BOUCHARD CORPORATION, et al., Debtors. JUSTIN PEASLEE, Appellant, Civil Action No. H-22-3980 (S.D. Tex.), Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division: a. vacates the order of the bankruptcy court sustaining objections to Justin Peaslee's proof of claim for liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., and other relief; and b. remands Peaslee's claim to the bankruptcy court. Peaslee originally brought an FLSA claim against the debtor, Bouchard, as a named plaintiff in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York. -- Bailey v. Bouchard Transp. Co., Inc., No. 1:20-cv-01207-SDA (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2020). That litigation was stayed when Bouchard (and its related debtors) filed a Chapter 11 petition on Sept. 28-29, 2020. Peaslee's counsel filed consents to opt in with the Southern District court in late October 2022. The date of execution for Peaslee's consent is given as Feb. 5, 2020. Peaslee filed a proof of claim on Jan. 4, 2021, and his amended proof of claim on May 12, 2021. The amended proof of claim was filed after the bar date for the submission of claims. His counsel signed both proofs of claim. Peaslee did not include a sworn statement with his proof of claim attesting to its accuracy or to the accuracy of the supporting documents. His amended proof of claim included the complaint in the New York action and materials purporting to show his earned wages and the date those wages were paid. Bouchard challenges the admissibility but not the authenticity of the documents in the bankruptcy proceeding. Peaslee worked for Bouchard as a seaman. He claims that he was not timely paid for wages earned during certain pay periods from July through September 2020. Bouchard agrees that he employed Peaslee as a seaman and that Peaslee was not timely paid for the periods in question. The bankruptcy plan administrator filed an objection to Peaslee's proof of claim, summarizing his objections as follows: 1. The Plan Administrator objects to the Claim, which asserts a secured claim for $23,125.00 in liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Claim is meritless. The Plan Administrator requests that the Court disallow the Claim because the Debtors are not liable for the liquidated damages. 2. The Claim is redundant because Peaslee is listed as a creditor on Claim No. 560, which seeks the exact same relief Peaslee seeks here. Moreover, Peaslee is not entitled to liquidated damages under the FLSA because he does not allege any violations of the FLSA. Finally, Peaslee was paid all wages owed him on March 11 and March 12, 2020. 3. Bouchard also objects to Peaslee's characterization of the Claim as a secured claim because the proof of claim contains no evidence showing that the claim is secured. Peaslee's claim is not secured because he does not have any valid lien against the Debtor—he does not even have judgment against the debtors. In a declaration filed with the objection, Bouchard's Chief Executive Officer, Jeffrey Gasbarra, stated that all Bouchard had paid all of Peaslee's outstanding wages. The bankruptcy court held a hearing. At the outset, the bankruptcy judge stated that based on the pleadings on file, the court is going to find that to the extent that the proofs of claim enjoy any presumption, that presumption has been overcome. In response, Peaslee did not call witnesses or otherwise submit evidence on his claim. His counsel argued that the attachments to the claims were admissions of the debtor. The administrator objected. The bankruptcy court sustained the administrator's objections and denied Peaslee's claim in November 2022. The bankruptcy court did not provide reasons for its ruling. Peaslee argues that the bankruptcy court erred when it found that the Bouchard had overcome the presumptive validity of Peaslee's proof of claim. Bouchard argues that the bankruptcy court correctly determined the claim lacked presumptive validity because it did not comply with Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001(b), which requires a proof of claim to be executed by the creditor or the creditor's authorized agent. Judge Rosenthal states that under Rule 3001, a proof of claim is a written statement setting forth a creditor's claim. There is no requirement that the proof of claim be supported by admissible evidence for it to be presumptively valid. The bankruptcy court cannot disallow a presumptively valid claim on the sole basis that it is not supported by admissible evidence. Bouchard objected to the claim as meritless as a matter of law, not because Peaslee failed to comply with Rule 3001 or introduce evidence in admissible form. That objection, according to Judge Rosenthal, was itself meritless. He finds that the record presents no indication that the bankruptcy court ruled that Bouchard carried its burden for any reason other than its mistaken legal argument. Bouchard did not carry its burden with respect to its objection in the bankruptcy court. On the record presented, Judge Rosenthal opines that the bankruptcy court's finding that Bouchard carried its burden was clearly erroneous because it was based on a mistake of law. Hence, he vacates the bankruptcy court's order and remands Peaslee's claim. A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2023 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/r2xfcpux from Leagle.com. UMG RECORDINGS: Court Tosses Sobol Bid for Summary Judgment ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SOBOL et al., v. UMG RECORDINGS, INC., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01091-LAK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The parties stipulated to a stay of all proceedings pending plaintiffs' interlocutory appeal from the Court's decision denying class certification. The stay expired on May 16, 2023, when the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' request for leave to appeal. On February 13, 2023, the Court denied without prejudice to renewal plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on defendants' work for hire defense and required any such renewal to be by notice filed no later than 21 days after expiration of the stay (by June 6, 2023). UMG Recordings offers records, tapes, and other musical services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42YNRPs at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED NATURAL: GPM Named Lead Counsel in Sills Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DAN SILLS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED NATURAL FOODS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-2364 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Plaintiff's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of lead counsel. Sills brought the putative federal securities class action against United Natural Foods, and its former and current executives. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"), he moves the Court to appoint him as lead plaintiff and to approve his chosen counsel as lead counsel. Judge Kaplan explains that the Court is obliged to presume that the "most adequate plaintiff" is the person or group of persons who: (1) filed a complaint or made a motion to serve as lead plaintiff, (2) has the largest financial interest in relief sought by the class, and (3) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. There are no competing lead plaintiff motions. Sills satisfies all three criteria. First, Judge Kaplan finds that Sills filed the complaint on March 20, 2023, and that same day his counsel published a notice in a national business publication alerting investors of the action. Sills has submitted a certification that he is willing to serve as a representative party on behalf of the proposed class and to provide testimony at a deposition and at trial if necessary. He accordingly satisfies the first requirement to serve as lead plaintiff. Second, Sills has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class, representing a substantial financial losses of approximately $846,166.97 as a result of the Defendants' alleged misconduct. Nothing has been presented to the Court to suggest that any other person has suffered greater losses than Sills during the class period. Third, Judge Kaplan finds that Sills will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Sills has demonstrated his willingness to take an active role in the litigation and advocate on behalf of the proposed class, and his interests are aligned with those of other putative class members. Finally, Judge Kaplan finds that Sills' counsel of choice, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), has experience in securities class actions. He accordingly approves GPM as lead counsel. For these reasons, Judge Kaplan grants Sills' motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of lead counsel. All securities class actions relating to the same or substantially similar alleged wrongdoing by the Defendants on behalf of the same or substantially similar putative class that is subsequently filed in, or transferred to, the District will be consolidated into this action. The Order will apply to every such action unless otherwise ordered by the Court. A party objecting to such consolidation must file an application for relied from the Order within 10 days after the action is consolidated into this action. A full-text copy of the Court's June 13, 2023 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4pdvrkbf from Leagle.com. UP FINTECH: Burns Sues Over Drop of American Depositary Share Price ------------------------------------------------------------------- LAVALE BURNS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UP FINTECH HOLDING LIMITED, TIANHUA WU, and JOHN FEI ZENG, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-04842 (C.D. Cal., June 20, 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 UP Fintech's business and operations in order to trade UP Fintech securities at artificially inflated prices between April 29, 2020 and May 16, 2023. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) UP Fintech's business was, quite simply, illegal as it related to operations in China as a result of its failure to obtain the proper licenses; (2) it did not fully disclose to investors that it was engaging in unlawful activity and instead characterized the applicable Chinese laws as ambiguous; (3) the foregoing subjected the Company to a heightened risk of regulatory enforcement; and (4) as a result, the Defendants' statements about their business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the truth emerged, the price of UP Fintech American Depositary Shares (ADSs) continuously declined until it reached $0.21 per ADS, or 7.36 percent, to close at $2.64 on May 16, 2023, says the suit. UP Fintech Holding Limited is an integrated financial technology platform company, with its principal place of business in Beijing, China. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com VALERIE A. ARKOOSH: Daddazio Wins Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK DADDAZIO and PATRICIA BLAUSER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. VALERIE A. ARKOOSH, in her official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, Case No. 1:23-cv-00635-JPW (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer P. Wilson entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: a. The requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) are satisfied. b. The action will proceed as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) on behalf of the following class: Current and future residents of Pennsylvania's six state- operated psychiatric hospitals, excluding individuals subject to commitment pursuant to 50 P.S. section 7401–07 (commitments of persons charged with a crime or under sentence), and 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. section 6403 (court-ordered involuntary treatment for certain sexual offenses). c. The Plaintiffs are appointed as representatives of the class. d. Attorneys from Disabilities Rights Pennsylvania are appointed as class counsel for the class. e. The Plaintiffs and the class will pursue the claims set forth in Counts I and II of the Complaint. A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NILc86 at no extra charge.[CC] VSS-SOUTHERN THEATER: Hoge Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY HOGE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. VSS-SOUTHERN THEATERS LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00346-WO-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for him to file his motion for class Certification from July 25, 2023, to 120 days after the Court enters a Rule 26(f) order in the case. The case concerns alleged violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2710 ("VPPA"). The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant VSS-Southern Theaters LLC, through its website, is sharing consumers' private video viewing information without obtaining the legally required consent. The Plaintiff brings this action to recover damages on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals. VSS-Southern Theatres is a movie theater chain based in New Orleans, Louisiana. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 12, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46mQnSA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Caddell, Esq. Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq. Amy E. Tabor, Esq. CADDELL & CHAPMAN 628 East 9th Street Houston, TX 77007-1722 Telephone: (713) 751-0400 Facsimile: (713) 751-0906 E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com cbc@caddellchapman.com aet@caddellchapman.com - and - Allison Mullins, Esq. L. Cooper Harrell, Esq. TURNING POINT LITIGATION MULLINS DUNCAN HARRELL & RUSSELL PLLC 300 North Greene Street, Suite 2000 Greensboro, NC 27401 Telephone: (336) 645-3320 Facsimile: (336) 645-3330 E-mail: amullins@turningpointlit.com charrell@turningpointlit.com WALBRIDGE ALDINGER: Rice Bid to Strike Third Party Complaint Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as COLIN RICE, v. WALBRIDGE ALDINGER, LLC, et al. Case No. 2:22-cv-11790-DPH-KGA (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Denise Page Hood entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion to strike third party complaint. The Court further entered an order: -- Denying the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class and Court- Authorized Notice without prejudice; -- Granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to remove Exhibit A of Exhibit 1. Rice moved for "conditional certification" based on the now rejected lenient standard of a "modest factual showing" that other employees are similarly situated to Rice. There was also no discovery conducted on the recently announced standard as to whether other employees have a "strong likelihood" that they are similarly situated to Rice. The Court denies Rice's Motion to Certify Class and Court-Authorized Notice without prejudice to Rice renewing his request for notice to other employees based on the standard set forth in Clark. On August 3, 2022, the Plaintiff Colin Rice filed an Original Collective Action Complaint against the Defendant Walbridge Aldinger LLC under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), to recover overtime wages. The FLSA Collective of similarly situated workers consists of: "All individuals employed by or working on behalf of WALLLC [Walbridge] and paid according to its straight time for overtime pay plan in the past (3) years (Putative Class Members). Rice worked for Walbridge from March 2021 until November 2021 as an Inspector in Spring Hill, Tennessee. Walbridge is an industrial contractor in the United States, providing construction services and support across a variety of industries, including in manufacturing, with numerous locations throughout the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44l0LbD at no extra charge.[CC] WEYERHAEUSER NR: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 22, 2024 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL SANCHEZ, v. WEYERHAEUSER NR COMPANY, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02574-MCS-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarsi entered a scheduling order as follows: Event Date Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off July 12, 2024 Expert Disclosure (Initial) June 10, 2024 Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal) June 17, 2024 Expert Discovery Cut-Off July 12, 2024 Deadline to File a Motion for Class Jan. 22, 2024 Certification Deadline to File an Opposition to the Feb. 5, 2024 Motion for Class Certification Deadline to File a Reply in Support of Feb. 12, 2024 the Motion for Class Certification Hearing Date on Motion for Class Feb. 26, 2024 Certification Weyerhaeuser engages in forest regeneration projects, forest harvesting, log procurement, and marketing of harvested products. A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Xq7nTM at no extra charge.[CC] WHITEFISH, MT: Class Cert Oral Argument Rescheduled to August 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFF BECK, individually; AMY WEINBERG, individually; ZAC WEINBERG, individually; ALTA VIEWS, LLC; RIVERVIEW COMPANY, LLC; and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons and entities, v. CITY OF WHITEFISH, a Montana municipality, and DOES 1-50, Case No. 9:22-cv-00044-KLD (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Kathleen L. DeSoto entered an order is vacating the oral argument on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification scheduled for June 20, 2023, and rescheduled for August 11, 2023. A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NJ9z5E at no extra charge.[CC] WHKS & CO: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Bowen Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bowen v. WHKS & Co. Inc. et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-04069-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows: -- Rule 16 scheduling conference The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference approximately 30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is filed. The conference will generally be conducted by telephone. -- Discovery plan The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least three calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference If the parties agree on all matters contained in the discovery plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16 scheduling conference be cancelled. -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most hearings by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to appear for an in-person hearing. -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the discovery deadline has already passed The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all discovery disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even if the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to conduct discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the Court, they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived. -- Settlement conferences and mediation The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to Judge Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or mediation. A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PtRNEM at no extra charge.[CC] WILDCAT INVESTMENTS: Court Tosses Foley Conditional Class Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES FOLEY, v. WILDCAT INVESTMENTS, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-05234-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Sarah D. Morrison entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification, for approval and distribution of notice, and for disclosure of contact information. A&L Homecare clarified that "the term 'certification' has no place in FLSA actions." In light of A&L Homecare, to the extent that the Plaintiff's Motion seeks conditional class certification, the Motion is denied. To the extent that the Plaintiff's Motion seeks approval and distribution of a notice to potential plaintiffs, and for disclosure of contact information for such purposes, the Court orders the Plaintiff to file a supplemental brief addressing whether he can show a 'strong likelihood' that his proposed potential plaintiff employees are similarly situated to himself. On May 19, 2023, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in Clark v. A&L Homecare & Training Ctr., LLC, 2023 WL 3559657 (6th Cir. 2023). That decision changes the test for determining whether to issue Court approved notice to potential plaintiffs in an action brought under section 216(b) of the FLSA; instead of the "modest factual showing" of similarity that courts in the Sixth Circuit applied previously, the standard now "for a district court to facilitate notice of an FLSA suit to other employees, [is that] the plaintiffs must show a 'strong likelihood' that those employees are similarly situated to the plaintiffs themselves." Wildcat Investments is a specializing in innovative, family-friendly restaurant concepts. A copy of the Court's order dated June 12, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3r5DJXF at no extra charge.[CC] WOW RESTAURANT: Court OK's Chen Conditional Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YANHONG CHEN and LUTONG YANG, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. WOW RESTAURANT TH, LLC and TRINH HUYNH, Case No. 8:22-cv-02774-VMC-MRM (M.D. Fla.), the Court entered an order granting the Plaintiffs motion for conditional certification pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendants Wow Restaurant TH, LLC and Trinh Huynh shall produce to the Plaintiffs within fourteen days from the date of the Order a complete list of all non-exempt, nonmanagerial employees who worked for the Defendants at Yaki Sushi Grill BBQ from three years before the date of this Order to the present. The Court approves dissemination of class notice, to be amended by the Plaintiffs to be consistent with the terms of this Order, via U.S. mail and via email. The Plaintiffs shall allow each individual up to ninety days from the date of mailing in which to return an opt-in consent form to the Plaintiffs' counsel. Furthermore, the Court will not equitably toll the statute of limitations until the end of the opt-in period because the Plaintiffs have failed to show that any extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant such tolling. The Plaintiffs initiated the FLSA, Florida Minimum Wage Act (FMWA), and breach of contract action against their former employers, Wow Restaurant TH, LLC and Huynh, on December 6, 2022. During her employment between August 2020 and April 2022, Chen worked a variety of positions at Yaki Sushi Grill BBQ. She was hired by Huynh as a waitress in August 2020. Wow Restaurant owns and operates a restaurant called Yaki Sushi Grill BBQ in Bradenton, Florida. A copy of the Court's order dated June 13, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qYlpjt at no extra charge.[CC] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***