/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230711.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, July 11, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 138 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Jines Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Johnson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Johnson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Johnston Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Jones Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Pawlinkski Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams 3M COMPANY: Pitts Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Smith Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Swann Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Thornton Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams AMAZON.COM INC: Court Refuses to Dismiss Gorgas BIPA Complaint AMAZON.COM INC: Gorgas Suit Remanded to Cook County Circuit Court AMERITRUST FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Julien Claims ANUVIA PLANT: Lichtenstein Alleges Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice APRIA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Thomas Alleges ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW ORLEANS: Bid to Dismiss Bankruptcy Appeal Denied BERKSHIRE BLANKET: Woodiwiss Sues Over Mislabeled Blankets BRAGG COMMUNITIES: Page Allowed to File Third Amended Complaint BUENA VISTA: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Irwin Suit Alleges CEL TECH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Tirbeni Suit Alleges CLARIVATE PLC: Parot Granted Limited Leave to Amend Complaint CORE SCAFFOLD: Collective Action Gets FLSA Conditional Status DAN LIU: Court Junks Cheng and Cai Bid to Certify Class DEVON ENERGY: Wins Bid to Permanently Seal Subpoenas in Wake Suit EAGLE DISPOSAL: Bousquet Must File Conditional Cert Bid by Dec. 15 ENZO BIOCHEM: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Magnani Alleges FACEBOOK INC: 9th Cir. Flips Dismissal of 3rd Amended Vargas Suit FAMILY FIRST: Salomom Must File Class Cert. Bid by June 27, 2024 FCA US: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply FEDERAL EXPRESS: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Horton FEDERAL EXPRESS: Reyes Suit Remanded to San Francisco Super. Court FORT BELVOIR: Seeks Leave to File Exhibit Under Seal FORT BELVOIR: Seeks Leave to File Exhibit Under Seal FORT BELVOIR: Seeks Partial Summary Judgment v. Fischer, et al. FRY POWERS: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Eva Suit GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Court Approves FLSA Conditional Status in Kenan GOBRANDS INC: Beer Must File Class Certification Bid by July 19 GRANITE SERVICES: Seeks to Certify June 9, 2023 Order in Greinstein GREENIX HOLDINGS: Kirkpatrick Seeks to Certify Collective Class HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: July 24 Extension to File Class Cert Bid Sought HB&H LLC: Bid for Summary Judgment Partly OK'd HOAG MEMORIAL: Davis Suit Remanded to Orange County Superior Court HOMEWORKS ENERGY: Giguere Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid JERNIGAN CAPITAL: Seeks More Time to Object to Judge's Report JODI HARPSTEAD: Class Settlement in Murphy Suit Gets Final Nod L'OREAL USA: Faces Cabiltes Suit Over Biometric Collection LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Cert Hearing Rescheduled to August 21 LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY, KY: Scott Seeks to Certify Class LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Suit Seeks to Continue Class Cert Deadline LYNNHAVEN INN: Windheim Files Suit Over Alleged Tip Skimming MARCHESE & CO: Court Tosses Renewed Class Cert Bid w/o Prejudice MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Wiacek Alleges NATIONWIDE CHILDREN: Williams Conditional Cert Bid Nixed PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Dec. 7 RELIANT REHABILITATION: E.D. Kentucky Dismisses Claims in Cox Suit S.O.S. MAINTENANCE: Jimenez Conditional Cert Bid Partly OK'd SATELLITE HEALTHCARE: Class Cert. Filing Extended to June 19, 2024 SPECTRUM HEALTH: Suit Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement TETRA TECH: Brown Loses Bid for Prelim. Nod of $600K Class Deal TETRA TECH: Pennington Seeks to Certify Class TOPGOLF PAYROLL: Court Narrows Claims in Benyamin Class Suit USAA FEDERAL: Plaintiffs Must Submit Class Cert. Reply by July 14 USERTESTING INC: Monteverde Named Lead Counsel in Dickerson Suit VAIL RESORTS: Proceedings Stayed in Quint Class Action ZIGNEGO CO: Cardenas Wins Conditional Class Status Bid ********* 3M COMPANY: Jines Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark J. Jines, 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-02678-RMG (D.S.C., June 14, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was 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: 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: Johnson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals --------------------------------------------------------- Zhivago Jacques Johnson, 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-02737-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 with thyroidectomy 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: Johnson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kenneth Robert Johnson, 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-02730-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: Johnston Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams -------------------------------------------------------------- Ranae Luanne Johnston, 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-02798-RMG (D.S.C., June 19, 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, and Hashimoto's disease 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: Jones Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Charles Edward Jones, et al, and all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, AGC Chemicals Americas Inc.; Amerex Corporation; Archroma US Inc.; Buckeye Fire Equipment Company; Carrier Global Corporation; ChemDesign Products Inc.; Chemguard Inc.; Chemicals Inc.; Chemours Company FC LLC; Clariant Corp.; Corteva Inc.; Deepwater Chemicals Inc.; Du Pont De Nemours Inc. formerly known as: Dowdupont Inc.; Dynax Corporation; EI Du Pont De Nemours and Company; Kidde PLC; Kidde-Fenwal Inc.; Nation Ford Chemical Company; National Foam Inc.; Fire-Dex LLC; Globe Manufacturing Company LLC; Honeywell Safety Products USA Inc.; Lion Group Inc.; Mallory Safety and Supply LLC; Mine Safety Appliance Company LLC; Municipal Emergency Services Inc.; PBI Performance Products Inc.; Southern Mills Inc.; Stedfast USA Inc.; The Chemours Company; Tyco Fire Products LP, As successor-in interest to The Ansul Company; UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation Inc. formerly known as: GE Interlogix Inc.; United Technologies Corporation, W L Gore & Associates Inc, Case No. 2:23-cv-00670 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on June 21, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02839-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Product Liability. 3M -- https://www.3m.com/ -- (originally the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company) is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: 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 The Defendant is represented by: M. Christian King Harlan I. Prater, IV W. Larkin Radney, IV Wesley B. Gilchrist LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Phone: (205) 581-0700 Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Pawlinkski Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams -------------------------------------------------------- Jamie M. Pawlinkski, 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-03003-RMG (D.S.C., June 23, 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 Graves disease 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: Pitts Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amos Shawn Pitts, 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-03004-RMG (D.S.C., June 23, 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 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: 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: Smith Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ------------------------------------------------------- Deloris Smith as Surviving Spouse of Lawrence Jasper Smith, deceased, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. 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.); ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-02297-RMG (D.S.C., May 26, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury and death resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF 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 DeLoris Smith is an adult resident of the State of Idaho and is the surviving spouse of Lawrence Jasper Smith, who regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with pancreatic 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: 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: Swann Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sabrina Natasha Marie Swann, 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-03037-RMG (D.S.C., June 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 during the Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian and diagnosed with hyperthyroidism 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: Thornton Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dietta Annie Caesar Thornton, 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-02989-RMG (D.S.C., June 23, 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 Hashimoto's disease 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 AMAZON.COM INC: Court Refuses to Dismiss Gorgas BIPA Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BENITA GORGAS and NELSON GORGAS, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC f/k/a AMAZON.COM, LLC, and AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 22 CV 5159 (N.D. Ill.), Judge John J. Tharp, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss the claims for failure to state a claim. The Gorgases, who are current and former employees of the Defendants, respectively, brought this putative class action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services, LLC, and Amazon Web Services, Inc. ("AWS"), alleging that the Defendants used cameras to collect their facial geometry scans and thereafter stored, used, profited off, and disclosed the scans in violation of Sections 15(a)-(d) of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq. (BIPA). After the Defendants removed the case to this Court, they moved to dismiss the claims for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Gorgases worked as Sorting Associates at "two Amazon workplace locations" and at an Amazon "Fulfillment Center," respectively. Amazon required its workers, including the Gorgases, to have electronic images of their faces taken, which were used for identification badges, among other things, and stored in one of Amazon's databases. Further, Amazon uses, markets, and sells to third parties an image-recognition software called Rekognition. Amazon installed thousands of cameras throughout the facilities where the Gorgases worked which identify, detect, monitor, and track workers' movement and behavior for the purposes of loss prevention, quality assurance, productivity and other things. Using the workplace cameras, coupled with the facial recognition software including Rekognition, Amazon collected, captured, stored, and used biometric identifiers, namely scans of workers' facial geometry. Amazon also profits from the Gorgases' biometric data by using it to improve the Rekognition technology and selling the technology to other organizations, and discloses the data to AWS, other Amazon entities, and to other, currently unknown, third parties, which, inter alia, host and/or analyze the biometric data. Amazon never: (1) informed the Gorgases in writing that their biometric data was being collected, obtained, or stored; (2) informed them in writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their facial scans and other biometric data were being collected, obtained, stored, and used; (3) developed or adhered to a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines for destroying their facial scans or biometric data; or (4) obtained consent or a written release to collect, obtain, capture, disclose, redisclose, or otherwise disseminate to a third party their biometric data. Further, it is unclear how long Amazon retains the biometric identifiers and information derived from the capturing of workers' faces, and unclear how long Amazon continues to profit from them. The Gorgases have never been able to find or access, let alone been made aware of, any biometric data retention policy or deletion policies, and no schedules or guidelines were present in onboarding materials or posted on the company intranet or premises. The Gorgases have alleged that the Defendants violated Section 15(a), Section 15(b), and Section 15(d) of BIPA, which imposes numerous restrictions on how private entities collect, retain, disclose and destroy biometric identifiers. Section 15(a) requires that a private entity in possession of" biometric data (1) develop a written, publicly available policy that includes a retention schedule and destruction guidelines and (2) permanently destroy data upon the satisfaction of the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining it or within 3 years of the entity's last interaction with the person, whichever comes first. Section 15(b) provides that, prior to collecting biometric data, entities must first (1) inform the person in writing that the information is being collected or stored; (2) state the "specific purpose and length of term for which" the data "is being collected, stored, and used"; and (3) receive a written release from the person. Finally, Section 15(d) states that entities in possession of biometric data may only disclose or "otherwise disseminate" a person's data upon obtaining the person's consent or in limited other circumstances inapplicable here. BIPA creates a private right of action for any person aggrieved by a violation. The Defendants make four arguments pertinent to the Section 15(a), (b), and (d) claims. First, they assert that the complaint should be dismissed because the Gorgases improperly conflate their allegations against all three defendants and fail to distinguish each Defendant's conduct, thereby providing insufficient notice regarding the claims against them. Judge Tharp finds that the complaint provides sufficient notice to each Defendant, despite employing a consistent "group pleading" approach, because the allegations are directed at all the Defendants. Accordingly, the Defendants are not left "in the dark" by ambiguous formulations of collective action by multiple defendants that fail to adequately connect specific defendants to illegal acts. Therefore, the Defendants do not have to speculate about which claims or allegations pertain to them; they must defend against them all. Second, and relatedly, they maintain that Amazon.com, Inc. is the parent company of the other defendants and should be dismissed because the Gorgases do not sufficiently allege that it exercised direct control over its subsidiaries. Judge Tharp holds that the Gorgases do not need to pierce the corporate veil to plausibly make those allegations. Of course, discovery may reveal, for example, that the subsidiaries alone controlled or installed all the workplace cameras, but at this stage the Court must accept the well-pleaded allegations as true. For these reasons, the motion to dismiss Amazon.com, Inc. is denied. Third, the Defendants argue that the Section 15(a), (b), and (d) claims should be dismissed because the Gorgases allege no facts plausibly supporting the conclusion that the defendants "possessed" or "collected" biometric data. Judge Tharp agrees with the Gorgases that they do not merely parrot BIPA's statutory language by alleging that the Defendants possess and collect biometric data. Instead, they allege that the Defendants (1) captured electronic images of the Gorgases' and other workers' faces for badge identification purposes, (2) owned and sold facial recognition technology (including, specifically, Rekognition), and (3) scanned workers' facial geometry using their own facial recognition technology and warehouse cameras, which the Gorgases personally saw throughout the warehouses. Importantly, the Gorgases further allege that they have been informed that Amazon uses these cameras to track attendance times, including when they enter and leave the Amazon workplace, productivity, loss prevention and even the amount of time they spend in the restroom. Judge Tharp must accept these facts as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the Gorgases' favor, and it does not require an implausible leap to conclude from the facts that the Defendants possess or collect biometric data. Fourth, the Section 15(d) claims should also be dismissed, the Defendants say, because the Gorgases allege no facts plausibly supporting the conclusion that the defendants "disclosed" or "disseminated" their data. Given the Gorgases' other allegations, including that each Defendant used and sold the Rekognition software and improved that technology through use of the Gorgases' biometric data, Judge Tharp finds that the allegations in the complaint give rise to a plausible claim that the Defendants disseminated the data amongst themselves and other Amazon entities. The allegations may prove false. At this stage, however, the Gorgases have alleged enough to plausibly state a Section 15(d) claim. For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is denied. The Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/15(a), (b), and (d) will proceed to discovery. A full-text copy of the Court's June 23, 2023 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/52tnxher from Leagle.com. AMAZON.COM INC: Gorgas Suit Remanded to Cook County Circuit Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BENITA GORGAS and NELSON GORGAS, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC f/k/a AMAZON.COM, LLC, and AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 22 CV 5159 (N.D. Ill.), Judge John J. Tharp, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, grants the Plaintiffs' motion to remand and remands the case to the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The Gorgases, who worked as employees of the Defendants (collectively, "Amazon"), brought this putative class action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, alleging that Amazon used cameras to collect their facial geometry scans and thereafter stored, used, disclosed, and profited off the scans in violation of Sections 15(a)-(d) of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq. (BIPA). After Amazon removed the case to this Court, the Gorgases moved to remand their Section 15(c) claims, arguing that they have not alleged a concrete and particularized injury supporting Article III standing. The question before the Court, is whether the Gorgases have asserted that they suffered a particularized injury resulting from the Defendants' operation of such a market in biometric information. The Gorgases contend that their complaint alleges only a statutory violation of Section 15(c), and no actual damages or particularized injury, requiring remand of the Section 15(c) claims. Predictably, Amazon characterizes the allegations differently, arguing that the Gorgases assert a concrete and particularized injury by claiming that Amazon violated their "right to control the collection, use, and storage" of their biometric data. Judge Tharp agrees with the Gorgases that their allegations relating to Section 15(c) do not show that they suffered a concrete, particularized injury. While the allegations provide some factual detail about how Amazon uses the biometric data to generate a profit -- namely, that it uses the data to improve a technology that it sells -- nothing in these allegations articulates how the Gorgases have suffered a personal, individual harm resulting from the commercial transaction benefiting Amazon. Further, the Gorgases seek only statutory damages rather than actual damages, bolstering the Court's finding that the harms alleged here are of a general and not individual nature. Amazon argues that the Gorgases allege at least two concrete and particularized injuries. First, it characterizes the complaint as alleging that Amazon's profiting amplified the invasion of the Gorgases' privacy that occurred when the data was first collected. Amazon specifically points to the complaint's allegation that by profiting, the Defendants violated the Plaintiffs' and the Class' rights to privacy. But paragraph 114 does not assert that Amazon profited by further disseminating the Gorgases' biometric information, thus amplifying their invasion of privacy. Rather, the Gorgases allege that Amazon used their biometric data to improve its own technology, and profited by selling that technology; thus, Amazon's profiting may not have caused any dissemination of the biometric data at all. Paragraph 114 is therefore more akin to a restatement of the general regulatory violation proscribed by Section 15(c). Amazon contends that the Gorgases allege a concrete injury by asserting that Amazon infringed their right to control the collection, use, and storage of their biometric data. But that is a general allegation that describes harms resulting from Amazon's conduct as a whole, as opposed to harm flowing specifically from Amazon's allegedly illegal profiting. The only other allegation cited by Amazon is a mere recitation of Section 15(c)'s statutory violation. In addition to alleging that the Defendant violated section 15(c) by using customer biometric data to improve the customers' experience on Dior's website, and increase sales of its eyewear, the Plaintiff alleges that by using her biometric data for its own profit, the Defendant impacted the Plaintiff's ownership over and ability to control that data for her own purposes. Judge Tharp does not read the present complaint as alleging that the commercial transactions allegedly undertaken by Amazon deprived the Gorgases of the opportunity to profit from their biometric data. The Gorgases allege that they lost only the right to control the collection, use, and storage of their biometric data -- not the "opportunity to profit" from it. Put another way, the Gorgases do not allege that Amazon's violations of Section 15(c) caused them a loss of control of their biometric data. Nor do they allege, for example, that Amazon's profiting has prevented them from successfully selling their own biometric data. Instead, they merely allege that Amazon used their biometric data to improve its own technology, which it sells, and thereby "violated their rights to privacy." Finally, Amazon attempts to distinguish Thornley v. Clearview AI, Inc., 984 F.3d 1241, 1246 (7th Cir. 2021) on the grounds that the Plaintiffs there explicitly disavowed any injury beyond the statutory violation. But as other courts have repeated, the Seventh Circuit did not find express disavowal of individual harm to be a requirement for a court to find that a plaintiff lacks standing. Because the Gorgases have not alleged a personal, concrete, or particularized harm flowing from Amazon's profiting off their biometric data, Judge Tharp holds that they lack Article III standing to bring their Section 15(c) claim in the Court. If a district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a removed claim, the only remedy is remand of the claim to state court, absent the application of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Section 15(c) claims are severed from the rest of the suit and remanded to state court. A full-text copy of the Court's June 23, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4tepa7yk from Leagle.com. AMERITRUST FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Julien Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- NIKITA JULIEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERITRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00140 (E.D. Tenn., July 26, 2023) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. AMERITRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC provides financial services. The Company offers payday, personal, and title loans. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Luke Widener, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN 800 S. Gay St., Ste 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 Email: lwidener@milberg.com - and - Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Facsimile: (952) 336-2940 Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Justin C. Walker, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK, & DEMARCO, LLC 119 E. Court St., Ste. 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (855) 843-5442 Email: jwalker@msdlegal.com ANUVIA PLANT: Lichtenstein Alleges Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice ------------------------------------------------------------------- JASON LICHTENSTEIN, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANUVIA PLANT NUTRIENTS CORPORATION; and ANUVIA PLANT CITY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 8:23-cv-01423 (M.D. Fla., June 26, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendant up to 60 days wages and benefits of Plaintiff and Class members pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated at least 60 days' advance notice of their termination, as required by the WARN Act. The Defendant is liable for unpaid wages for failing to pay wages, including promised retention bonuses, due to the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated, says the suit. ANUVIA PLANT NUTRIENTS CORPORATION manufactures and supplies fertilizers. The Company offers fertilizers for turf and agricultural industries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay P. Lechner, Esq. LECHNER LAW Jay P. Lechner, P.A. Fifth Third Center 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 412 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 842-7071 Facsimile: (813) 225-1392 Email: jplechn@jaylechner.com admin@jaylechner.com APRIA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Thomas Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- VICTORIA THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APRIA HEALTHCARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01096-JRS-MKK (S.D. In., June 23, 2023) is a class action on behalf of individuals, employees and patients of the Defendant, or otherwise people that are customers of or have their records collected by the Defendant, whose personally identifying information and protected health information was accessed and exposed to unauthorized third parties during a data breach that was first announced by Defendant in May of 2023. According to the complaint, from April 5, 2019 to May 7, 2019 and again from August 27, 2021 to October 10, 2021, the bad actors had access to the Defendant's network. Further, as part of the Data Breach, it is believed and averred that the bad actors exfiltrated Plaintiff's and the class members' PII and PHI from Defendant's network. Despite that the Defendant became aware of the Data Breach on September 1, 2021, it failed to notify the Plaintiff and the putative Class Members until June 2023. As a result of the Defendant's failure to prevent the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer damages, including monetary losses, lost time, anxiety, and emotional distress, 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 Plaintiff is represented by: William N. Riley, Esq. Russell B. Cate, Esq. Sundeep Singh, Esq. RILEYCATE, LLC 11 Municipal Dr., Suite 320 Fishers, IN 46038 Tel: (317) 588-2866 Fax: (317) 458-1785 Email: wriley@rileycate.com rcate@rileycate.com ssingh@rileycate.com - and - Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. Kevin Fay, Esq. GOLOMB SPIRT GRUNFELD P.C. Market Street, Suite Philadelphia, PA Telephone: (215) 346-7338 Facsimile: (215) 985-4169 Email: KGrunfeld@GolombLegal.Com Kfay@GolombLegal.Com ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW ORLEANS: Bid to Dismiss Bankruptcy Appeal Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW ORLEANS. SECTION M (1), Civil Action No. 22-4552 (E.D. La.), Judge Barry W. Ashe of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denies the Archdiocese's motion to dismiss bankruptcy appeal. Before the Court is the motion of the Archdiocese, the debtor and debtor-in-possession in the bankruptcy case from which this appeal arises, to dismiss bankruptcy appeal. The Appellants, who are school-age children with disabilities in the New Orleans area, respond in opposition, and the Archdiocese replies in further support of its motion. The matter concerns an appeal of a bankruptcy court order holding that the Appellants' case was subject to the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. Section 362. The Appellants are a group of minor children with parents seeking to send them to New Orleans-area Catholic schools that are either directly or indirectly controlled by the Archdiocese. They allege that, as part of the admissions process, many of these schools request prospective students to provide information about their disabilities, which, they contend, is a plain violation of Louisiana law. Following the Appellants' failed attempt to have the Archdiocese cease this admissions practice and remove disability-related questions from future applications, the Appellants brought a class action lawsuit against the Archdiocese in state court on Aug. 15, 2022. The class action petition seeks injunctive relief -- to order the Archdiocese and other Catholics schools to follow the law and stop discriminating against children with disabilities -- and expressly disclaims an award of damages. Thereafter, on Aug. 31, 2022, the Archdiocese removed the action to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1452(a) based on the Court's "related to" bankruptcy jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1334(b) because of its pending chapter 11 bankruptcy case. The Appellants, on Sept. 8, 2022, filed a motion to remand, arguing that, because they only seek prospective injunctive relief and disclaim an award of damages for past tortious behavior, their claims necessarily cannot affect any property of the bankruptcy estate and so are not "related to" the chapter 11 bankruptcy case as required for the Court to have subject-matter jurisdiction under Section 1334(b). The Court agreed and, on Oct. 3, 2022, remanded the case to state court after finding that the Appellants' claims cannot affect property of the bankruptcy estate and thus the Court did not have "related to" subject-matter jurisdiction. While the Appellants' motion to remand was pending before the district court, they filed a motion for a "comfort order" before the bankruptcy judge to receive explicit confirmation that the automatic bankruptcy stay did not apply to their action against the Archdiocese. This motion, which was filed on Sept. 13, 2022, remained pending until Oct. 25, 2022 (and thus after the Court had remanded the action), when the bankruptcy court concluded that the automatic stay did apply to the Appellants' action. That decision is the subject of the underlying appeal that the Archdiocese seeks to dismiss by way of the motion before the Court. In its motion, the Archdiocese argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the order of the bankruptcy court on appeal —- the denial of Appellant's comfort order and concomitant stay relief -- is interlocutory and the Appellants did not seek leave to file the appeal. In opposition, the Appellants argue that the bankruptcy court's order denying their stay relief was final and appealable because it "definitively disposed of a discrete dispute" -- namely, whether the automatic stay applied to their lawsuit. Therefore, they maintain, they did not need to seek leave to file the notice of appeal and so the Court has jurisdiction. In reply, the Archdiocese states that the Appellants' characterization of the bankruptcy court's order as final and appealable is "erroneous" because the bankruptcy court denied the Appellants' request for relief from the stay without prejudice. The Archdiocese argues that the appeal should be dismissed because the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear it, or, alternatively, because the Appellants lack standing to bring it and the underlying state-court action is moot. Judge Ashe opines that although the bankruptcy court qualified its order as "without prejudice" as to allowing the Appellants to renew their motion for relief from the automatic stay in the future -- should conditions change -- the record does not reflect how further developments might change the stay calculus. Notwithstanding the bankruptcy court's use of the phrase "without prejudice," the order at issue definitively disposed of the Appellants' request for relief from the automatic stay and, so, is immediately appealable. Next, Judge Ashe finds that the bankruptcy court concluded that the automatic stay applies to the Appellants' lawsuit, effectively preventing them from litigating the matter in state court without exposure to significant monetary sanctions for violation of the automatic stay. He opines that the Appellants face the substantial risk of being ordered to pay actual damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, and, in appropriate circumstances, punitive damages should they attempt to litigate their claims in state court -- the forum to which this Court previously remanded the action for lack of its own subject-matter jurisdiction. Moreover, given the current stalemate, the Appellants are also aggrieved by the impossibility to advance their claims in any forum. As such, the Appellants satisfy the "person aggrieved" test for purposes of bankruptcy standing. Lastly, Judge Ashe opines that the parties undoubtedly hold a live interest in the question whether the automatic stay applies, because both the underlying bankruptcy case and the Appellants' state-court case remain pending, and the automatic stay has not otherwise been terminated. He can also render effective relief in an appeal because he could order that the automatic stay does not apply to the Appellants' claims. Thus, the appeal is not moot. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Judge Ashe denies the Archdiocese's motion to dismiss appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's June 23, 2023 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/mtx5nx3j from Leagle.com. BERKSHIRE BLANKET: Woodiwiss Sues Over Mislabeled Blankets ---------------------------------------------------------- MALACHI WOODIWISS; TYLER BENNETT; ERIC PATTON; AIMEN HALIM; and ASHIA JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BERKSHIRE BLANKET & HOME COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-30068 (D. Mass., June 23, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for misleading consumers through its marketing and packaging about the environmental impact of its so-called "EcoSoft Blanket," including misleading claims related to water usage and an "eco thread dry dye" process. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant Berkshire markets and labels its EcoSoft Blanket as "EcoSoft," "for the planet," and as using "half the water." These representations lead consumers to believe the blanket is a "green" product that has a less harmful impact on the environment because of its ingredients, manufacture, use, or disposal. Unfortunately for consumers, these representations by Defendant are false. The EcoSoft Blanket is made from 100 per cent polyester, a synthetic fiber that is inherently harmful to the environment through its use, manufacture, and disposal, says the suit. BERKSHIRE BLANKET & HOME COMPANY, INC. provides home furnishing products. The Company offers blankets, bedding sets, sheets, pillows, baby, and kids products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS LLP 101 Federal Street 19th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 203-8459 Facsimile: (800) 922-4851 Email: psheehan@whatleykallas.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq. JOHNSON FIRM 610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300 Little Rock, AK 72201 Telephone: (501) 372-1300 Email: chris@yourattorney.com tyler@yourattorney.com - and - Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Rachel K. Tackm 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 BRAGG COMMUNITIES: Page Allowed to File Third Amended Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SHANE PAGE, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BRAGG COMMUNITIES, LLC, and CORVIAS MANAGEMENT-ARMY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-CV-336-D (E.D.N.C.), Judge James C. Dever, III of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division: 1. grants the Plaintiffs' third motion to amend; 2. denies the Defendants' motion to strike the Plaintiffs' reply; 3. denies as moot the Defendants' motion to file a surreply; and 4. grants the parties joint motion for extension of time to extend the scheduling order deadlines. On June 24, 2020, Shane Page, Spenser Ganske, Christopher M. Wilkes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Katelyn Murphy, individually and on behalf of the estate of Timothy Murphy, Ashley Wilkes, Brittany Page, and Emily Ganske filed a class action complaint against Defendants Bragg Communities, LLC, Bragg-Picerne Properties, LLC, Corvias Military Construction, LLC, Corvias Management-Army, LLC, and Corvias Construction, LLC. On Aug. 31, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On Oct. 27, 2021, the Defendants answered. On Dec. 13, 2021, the Court entered a scheduling order, which stated that "motions to join additional parties and to amend pleadings must be made promptly after the information giving rise to the motion became known to the party or counsel. Any such motion filed after Feb. 18, 2022, must meet the standards of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 and 16." On Nov. 14, 2022, the Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint for the second time and filed a memorandum in support. On Dec. 5, 2022, the Defendants responded in opposition. On Dec. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs replied. On April 3, 2023, the Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint for the third time and filed a memorandum in support. They proposed third amended complaint added amendments to the proposed second amended complaint, used the proposed second amended complaint as the operative complaint, did not include a redlined version of the proposed third amended complaint noting the changes requested in the amendments, and, thus, failed to comply with Local Civil Rule 15.1(a). On April 24, 2023, the Defendants responded in opposition and on May 8, 2023, the Plaintiffs replied. On May 8, 2023, the Defendants moved to strike the Plaintiffs' reply. On May 16, 2023, the Plaintiffs responded in opposition. On May 12, 2023, the parties filed a joint motion for extension of time to extend the scheduling order deadlines by 90 days and filed a memorandum in support. On May 18, 2023, the Plaintiffs stipulated to the dismissal of Corvias Construction, LLC and Bragg-Picerne Partners, LLC. The only remaining defendants are Bragg Communities, LLC and Corvias Management-Army, LLC. On May 16, 2023, the Plaintiffs withdrew their proposed second amended complaint. That same day the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to clarify the status of their proposed third amended complaint because it added amendments to the proposed second amended complaint. On May 24, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a notice updating their proposed third amended complaint. This updated proposed third amended complaint now uses the amended complaint as the operative complaint that it amends rather than the now withdrawn proposed second amended complaint. The updated proposed third amended complaint is filed only as a redlined version and does not include a clean version, as required by Local Civil Rule 15.1(a)(i). On May 25, 2023, the Court notified the Plaintiffs of its deficient pleading. On May 26, 2023, the Plaintiffs responded and attached a clean copy of the amended pleading. The Plaintiffs are military servicemembers and their families who leased residential housing at Fort Bragg from the Defendants in different periods from August 2016 to February 2019. The Defendants are companies that provide housing and other services for servicemembers at Fort Bragg. On June 24, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against the Defendants. They filed an amended complaint on Aug. 31, 2020. In the complaint, they argue that the Defendants knowingly leased substandard homes and compounded that fact by providing cut-rate, abjectly inadequate repair and maintenance service, all while charging grossly excessive rents swallowing up the whole of servicemembers' Basic Allowance for Housing -- which should be wholly or partly refunded given the abhorrent condition of the Units. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 42-42(a), breached its warrant of habitability to the Plaintiffs, violated the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, breached their contract with the Plaintiffs, breached its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to the Plaintiffs, were negligent, violated the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act, and created and maintained a temporary recurrent private nuisance. On Oct. 27, 2021, the Defendants answered the Plaintiffs' amended complaint. On Dec. 13, 2021, the Court entered a scheduling order. On Oct. 11, 2022, the parties jointly filed a stipulation of partial dismissal dismissing all claims of personal injury and personal injury damages, subclass C (which related to personal injury claims), and the negligence claim in count five as to subclass C and personal injury. On April 3, 2023, the Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint for the third time and filed a memorandum in support. They argue that good cause exists to amend the complaint because the proposed amendments are based on new evidence produced in discovery that they had no ability to obtain prior to discovery, that the Defendants will not be prejudiced by the proposed amendments because the proposed amendments elaborate on already pled claims and do not add new claims or Defendants, and that the proposed amendments relate back to the Page family's original claims. On April 24, 2023, the Defendants responded in opposition, arguing that the Plaintiffs were not diligent in filing these amendments, noting that the Plaintiffs have had discovery material from April 2022 onward and that they waited anywhere from a year to at least four months to file these proposed amendments. They also argue that the Plaintiffs are estopped from raising good cause due to their failure to raise good cause in their previous motion to amend, that they would be prejudiced because the Plaintiffs raise novel legal theories, and that the Plaintiffs NCDCA claim is futile. The Plaintiffs seek leave to amend their complaint. Specifically, they seek to amend the complaint in conformity to evidence produced by the Defendants during discovery and thereby to make allegations more definitive and precise concerning how the Defendants violated the North Carolina Debt Collectors Act ("NCDCA"), N.C. Gen. Stat. Sections 75-50, et seq. First, Judge Dever holds that the Plaintiffs provide no redlined copy of the proposed third amended complaint noting the new text to be deleted or added or otherwise indicated in what respect the text differs from the pleading that it amends, the originally amended complaint. As for whether the Plaintiffs' third motion to amend is untimely, Judge Dever says delay alone is not a sufficient reason to deny a party leave to amend its pleading. Moreover, the Plaintiffs did not possess evidence to show that the Defendants were acting as "debt collectors" until discovery was provided. Second, Judge Dever holds that the proposed third amended complaint would not prejudice the Defendants. Although the Plaintiffs had not brought a claim under the NCDCA or alleged that any defendant was a debt collector, these amendments do not add new Defendants or time-barred claims. The amendments add an additional theory of recovery to the facts already pleaded. The additional facts pleaded do not change the nature of the litigation, and the Defendants already have the necessary information to respond. Third, Judge Dever holds that NCDCA claim is not futile. The Plaintiffs seek to allege an NCDCA claim as an alternative theory of liability. In light of the allegations concerning the NCDCA claim, the claim is plausible. For these reasons, Judge Dever grants the proposed amendments in the third amended complaint. He permits the Plaintiffs to file the amended complaint in the third motion to amend. He denies the Defendants' motion to strike and denies as moot their motion to file a surreply. A full-text copy of the Court's June 23, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdfzvnz6 from Leagle.com. BUENA VISTA: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Irwin Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- MARC IRWIN SHARFMAN, M.D., P.A., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BUENA VISTA MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:23-cv-01176-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla., June 26, 2023) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. BUENA VISTA MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. is a private company. The company currently specializes in the Insurance area. Its headquarters is located at Charlotte, North Carolina, USA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 Email: rkelly@andersonwanca.com CEL TECH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Tirbeni Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- PARSRAM TIRBENI; and VIJAY SINGH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CEL TECH CONTRACTING CORP.; VISHNU SAMAROO; and DONNA SAMAROO, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04721 (E.D.N.Y., June 24, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as tower technicians. CEL TECH CONTRACTING CORP. is in the business of cell phone tower installation. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary Rosen, Esq. ROSEN LAW LLC 216 Lakeville Road Great Neck, NY 11020 Tel: (516) 437-3400 Email: grosen@rosenlawllc.com CLARIVATE PLC: Parot Granted Limited Leave to Amend Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KEVIN PAROT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. CLARIVATE PLC, JERRE STEAD, RICHARD HANKS, CHRISTINE ARCHBOLD, MUKHTAR AHMED, JEFFREY ROY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-00394 (EK)(MMH)(E.D.N.Y.), Judge Eric Komitee of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York grants the Plaintiff limited leave to amend. The Plaintiffs in this class action have filed a sprawling complaint against securities issuer Clarivate; many individuals allegedly affiliated with Clarivate; the bank that underwrote Clarivate's securities offerings (Citigroup Global Markets Inc.); Clarivate's auditor (PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP); and certain investment funds that acquired early equity stakes in Clarivate. The Plaintiffs allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; its implementing regulation, Rule 10b-5; and the Securities Act of 1933. The Defendants moved to dismiss. At oral argument on the Defendants' motions, Judge Komitee observed that the complaint was "long on atmospherics" and "short on particulars," especially such specifics as "which misstatements or omissions we're talking about and what makes them demonstrably false." At his request, the parties submitted post-argument briefing on whether, if he were to dismiss one or more claims, such dismissal should be with prejudice or whether he should grant leave to amend with any dismissal. Judge Komitee finds that the key inquiry is whether amendment would be futile. He explains that the Defendants have established that some, but not all, of their defenses would, if successful, render amendment futile. Specifically, PricewaterhouseCoopers' argument that auditors are categorically exempt from liability for certain kinds of statements attacks the legal sufficiency of the Plaintiffs' theory, not the adequacy of their allegations. The same is true for the Fund Defendants' arguments that they are not underwriters or statutory sellers as a matter of law. In contrast, the argument that leave to amend the fraud claims would be futile -- because the Plaintiffs relied on lower-level confidential witnesses who purportedly know too little to establish falsity or scienter -- is unavailing. Assuming that this could be grounds for dismissal, Judge Komitee says it is no argument for futility. Judge Komitee has considered these submissions and now grants limited leave to do so despite the Plaintiffs' having sought leave to amend only to the extent that the Court first dismissed one or more claims. For the reasons he elaborated, if he were to dismiss all claims on the grounds that the Defendants have urged, he would be bound to grant leave to amend, at least in part. Accordingly, to conserve judicial resources, Judge Komitee grants leave to amend sua sponte before disposing of the motions to dismiss. The Plaintiffs must file an amended complaint on the docket. This leave is granted to allow them to nudge their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible. However, the Plaintiffs do not have leave to amend the legal theories under which they proceed. Additionally, Judge Komitee permits and invites the Plaintiffs to streamline their complaint and reminds them that Rule 8 calls for a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. The Second Circuit has suggested that a district court has the power to dismiss a complaint without leave to amend where leave to amend has previously been given and the successive pleadings remain prolix and unintelligible. A full-text copy of the Court's June 23, 2023 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/vp9bvt34 from Leagle.com. CORE SCAFFOLD: Collective Action Gets FLSA Conditional Status ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCISCO JAVIER MARTINEZ ANGEL, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective the Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. CORE SCAFFOLD SYSTEMS INC., M.D SCAFFOLDING, INC., K & V GARCIA CORP., JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-50, VALON PILKU, and VICENTE GARCIA, Case No. 1:23-cv-00222-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered an order granting conditional collective certification pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b): (1) The Court grants conditional certification of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claim as a representative collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf of all current and former non-exempt employees, including scaffolders and laborers, employed by the Defendants on or after the date this is 3 years before the filing of the Complaint. (2) The Court approves the distribution of the notice of this FLSA action to Covered Employees, and including a consent form (or opt-in form) as authorized by the FLSA. (3) The Court approves the proposed FLSA notice of this action and the consent form. (4) The Court approves the consent forms of opt-in plaintiffs to be sent directly to the Plaintiff’s counsel. (5) Within 10 days of this Order, the Defendants are to produce in Excel format the names, titles, compensation rates, dates of employment, last known mailing addresses, email addresses and all known telephone numbers of all Covered Employees. To the extent there are notice mailings returned as undeliverable, the Defendants shall provide Social Security Numbers within five days of any request of the Plaintiff's counsel. (6) The Court approves the posting of the notice, along with the consent forms, in the Defendant's places of business where Covered Employees are employed, by the Defendants or the Defendants' counsel at any time during regular business hours. the Defendants' counsel will provide photos to show that same was accomplished. (7) The time for filing claims under the FLSA for Covered Employees is equitably tolled for a period of 21 days to permit the Plaintiff's counsel to distribute notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs. (8) The Plaintiff will file consents with the Court within 1 business day of receipt of each consent. (9) The Plaintiff will post and distribute the notice and consent forms within 21 days of the date of the Order. The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages, due to a fixed salary; unpaid wages, including unpaid overtime, due to time shaving; liquidated damages; and attorneys' fees and costs, in violation of FLSA. The Defendants deny any wrongdoing and claim that they paid employees the proper compensation for all hours worked, in accordance with the FLSA. Core Scaffold is a company that operates in the Construction industry. A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PtnWMH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1180 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 DAN LIU: Court Junks Cheng and Cai Bid to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Xunhui Cheng and Kelin Cai, on behalf of, himself and all others similarly situated, v. Dan Liu et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-01726-JD (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Joseph Dawson III entered an order: -- Granting the Plaintiffs' motion for a Protective Order; -- Denying the Plaintiffs' motion to compel; and -- Denying the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class. The Court said, " It is clear from the history of this case that the Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that this action is manageable as a class action in the United States, especially considering the material evidence is in China where U.S.-style discovery is illegal, making it impossible for this Court to manage the discovery process." The case involves an alleged complex fraudulent investment scheme perpetrated by the named the Defendants primarily in the People's Republic of China (PRC) between 2013 and 2016, by which it is alleged the equivalent of several billion United States Dollars were defrauded from Chinese investors and were used, among other things, to purchase approximately two dozen golf courses and various other real estate in South Carolina for the benefit of the Defendants. The Plaintiffs Xunhui Cheng and Kelin Cai, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated were among the investors who were defrauded. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants perpetrated "a 'Ponzi Scheme' that utilized incoming investment funds received in exchange for new investment contracts sold to fund payments owed to existing investors, and also to fund the high current operating costs of the Company, including the highly compensated sales staff and senior management team, led by the Defendant Dan Liu and Xue Xuili." The Defendants are Founders Group International, LLC; Founders National Golf, LLC; Founders Aberdeen, LLC; Founders Development, LLC; Founders BRGC, LLC; Founders GCC,LLC; Founders Golf Management, LLC; Founders IWGC, LLC; Founders RHGC, LLC; Founders Tradition, LLC; Founders Wild Wing, LLC; Atlantic Development Company, LLC; Atlantic Coast Funding, LLC; Wild Wing Land and Development, LLC; Offshore Captain, LLC; D & C International Holdings, LLC; Founders Blue Water, LLC; and Founders Events, LLC (the "Entity the Defendants") along with Dan Liu. The Plaintiffs seek class certification in this case asking this Court to certify a 1) Constructive Class, 2) a Cai Subclass, and 3) a Cheng Subclass, and to appoint Gene M. Connell, Jr., Reese Boyd and Anthony Scordo as class counsel. The Plaintiffs contend that they meet the four requirements of Rule 23(a) (i.e., numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation) and they propose the following class definitions: -- Subclass I: Receiver/Constructive Trust "Any investor who loaned money by way of standard contract to the "Easy Richness Companies" (Nanjing Easy Richness Financial Information Consulting Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu Easy Richness Asset Management Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu Easy Richness Haitian Equity Investment and Fund Management Co., Ltd.; and Jiangsu Easy Richness Founders Real Estate Co., Ltd.) and whose funds were used to purchase golf courses in Horry County, South Carolina, or were used to repay investors whose funds had already been used to purchase golf courses in Horry County, South Carolina, and who had not received full restitution by the Chinese Courts." The Subclass would include only a claim for monies that have not been repaid through restitution as ordered by a Chinese Court. -- Subclass II: The Cheng Subclass "Any investor who loaned money to the "Easy Richness Companies" (Nanjing Easy Richness Financial Information Consulting Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu Easy Richness Asset Management Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu Easy Richness Haitian Equity Investment and Fund Management Co., Ltd.; and Jiangsu Easy Richness Founders Real Estate Co., Ltd.) and whose funds were used to purchase golf courses in Horry County, South Carolina, or were used to repay investors who had previously invested in golf courses in Horry County, South Carolina and who signed a power of attorney authorizing Cheng to be their agent for this litigation. The Class would include only a claim for monies that have not been repaid through restitution as ordered by a Chinese Court. Any Subclass Member agrees not to hereafter pursue any claims in China against Dan Liu or his related companies (the "Easy Richness Companies") concerning the claims made in this litigation. -- Subclass III: The Cai Subclass Any investor, person, partnership, corporation or Ltd who loaned money by way of a standard contract to the "Easy Richness Companies" (Nanjing Easy Richness Financial Information Consulting Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu Easy Richness Asset Management Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu Easy Richness Haitian Equity Investment and Fund Management Co., Ltd.; and Jiangsu Easy Richness Founders Real Estate Co., Ltd.) and whose funds were used to either purchase golf courses in Horry County, South Carolina; or the funds were used to repay previous investors who had previously invested in golf courses in Horry County, South Carolina." The Subclass would include only a claim for monies that have not been repaid through restitution as ordered by a Chinese Court. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PAU1lx at no extra charge.[CC] DEVON ENERGY: Wins Bid to Permanently Seal Subpoenas in Wake Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, WAKE ENERGY, LLC, and WAKE OPERATING, LLC, Plaintiffs v. DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY L.P., Defendant, Case No. CIV-21-00352-PRW (W.D. Okla.), Judge Patrick R. Wyrick of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma grants Devon's Motion to Permanently Seal Subpoenas and Motion for Protective Order to Quash Subpoena. Devon owns and operates oil and natural-gas wells throughout Oklahoma, most of which are operated under leasing agreements requiring it to pay royalties to the owners of the oil and natural-gas rights. A severe winter storm struck Oklahoma in February 2021. In the aftermath of this storm, natural gas prices soared. Wake Energy, LLC, and Wake Operating, LLC (collectively, "Wake") -- which own oil and natural-gas interests in some of the wells produced by Devon -- filed suit, alleging that Devon failed to pay the proportionate share of these increased prices in the royalties Devon owed to the oil- and natural-gas-interest owners. Wake further alleges that Devon entered into various contractual arrangements in order to actively conceal the actual price and profits Devon was receiving from its natural gas sales after the winter storm. Wake set forth three claims: (1) breach of contract, combined with violation of the Oklahoma Production Revenue Standards Act; (2) fraud, both actual and constructive; and (3) unjust enrichment. Wake also sought to certify a class of other oil-and-natural-gas-interest owners that Devon may have underpaid or defrauded. On Aug. 25, 2021, the Court placed the parties on a scheduling order for class-certification discovery and subsequent class-certification briefings. After a couple deadline extensions, the parties filed a joint motion to stay the case pending private mediation, and the case was stayed on July 19, 2022. But those mediation efforts ultimately failed, and the stay was lifted on May 19, 2023. Before the initial stay, Devon moved to permanently seal three subpoenas issued to three of Devon's customers, as well as to quash a subpoena issued to KPMG LLP. Now that the stay is lifted, the motions are ready for decision. Judge Wyrick first examines the Motion to Permanently Seal Subpoenas. At the beginning of this litigation, the parties jointly proposed -- and the Court entered -- a Protective Order to facilitate the exchange of confidential information in discovery. As discovery proceeded, Devon produced two spreadsheets disclosing gas-sales transactions and data on quantities, pricing, pipeline systems, and purchasing counterparties (the "Sales Data"). Devon marked both spreadsheets as confidential under the Protective Order. Wake did not challenge that designation. Sometime later, Wake subpoenaed three of Devon's customers. These subpoenas recite the substance of some of the confidential Sales Data. Wake filed a Notice of Filing with the Court and attached the subpoenas as exhibits, placing the confidential information in the public record. After Wake refused Devon's request to redact the confidential information or file the subpoenas under seal, Devon moved to seal the subpoenas on an emergency basis pending full briefing on permanent seal -- the question currently before the Court. Judge Wyrick holds that Wake blatantly violated the agreed Protective Order by placing confidential information into the public record without redaction or seal. Devon is entitled to protection of its proprietary information. For these reasons, Judge Wyrick permanently seals the subpoenas. Pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, the Court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant's reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney's fees. Judge Wyrick thus orders Wake to show cause why its conduct was substantially justified or why other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. Judge Wyrick then turns to the Motion for Protective Order to Quash Subpoena. Before the Court stayed the case, Wake subpoenaed KPMG LLP, the external auditor of Devon's indirect parent company, Devon Energy Corp. The subpoena sought documents and communications in KPMG's possession regarding Devon's production and sale of natural gas from the Anadarko Basin. Devon moved to quash the subpoena based on the accountant-client privilege recognized under Oklahoma law and because the subpoena was facially overbroad. Wake responds, however, that Devon lacks standing to challenge the third-party subpoena, and that even if it does have standing, the subpoena does not violate the accountant-client privilege. According to Judge Wyrick, accountant-client communications are confidential if not intended to be disclosed to third persons besides those to whom disclosure is in furtherance of the rendition of accounting services to the client and those reasonably necessary for the transmission of the communication. The privilege does not apply to communications alone; it also broadly extends to other confidential information obtained by the accountant from the client for the purpose of rendering accounting advice. Because Devon asserts a privilege with respect to the materials subpoenaed, it has standing to challenge the subpoena on these grounds. The targeted data falls squarely within Oklahoma's accountant-client privilege; the subpoena seeks communications and information provided to KPMG for the purpose of auditing its client. Judge Wyrick must therefore quash or modify the subpoena. With respect to the subpoena issued to KPMG, it should not be quashed, Judge Wyrick says. To the extent the underlying data is relevant and proportional to the needs of the case, Wake can request that data from Devon directly without inserting itself into the accountant-client relationship. Finally, because Wake proposes no modified language that would avoid disclosure of privileged communications and information, modification is not warranted under the circumstances. For these reasons, Judge Wyrick grants Devon's Motion to Permanently Seal Subpoenas. Accordingly, the subpoenas are permanently sealed. Wake is ordered to show cause why its conduct related to the subpoenas was substantially justified or why other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. Devon's Motion for Protective Order to Quash Subpoena is also granted, and the subpoena issued to KPMG is quashed in its entirety. A full-text copy of the Court's June 23, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ymbpfsmx from Leagle.com. EAGLE DISPOSAL: Bousquet Must File Conditional Cert Bid by Dec. 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFF BOUSQUET, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. EAGLE DISPOSAL, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00504-WED (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered an scheduling order as follows: 1. The parties may join other parties and July 17, 2023 amend the pleadings without leave of court no later than: 2. The parties shall make their initial July 24, 2023 disclosures to the opposing party in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) no later than: 3. The Plaintiff's motion for conditional Dec. 15, 2023 certification for claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) shall be filed no later than: 4. The plaintiff shall disclose expert May 31, 2024 witnesses in accordance with Civil L.R. 26(b) no later than: 5. The Plaintiff's motion for Rule 23 June 14, 2024 class certification shall be filed no later than: 6. The Defendant's motion to decertify June 14, 2024 any conditionally certified FLSA class shall be filed no later than: 7. The defendant shall disclose expert Aug. 31, 2024. witnesses in accordance with Civil L.R. 26(b) no later than: 8. All discovery is to be completed by: Nov. 1, 2024 9. All motions for summary judgment Nov. 22, 2024 together with the moving party's principal materials in support of the motion are to be filed in accordance with Civil L.R. 56 no later than: Eagle Disposal provides waste management services. The Company offers dumpster rentals, waste disposal, and recycling services A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PxfETR at no extra charge.[CC] ENZO BIOCHEM: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Magnani Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- PAULA MAGNANI, 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-04749-NRM-AYS (E.D.N.Y., June 26, 2023) is a class action arises out of the recent, targeted cyberattack and data breach where unauthorized third-party criminals retrieved and exfiltrated personal data from Enzo's network that resulted in unauthorized access to the highly sensitive consumer data of the Plaintiff, and the Class Members. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants maintained the Private Information in a negligent and reckless manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on the Defendants' computer system and network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. The mechanism of the cyberattack and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to the Defendants, and thus the Defendants were on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure Private Information from those risks left that Private Information in a vulnerable condition. In addition, the Defendants and their employees failed to properly monitor the computer network and IT systems that housed the Private Information, says the suit. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members face a substantial risk of imminent and certainly impending harm. Plaintiff and Class Members have and will continue to suffer injuries associated with this risk, including but not limited to a loss of time, mitigation expenses, and anxiety over the misuse of their Private Information, the suit added. 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: Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street Fourteenth Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 Email: snathan@hausfeld.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. Amanda V. Boltax, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th Street N.W. Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com mboltax@hausfeld.com - and - Kim D. Stephens, P.S. Cecily C. Jordan, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101-3147 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 Email: kstephens@tousley.com cjordan@tousley.com - and - Amy Keller, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn Street Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 Email: akeller@dicellolevitt.com FACEBOOK INC: 9th Cir. Flips Dismissal of 3rd Amended Vargas Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ROSEMARIE VARGAS; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, and NEUHTAH OPIOTENNIONE; JESSICA TSAI, Plaintiffs v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 21-16499 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reverses the dismissal of their Third Amended Class Action complaint and remands for further proceedings. Plaintiffs Rosemarie Vargas, Jazmine Spencer, Kisha Skipper, Deillo Richards, and Jenny Lin appeal from the dismissal of their Third Amended Class Action complaint against Facebook. The Ninth Circuit reviews the dismissal de novo. It reverses and remands for further proceedings. The Ninth Circuit finds that the district court erred by dismissing the operative complaint for failure to allege a concrete injury sufficient to confer Article III standing. The district court faulted the complaint for not identifying specific ads that Vargas did not see. But the Plaintiffs' very claim is that Facebook's practices concealed information from housing-seekers in protected classes. And nothing in the case law requires that a plaintiff identify specific ads that she could not see when she alleges that an ad-delivery algorithm restricted her access to housing ads in the first place. The district court also relied on the fact that only paid ads used Facebook's targeting methods, and the Plaintiffs do not specify whether the ads that Vargas' Caucasian friend saw (and that Vargas did not) were paid ads. Given the allegations concerning the magnitude of paid advertising, it is plausible to infer that one or more of the ads that Vargas could not access because of Facebook's methods was paid. If Vargas cannot prove that she was denied access to one or more paid ads, then her claims will fail on the merits -- but they do not fail for lack of standing. Vargas alleges a concrete and particularized injury -- deprivation of truthful information and housing opportunities -- whether or not she can establish all the elements of her claims later in the litigation. The district court also erred by holding that Facebook is immune from liability pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 230(c)(1), the Ninth Circuit finds. It agrees with the Plaintiffs that, taking the allegations in the complaint as true, the Plaintiffs' claims challenge Facebook's conduct as a co-developer of content and not merely as a publisher of information provided by another information content provider. Finally, Facebook urges the Ninth Circuit to conclude that the tools at issue are "neutral" because they are offered to all advertisers, not just housing advertisers, and the use of the tools in some contexts is legal. The Ninth Circuit agrees that the broad availability of the tools distinguishes this case to some extent from the website in Roommates.com, which pertained solely to housing. But it is unpersuaded that the distinction leads to a different ultimate result here. According to the complaint, Facebook promotes the effectiveness of its advertising tools specifically to housing advertisers. A patently discriminatory tool offered specifically and knowingly to housing advertisers does not become "neutral" within the meaning of this doctrine simply because the tool is also offered to others. A full-text copy of the Court's June 23, 2023 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/2mmujc9d from Leagle.com. FAMILY FIRST: Salomom Must File Class Cert. Bid by June 27, 2024 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Salomon v. Family First Life, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00351 (D. Conn., Filed March 20, 2023), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer entered an order directing the Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification by June 27, 2024. -- Any dispositive summary judgment motions shall be filed by no later than 60 days after a ruling on the Plaintiffs motion for class certification. -- The parties' joint trial memorandum is due 60 days after a ruling on the Plaintiffs motion for class certification if no motion for summary judgment, or within 30 days of the Court's ruling on any dispositive summary judgment motions. The Court will thereafter set a trial date, and the parties should be prepared to proceed to jury selection within 30 days of the filing of the joint trial memorandum. The nature of suit states Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Family First Life sells whole and universal life policies, as well as mortgage protection, final expense, annuities, and medicare supplements.[CC] FCA US: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES BLEDSOE, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. FCA US LLC, et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-14024-TGB-RSW (E.D. Mich.), the Defendants move the Court for the entry of an order granting them leave to file a sur-reply brief in response to the Plaintiffs' Reply to FCA US LLC's Opposition to the Plaintiffs' second amended motion for class certification. The Defendants seek leave for the sole purpose of addressing new facts, asserted for the first time, in the Plaintiffs' Replies. The Plaintiffs argue that the Plaintiff Dawn Roberts (who sold her Truck during the pendency of this litigation without providing notice to the Defendants or an opportunity to inspect her Truck) is not subject to a spoliation defense because "the Defendants inspected only one vehicle (belonging to a former the Plaintiff) in this litigation." The Plaintiffs fail to note, however, that the Defendants conducted this inspection of then-the Plaintiff Martin Witberg's Truck after the Plaintiffs provided notice to the Defendants of Witberg's intent to sell his Truck. To date, Witberg and Roberts are the only the Plaintiffs known to have sold their Trucks while this lawsuit has been pending. FCA US designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. The Company offers passenger cars, utility vehicles, mini-vans, trucks and commercial vans. A copy of the Court's order the Defendant's motion dated June 16, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42YyZ3y at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey A. Soble, Esq. Jonathan W. Garlough, Esq. Leah R. Imbrogno, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 321 North Clark Street, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 832-4500 Facsimile: (312) 832-4700 E-mail: jsoble@foley.com jgarlough@foley.com limbrogno@foley.com - and - Carl Rowley, Esq. Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq. Thomas L. Azar, Jr., Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP One US Bank Plaza St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 552-6000 Facsimile: (314) 552-7000 E-mail: crowley@thompsoncoburn.com sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com tazar@thompsoncoburn.com - and - Fred J. Fresard, Esq. Ian Edwards, Esq. KLEIN THOMAS LEE & FRESARD 101 W. Big Beaver Rd., Ste 1400 Troy, MI 48084 Telephone: (602) 935-8300 E-mail: Fred.fresard@kleinthomaslaw.com Ian.edwards@kleinthomaslaw.com FEDERAL EXPRESS: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Horton ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Horton v. Federal Express Corporation Case No. 1:23-cv-01151-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 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46rub9Y at no extra charge.[CC] FEDERAL EXPRESS: Reyes Suit Remanded to San Francisco Super. Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, SAUL REYES, Plaintiff v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 23-cv-00693-AMO (N.D. Cal.), Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court. Reyes allegedly worked for FedEx as an hourly, non-exempt employee from March 2019 to September 2020. He alleges that FedEx required him to use his personal cellphone to perform his job duties, including navigation and communications with supervisors, dispatch, and customers. FedEx did not provide Reyes with business phones or radios, he alleges, and the only way FedEx could reach Reyes while on route was through personal phones. Reyes allegedly told his trainer of his difficulties in using a FedEx provided printout showing his stops on his route because it was difficult to make out the streets, and the trainer advised him to navigate using his own phone. FedEx allegedly contacted Reyes on his cellphone through supervisors and dispatch. Reyes alleges that FedEx did not reimburse him for the expense associated with using his cellphone for work and did not inform him that he could request reimbursement for this business expense. Reyes seeks to represent a class of similarly situated employees and proposes the following two class definitions: Expense Reimbursement Class: All persons employed by Defendants in California who incurred business expenses using personal cellphones during the Relevant Time Period. Unfair Competition Law (UCL) Class: All Expense Reimbursement Class members employed by Defendants in California during the Relevant Time Period. Reyes did not quantify in either the original complaint or the FAC the monetary losses he attributes to FedEx's practices. Both complaints are silent on the dollar value of the claims. Reyes originally filed the case in San Francisco Superior Court on Jan. 13, 2023. FedEx removed the case to federal court on Feb. 15, 2023, on the basis that federal subject matter jurisdiction exists pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA," 28 U.S.C. Section 1332). Reyes now moves to remand the case, arguing that jurisdiction under CAFA is lacking because FedEx fails to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. Alternatively, he contends that FedEx fails to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 to support diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a)(1). The motion to remand is fully briefed. FedEx additionally requests leave to file a sur-reply in response to new cases and evidence presented in Reyes' reply brief. Judge Martinez-Olguin finds that FedEx fails to establish that the assumptions underlying its calculations to reach the $5 million threshold are reasonable. FedEx provides no basis for a 100% violation rate, and the Court must conclude it is entirely speculative. Judge Martinez-Olguin therefore finds that the amount in controversy threshold is not satisfied, and, with CAFA jurisdiction lacking, remands the case to state court. Judge Martinez-Olguin further finds that FedEx has failed to produce evidence necessary to meet its burden of showing that the potential attorney's fee award attributable just to Reyes's claims meets the amount in controversy threshold. Not every action that permits attorney's fees can be removed from in federal court on the speculative possibility that an attorney could be awarded over $75,000 per claim. That possibility seems particularly speculative in the case. Given the statutory presumption against removal in diversity actions, Judge Martinez-Olguin finds that FedEx has failed to meet its burden of showing that is more likely than not that the amount in controversy applicable to Reyes's claim exceeds $75,000. Therefore, he also grants Reyes's motion to remand on this basis. Finally, Judge Martinez-Olguin finds that FedEx's application to file a sur-reply in response to new cases and evidence presented in Reyes' reply brief violates the Local Rules. Additionally, its application must also be denied on the merits. The Reyes Declaration submitted in conjunction with the reply brief is indeed new, but FedEx fails to meet Civil Local Rule 7-3(d)(3)'s requirement that it specifically object to the Declaration's substance and not include additional argument on the motion. Rather, FedEx attempts to use the application to file a sur-reply to distinguish the cases cited in Reyes's reply brief. Therefore, FedEx's application to file a sur-reply is denied. In sum, Judge Martinez-Olguin concludes that FedEx has failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold under either CAFA or diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, she grants Reyes' motion to remand. FedEx's application to file a sur-reply is denied. Because the Court lacks jurisdiction over the case, and remands it to state court, Judge Martinez-Olguin does not reach the merits of FedEx's motion to dismiss. The Clerk is instructed to remand the matter. A full-text copy of the Court's June 23, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5y4j83ss from Leagle.com. FORT BELVOIR: Seeks Leave to File Exhibit Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chief Petty Officer JOHN FISCHER and ASHLEY FISCHER, et al., v. FORT BELVOIR RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00286-RDA-LRV (E.D. Va.), the Defendants move the Court for leave to file under seal a certain exhibit to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 14, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43XG9WR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Hilton Wise, Esq. Joseph M. Langone, Esq. WISE LAW FIRM PLC 10640 Page Avenue, Suite 320 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 934-6377 E-mail: dwise@wiselaw.pro jlangone@wiselaw.pro - and - Joel R. Rhine, Esq. Martin A. Ramey, Esq. Ruth A. Sheehan, Esq. RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C. 1612 Military Cutoff Rd., Suite 300 Wilmington, NC 28403 Telephone: (910) 772-9960 E-mail: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com mjr@rhinelawfirm.com RAS@rhinelawfirm.com - and - Mona Lisa Wallace, Esq. John Hughes, Esq. WALLACE AND GRAHAM, PA. 525 N. Main Street Salisbury, NC 28144 Telephone: (704) 633-5244 E-mail: mwallace@wallacegraham.com jhughes@wallacegraham.com - and – John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Kenya Reddy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN LAW FIRM 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 E-mail: JYanchunis@ForThePeople.com KReddy@ForThePeople.com The Defendants are represented by: Kathryn E. Bonorchis, Esq. Carly Chick, Esq. Richard G. Morgan, Esq. Tina Syring-Petrocchi, Esq. Emily Suhr, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 100 Light Street, Suite 1300 Baltimore, MD, 21202 Telephone: (410) 525-6409 Facsimile: (410) 779-3910 E-mail: Kathryn.Bonorchis@lewisbrisbois.com Carly.Chick@lewisbrisbois.com Richard.Morgan@lewisbrisbois.com Tina.Syring@lewisbrisbois.com Emily.Suhr@lewisbrisbois.com FORT BELVOIR: Seeks Leave to File Exhibit Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chief Petty Officer JOHN FISCHER and ASHLEY FISCHER, et al. v. FORT BELVOIR RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES LLC, et al. Case No. 1:22-cv-00286-RDA-LRV (E.D. Va.), the Defendants seek leave to file under seal a certain exhibit to their Opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The putative class action case arises out of claims pertaining to military housing brought by former and current residents living on the U.S. Army Garrison Fort Belvoir located in Virginia. Fort Belvoir currently contains 2,143 military family homes. On March 16, 2022, the Plaintiffs John and Ashley Fischer and Jorge and Raven Roman filed the initial Complaint in this matter. On August 8, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding the Plaintiffs John and Cassandra Lane. The current operative complaint, which is the Third Amended Complaint (TAC) filed on December 9, 2022, includes these six Plaintiffs plus an additional 26 Plaintiffs. In the TAC, the Plaintiffs assert claims arising under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA) (First Claim for Relief), and the Virginia Residential Landlord/Tenant Act (VRLTA) (Second Claim for Relief). Fort Belvoir offers privatized military housing on Fort Belvoir and is managed by The Michaels Organization. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 19, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/445POL5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Hilton Wise, Esq. Joseph M. Langone, Esq. WISE LAW FIRM PLC, Esq. 10640 Page Avenue, Suite 320 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 934-6377 E-mail: dwise@wiselaw.pro jlangone@wiselaw.pro - and - Joel R. Rhine, Esq. Martin A. Ramey, Esq. Ruth A. Sheehan, Esq. RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C. 1612 Military Cutoff Rd., Suite 300 Wilmington, NC 28403 Telephone: (910) 772-9960 E-mail: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com mjr@rhinelawfirm.com RAS@rhinelawfirm.com - and - Mona Lisa Wallace, Esq. John Hughes, Esq. WALLACE AND GRAHAM, PA. 525 N. Main Street Salisbury, NC 28144 Telephone: (704) 633-5244 E-mail: mwallace@wallacegraham.com jhughes@wallacegraham.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Kenya Reddy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN LAW FIRM 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 E-mail: JYanchunis@ForThePeople.com KReddy@ForThePeople.com The Defendants are represented by: Kathryn E. Bonorchis, Esq. Richard G, Morgan, Esq. Tina A. Syring, Esq. Emily Suhr, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 100 Light Street, Suite 130 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 525-6409 Facsimile: (410) 779-3910 E-mail: Kathryn.Bonorchis@lewisbrisbois.com FORT BELVOIR: Seeks Partial Summary Judgment v. Fischer, et al. --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHIEF PETTY OFFICER JOHN FISCHER and ASHLEY FISHER, et al., v. FORT BELVOIR RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00286-RDA-LRV (E.D. Va.), the Defendants file a motion for partial summary judgment as to the Plaintiffs' First Claim for Relief and Second Claim for Relief. The putative class action case arises out of claims pertaining to military housing brought by former and current residents living on the U.S. Army Garrison Fort Belvoir located in Virginia. Fort Belvoir currently contains 2,143 military family homes. On March 16, 2022, the Plaintiffs John and Ashley Fischer and Jorge and Raven Roman filed the initial Complaint in this matter. On August 8, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding the Plaintiffs John and Cassandra Lane. The current operative complaint, which is the Third Amended Complaint (TAC) filed on December 9, 2022, includes these six Plaintiffs plus an additional 26 Plaintiffs. In the TAC, the Plaintiffs assert claims arising under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA) (First Claim for Relief), and the Virginia Residential Landlord/Tenant Act (VRLTA) (Second Claim for Relief). Fort Belvoir offers privatized military housing on Fort Belvoir and is managed by The Michaels Organization. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 19, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/444NUdS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Hilton Wise, Esq. Joseph M. Langone, Esq. WISE LAW FIRM PLC, Esq. 10640 Page Avenue, Suite 320 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 934-6377 E-mail: dwise@wiselaw.pro jlangone@wiselaw.pro - and - Joel R. Rhine, Esq. Martin A. Ramey, Esq. Ruth A. Sheehan, Esq. RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C. 1612 Military Cutoff Rd., Suite 300 Wilmington, NC 28403 Telephone: (910) 772-9960 E-mail: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com mjr@rhinelawfirm.com RAS@rhinelawfirm.com - and - Mona Lisa Wallace, Esq. John Hughes, Esq. WALLACE AND GRAHAM, PA. 525 N. Main Street Salisbury, NC 28144 Telephone: (704) 633-5244 E-mail: mwallace@wallacegraham.com jhughes@wallacegraham.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Kenya Reddy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN LAW FIRM 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 E-mail: JYanchunis@ForThePeople.com KReddy@ForThePeople.com The Defendants are represented by: Kathryn E. Bonorchis, Esq. Richard G, Morgan, Esq. Tina A. Syring, Esq. Emily Suhr, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 100 Light Street, Suite 130 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 525-6409 Facsimile: (410) 779-3910 E-mail: Kathryn.Bonorchis@lewisbrisbois.com FRY POWERS: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Eva Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EVA'S PHOTOGRAPHY INC., v. FRY POWERS LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00747-ALC-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah L. Cave entered a general pretrial management order including scheduling discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement. -- All pretrial motions and applications, including those relating to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Cave and must comply with her Individual Practices, available on the Court’s website at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-sarah-l-cave. A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pmBJdc at no extra charge.[CC] GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Court Approves FLSA Conditional Status in Kenan ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOYA KENAN and MONICA COOPER, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. GLOBAL PAYMENTS, INC. and TOTAL SYSTEMS SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00089-CDL (M.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Clay D. Land entered an order conditionally certifying the action as a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action for current and former RFSs employed by the Defendants during the last three years. The parties shall confer and submit to the Court within 21 days of today's Order the following: (1) a joint proposed notice and consent form for Court approval, and (2) a joint proposal on the methodology for class notification. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have met their burden for conditional certification. -- First, the Plaintiffs sufficiently demonstrated that they are similarly situated to other RFSs. -- Further, the Plaintiffs' declarations extensively describe how RFSs received the same training, followed the same policies, and experienced common treatment. -- Thus, the Plaintiffs have sufficiently established for conditional certification purposes that they are similarly situated to other RFSs. The Plaintiffs Toya Kenan and Monica Cooper filed this action to recover unpaid overtime wages, in part under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). the Plaintiffs move to conditionally certify this action as an FLSA collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The Defendants Global Payments, Inc. and Total Systems Services, LLC oppose certification, arguing that the Plaintiffs have not established that similarly situated individuals wish to opt into this action. Global Payments is an American multinational financial technology company that provides payment technology and services to merchants, issuers and consumers A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Nqg248 at no extra charge.[CC] GOBRANDS INC: Beer Must File Class Certification Bid by July 19 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN BEER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GOBRANDS, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-07386-FMO-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order granting joint stipulation to continue deadline to file motion for class certification and preliminary approval of class settlement agreement. -- The Plaintiff shall file a Motion for Class Certification and Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement no later than July 19, 2023. Gobrands offers cleaning and home products, medicine, pet care, office supplies, beauty and wellness items, baby essentials, and food and drinks. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/444BP8k at no extra charge.[CC] GRANITE SERVICES: Seeks to Certify June 9, 2023 Order in Greinstein ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HERMAN GREINSTEIN, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated, v. GRANITE SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, INC. and FIELDCORE SERVICES SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00208-Z-BR (N.D. Tex.), the Defendant files a motion to certify June 9, 2023 order for section 1292(b) interlocutory appeal and to administratively close and stay case pending resolution of appeal. The FCR's interpretation of 29 C.F.R. section 541.604(a), adopted by this Court, that an employee must be paid even if he does not work for an entire week, is ripe for interlocutory appellate review. It is a controlling question of pure law on which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion. Immediate review will efficiently and materially advance the termination of this case. It will also advance a number of related cases at earlier stages of litigation. Accordingly, the Court should enter an Order certifying its June 9 Order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. section 1292(b) and administratively closing and staying this case. The Defendant FieldCore Service Solutions, LLC moves the Court to certify for interlocutory appellate review its June 9, 2023 Order holding that the Plaintiffs are not exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and its implementing regulations. Granite Services provides professional engineering services. The Company provides service solutions to the power generation industry. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 14, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46ryD8D at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Kelly D. Utsinger, Esq. UNDERWOOD LAW FIRM, P.C. 500 S. Taylor, Suite 1200 LB 233 Amarillo, TX 79101 Telephone: (806) 376-5613 E-mail: kelly.utsinger@uwlaw.com - and - Brett C. Bartlett, Esq. Kevin M. Young, Esq. Zheyao Li, Esq. Theresa M. Waugh, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 1075 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2500 Atlanta, GA 30309-3958 Telephone: (404) 885-1500 E-mail: bbartlett@seyfarth.com kyoung@seyfarth.com zyli@seyfarth.com twaugh@seyfarth.com GREENIX HOLDINGS: Kirkpatrick Seeks to Certify Collective Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLARENCE KIRKPATRICK, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. GREENIX HOLDINGS, LLC, dba Greenix Pest Control, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00033-JNP-JCB (D. Utah), the Plaintiff Kirkpatrick, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, moves the Court pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for entry of an order: (1) Conditionally certifying the Plaintiff's proposed collective FLSA class defined as: "All persons who at any point within the last three years were employed by the Defendant Greenix to perform pest control activities and related services at a customer’s location (such persons may be referred to as "Pest Control Technicians") and were so employed for a period of at least one week." (2) Approving a Notice of this lawsuit to be sent to putative class members which informs them of their rights and provides them with an opportunity to join the action; (3) Requiring the Defendant Greenix Holdings LLC to, within 14 days of this Court's order conditionally certifying the proposed collective FLSA class, provide a list in electronic and importable format, of the name, last known mailing address, e-mail address(es) (work and personal), telephone numbers, work location(s) and dates of employment of all persons meeting the class definition as set forth in paragraph (1) above, which the Plaintiff’s counsel will then use to issue Notice of this lawsuit. The Plaintiff Kirkpatrick was a Pest Control Technician for the Defendant Greenix, providing pest control services to Greenix's customers. Kirkpatrick and other Pest Control Technicians were forced to perform certain job duties off-the-clock such as preparatory work, cleaning tasks, client marketing and communication, laundering uniforms and drive time. Greenix is in the pest control business. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 19, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Px2WEN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: April L. Hollingsworth, Esq. Katie Panzer, Esq. HOLLINGSWORTH LAW OFFICE, LLC 1881 South 1100 East Salt Lake City, UT 84105 Telephone: (801)415-9909 Facsimile: (801) 303-7324 E-mail: april@aprilhollingsworthlaw.com katie@aprilhollingsworthlaw.com - and - Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq. Shmuel S. Kleinman, Esq. DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A. 60 South Park Place Painesville, OH, 44077 Telephone: (440) 352-3391 Facsimile: (440) 352-3469 E-mail: nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com skleinman@dworkenlaw.com HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: July 24 Extension to File Class Cert Bid Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIKI O'HAILPIN, NINA ARIZUMI, ROBERT ESPINOSA, ERWIN YOUNG, PUANANI BADIANG, SABRINA FRANKS, RONALD LUM, DAN SAIKI, and BRANDEE AUKAI, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC. and HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00532-JAO-RT (D. Haw.), the Parties stipulated and agreed extending the class certification as follows: Event Old Deadline New Deadline Deadline to complete class June 13, 2023 June 23, 2023 certification-related discovery the Plaintiffs' motion due July 14, 2023 July 24, 2023 the Defendants' response due Aug. 14, 2023 Aug. 24, 2023 the Plaintiffs' reply due Aug. 28, 2023 Sept. 7, 2023 On March 14, 2023, the Court set a schedule for class certification discovery and for the briefing on the motion for class certification. On May 19, 2023, the parties sought and the Court granted a two-week extension on the schedule for class certification discovery and for the briefing on the motion for class certification. The parties have been working to agree on the scope of discovery necessary for class certification so as to meet the deadlines with the goal of not needing to raise discovery issues with the Court. Hawaiian Airlines provides airline services. The Company offers baggage handling, cargo, and flight information, as well as bookings for vacation packages, hotels, and cruises. A copy of the Court's order dated June 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46lJYXF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Hochberg, Esq. JAMES HOCHBERG, A.A.L. LLLC Bishop Street Tower, Ste. 2100 700 Bishop Street Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 534-1514 Facsimile: (808) 538-3075 E-mail: jim@jameshochberglaw.com - and - John C. Sullivan, Esq. Austin R. Nimocks, Esq. Jace Yarbrough, Esq. S|L LAW PLLC 610 Uptown Blvd., Ste. 2000 Cedar Hill, TX 75104 Telephone: (469) 523-1351 Facsimile: (469) 613-0891 E-mail: john.sullivan@the-sl-lawfirm.com austin.nimocks@the-sl-lawfirm.com jace.yarbrough@the-sl-lawfirm.com - and - Walker Moller, Esq. SIRI | GLIMSTAD 700 S. Flower St., Ste. 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 376-3739 E-mail: wmoller@sirillp.com The Defendants are represented by: Paul Alston, Esq. Nickolas A. Kacprowski, Esq. John Rhee, Esq. Christine Belcaid , Esq. HB&H LLC: Bid for Summary Judgment Partly OK'd ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOER FARES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. H, B, & H, LLC, d/b/a On the Border Gentlemen's Club, GERALD HAY, and DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:21-cv-00753-NJ (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Nancy Joseph entered an order: -- granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment; and -- granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. The Plaintiffs, former dancers at OTB, argue that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA's) wage requirements by failing to pay them a minimum wage, taking illegal kickbacks, and forcing them to tip-share. Both parties moved for summary judgment in their favor as to whether the Defendants misclassified the Plaintiffs as independent contractors when they were in fact employees under the FLSA. Judge Joseph said, "I find that the Plaintiffs are indeed employees of the Defendants, not independent contractors. As such, the Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as to this issue is granted. The Defendants, however, also moved for summary judgment in their favor on the merits of the Plaintiffs' wage claims, arguing that the Plaintiffs cannot establish that the Defendants are covered under either individual or enterprise coverage under the FLSA." I find that the undisputed facts show that, as a matter of law, the Plaintiffs are not individually covered under the FLSA and OTB is not covered under enterprise coverage. For these reasons, the Plaintiffs' wage claims fail and summary judgment is granted in favor of the Defendants as to these three causes of action. While the Plaintiffs also moved for summary judgment declaring that the Defendants' good faith defense under the FLSA fails as a matter of law, because their FLSA claims fail, the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as to the good faith defense is denied, Judge Joseph adds. Noer Fares filed this collective action complaint against her former employer H, B, & H, LLC d/b/a On the Border Gentlemen's Club (OTB), Gerald Hay, and Does 1-10 for alleged violations of the FLSA, specifically, failure to pay minimum wages, taking illegal kickbacks, and forced tip sharing. A copy of the Court's order dated June 14, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pnAQRM at no extra charge.[CC] HOAG MEMORIAL: Davis Suit Remanded to Orange County Superior Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Cormac J. Carney of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, grants the Plaintiff's motion to remand the case, KELLY DAVIS, Plaintiff v. HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN, Defendant, Case No. SACV 23-00772-CJC (ADSx) (C.D. Cal.). In this putative class action, Davis alleges that Hoag conspires with Facebook to intercept communications containing personally identifiable information, protected health information, and related confidential information. Hoag removed the case to this Court under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1). When removing the case, Hoag noted that it is related to another case before this Court, Doe v. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Case No. SACV 23-04444-CJC (ADSx) ("Doe"), in which Hoag made the same arguments regarding applicability of the federal officer removal statute under similar circumstances. The day before Hoag removed this case, the Court granted a motion to remand in Doe, explaining that the federal officer removal statute did not apply. Now before the Court is the Plaintiff's motion to remand the case. Hoag uses a Facebook (or Meta) tool called Facebook Pixel as a component of its website analytics practices to drive patients to its websites and to the patient portal. It asserts that the federal government, through the "Meaningful Use" program, has incentivized and directed providers who participate in the Medicare and Medicaid program (like Hoag) to offer patients online access to their medical records, and to optimize patient engagement with their medical information. As part of that program, the federal government gives incentive payments to healthcare providers who promote patient engagement through the meaningful use of certified electronic health record technology. The federal government also provided guidance about how private providers could optimize their online health portals and offered a model for providers to follow that used third-party marketers like Facebook and Google to increase engagement. The Plaintiff alleges that through the Facebook Pixel, Hoag shares its patients' identities and online activity, including information and search results related to their private medical treatment. She asserts that whenever patients search their treatment or condition, or whenever patients schedule an appointment, Hoag procures Facebook to intercept communications that contain protected health information. Each time Hoag sends this activity data, it also discloses a patient's personally identifiable information, including their Facebook ID ('FID'), which is a unique and persistent identifier that Facebook assigns to each user. Although the Plaintiff never consented to Hoag disclosing her personally identifiable information and protected health information, it nonetheless knowingly disclosed her protected health information to Facebook. Hoag asserts that the federal officer removal statute applies because in helping the federal government develop a nationwide infrastructure for health information technology, it acted within the penumbra of federal action and office. Judge Carney holds that Hoag is wrong. Hoag has not shown that it acted under the direction of a federal officer or agency. Further, mere compliance with federal regulations, even if the regulation is highly detailed and even if the private firm's activities are highly supervised and monitored, does not fall within the scope of Section 1442(a). Thus, while the Meaningful Use program may subject private entities like Hoag to some degree of government control, simply complying with a law or regulation is not enough to bring a private person within the scope of the statute. In short, Hoag has established only that it is subject to "highly detailed" regulations and that its activities are highly supervised and monitored. That is not sufficient to invoke federal officer removal. Therefore, the Plaintiff's motion to remand is granted. The action is remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange. A full-text copy of the Court's June 23, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/kt9yjp7x from Leagle.com. HOMEWORKS ENERGY: Giguere Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH GIGUERE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. HOMEWORKS ENERGY, INC., MARTIJN FLEUREN, individually and MAX VEGGEBERG, individually, Case No. 3:21-cv-30015-MGM (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending deadlines for filing and responding to class certification motions for 14 days as follows: Event Current Date Proposed Date Motions for Class Certification June 21, 2023 July 5, 2023 filed by: Oppositions to Motions for Class July 21, 2023 Aug. 4, 2023 Certification filed by: Reply to Motions for Class Aug. 15, 2023 Aug. 29, 2023 Certification served by: HomeWorks Energy is an environmental services company in Boston. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 16, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O2mCPT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond Dinsmore, Esq. Richard E. Hayber, Esq. HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC One Monarch Place, Suite 1340 Springfield, MA 01144 Telephone: (413) 785-1400 Facsimile: (860) 218-9555 E-mail: RDinsmore@hayberlawfirm.com RHayber@hayberlawfirm.com INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARKIN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL v. Intuitive Surgical Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-03825-AMO (N.D. Cal.), Intuitive requests that the Court extend its deadline to file its opposition to plaintiffs' anticipated motion for class certification from August 17, 2023, to 30 days after the Court rules on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. In the alternative, if the Court extends plaintiffs' deadline to file their motion for class certification until after the summary judgment motions are resolved, Intuitive asks that its opposition be due 35 days thereafter, consistent with the current schedule. The Plaintiffs contended in the parties' case management statement that it was inappropriate to extend the deadline for their motion because: (1) Judge Chhabria previously stated he did not expect to grant further extensions of the case schedule; and (2) they have already begun preliminary work on their motion for class certification. Intuitive Surgical is an American corporation that develops, manufactures, and markets robotic products designed to improve clinical outcomes of patients through minimally invasive surgery. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 19, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rcp90y at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Sonya D. Winner, Esq. Cortlin h. Lannin, Esq. Isaac D. Chaput, Esq. Andrew Lazerow, Esq. Ashley E. Bass, Esq. John Kendrick, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP Salesforce Tower 415 Mission Street, Suite 5400 San Francisco, CA 94105-2533 Telephone: (415) 591-6000 Facsimile: (415) 591-6091 E-mail: swinner@cov.com clannin@cov.com ichaput@cov.com alazerow@cov.com abass@cov.com jkendrick@cov.com - and - Allen Ruby, Esq. ALLEN RUBY, ATTORNEY AT LAW 15559 Union Ave. No. 138 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Telephone: (408) 477-9690 E-mail: allen@allenruby.com - and - Karen Hoffman Lent, Esq. Michael H. Menitove, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP One Manhattan West New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 735-3000 Facsimile: (212) 735-2040 E-mail: karen.lent@skadden.com michael.menitove@skadden.com JERNIGAN CAPITAL: Seeks More Time to Object to Judge's Report ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Erickson v. Jernigan Capital, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-09575-JLR-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants request a two-week extension of time in which to file objections to Magistrate Judge Parker's Report and Recommendation regarding the Plaintiff's motion for class certification -- from June 26, 2023, to July 10, 2023. The Report & Recommendation was issued on June 12, 2023, with objections due 14 days later. The Defendants seek a two-week extension of that deadline in light of (1) the complex nature of the issues implicated in the Report & Recommendation and (2) defense counsel’s previously scheduled and immovable conflicts during the original 14-day response period (including, among other things, a two-week trial scheduled to begin on June 20, 2023). The parties' proposed briefing schedule as follows: -- The Defendants' Objections to Report and Recommendation: July 10, 2023 -- The Plaintiff's Response to Objections: August 7, 2023 -- The Defendants' Reply: August 21, 2023 Jernigan Capital, Inc. is a commercial real estate finance company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46rjLH6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew L. Dirisio, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 294-6700 Facsimile: (212) 294-4700 E-mail: mdirisio@winston.com JODI HARPSTEAD: Class Settlement in Murphy Suit Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tenner Murphy, by his guardian Kay Murphy; Marrie Bottelson; Dionne Swanson; and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. Jodi Harpstead, in her Capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, Case No. 0:16-cv-02623-DWF-LIB (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge Donovan W. Frank entered an order 1. Granting the parties' joint motion for final approval of settlement; 2. Granting the parties' joint motion for attorney's fees and Overall, the Court concludes that the Agreement warrants approval. The objectors have raised a number of concerns about the agreement, including the Agreement's failure to address direct care services. The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs. While the objectors' concerns may have merit, these issues fall outside the scope of this litigation. Indeed, requests for changes in funding or access to direct care services may be best addressed through the legislature, rather than litigation. Moreover, the objectors suggest a number of changes to the Agreement that would have made the Agreement better for the class members. Again, while this may be true, the standard for the Court is not whether the objectors could have negotiated a better deal but whether the Agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. The Court concludes that it is. The parties also filed a joint motion for attorney's fees and costs. The parties request that the Court award the Plaintiffs' attorneys $1,138,000.00 in costs and attorney's fees associated with this matter. The Plaintiffs' counsel has documented more than 17,000 hours of work on the case. They estimate their total attorney's fees to be approximately $5 million and total costs to be over $187,000.00 Having considered the materials submitted by the parties in support of this motion, the Court finds that award for attorney's fees and costs to be appropriate and reasonable, given the lengthy procedural history of the case and the complexity of the issues. In August 2016, the Plaintiffs brought this action against Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS), asserting that the Defendant's overreliance on Community Residential Setting (CRS) facilities to serve people with disabilities results in segregation. The Plaintiffs are individuals with disabilities and Medicaid recipients who receive a Home and Community-Based Disability Waiver from the State of Minnesota under the direction of the Defendant. The Plaintiffs reside, or did reside, in CRS facilities and wish to access various individualized housing services available under the Disability Waivers to pursue more integrated housing options. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant fails to inform persons receiving a Disability Waiver of individualized housing service options and further fails to explain how to access such services. The Plaintiffs brought four claims against the Defendant: (1) failure to furnish Medicaid services with reasonable promptness; (2) violation of the Plaintiffs' Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Medicaid Act's advance notice and fair hearing requirements; (3) violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); and (4) violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint in August 2016. The following month, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court later denied. The Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, certifying the following class: "All individuals age 18 and older who are eligible and have received a Disability Waiver, live in a licensed Community Residential Setting, and have not been given the choice and opportunity to reside in the most integrated residential setting appropriate to their needs." A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XpVMnE at no extra charge.[CC] L'OREAL USA: Faces Cabiltes Suit Over Biometric Collection ---------------------------------------------------------- KRISTA CABILTES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L'OREAL USA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-05080 (C.D. Cal., June 26, 2023) alleges violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, L'Oreal collects, stores, possesses, otherwise obtains, uses, and disseminates its users' biometric identifiers or biometric information to, amongst other things, further enhance L'Oreal and its online sales. L'Oreal wrongfully profits from the biometric identifiers or biometric information it has collected or otherwise obtained from its users. L'Oreal disclosed, redisclosed, or otherwise disseminated the Plaintiff's biometric information (1) without the Plaintiff's consent; (2) without the Plaintiff's authorization to complete a financial transaction requested or authorized by the Plaintiff; (3) without being required by State or federal law or municipal ordinance; or (4) without being required pursuant to a valid warrant or subpoena issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, says the suit. L'Oreal USA, Inc. manufactures and markets cosmetic products. The Company's cosmetic line includes brand names such as L'Oreal, L'Oreal Professionel, Maybelline, Ralph Lauren Fragrances, and Georgio Armani Parfums. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leah M. Beligan, Esq. Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq. BELIGAN LAW GROUP, LLP 19800 MacArthur Blvd., Ste. 300 Newport Beach, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 224-3881 Email: lmbeligan@bbclawyers.net jbeligan@bbclawyers.net - and - Michael L. Fradin, Esq. FRADIN LAW 8 N. Court St. Suite 403 Athens, Ohio 45701 Telephone: (847) 986-5889 Facsimile: (847) 673-1228 Email: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 5000 Rockside Road Liberty Plaza - Suite 520 Independence, OH 44131 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 Email: james@simonsayspay.com LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Cert Hearing Rescheduled to August 21 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dennis Bradshaw v. City of Los Angeles et al, Case No. 2:19-cv-06661-VAP-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Virginia A. Phillips entered an order rescheduling the hearing on the motion to bifurcate discovery into class certification and merits phases to August 21, 2023. All counsel shall participate in the filing of an Amended Joint Rule 26(f) report to be filed 7 days prior to the hearing date. Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the center of the nation’s film and television industry. A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qXK1sl at no extra charge.[CC] LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY, KY: Scott Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ATTICA SCOTT, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00535-BJB-CHL (W.D. Ky.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the class under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2): "All individuals who were present and peaceful1 at any protest within the City of Louisville between May 28, 2020 and July 30, 2020 during which LMPD officers utilized tear gas, flash bangs, pepper balls, and/or long-range acoustic devices ("LRADs") (referred to together as "Crowd Control Weaponry"), and who were actually exposed to Crowd Control Weaponry at those protests." On behalf of this class, the Plaintiffs will seek an order enjoining the Defendants from using Crowd Control Weaponry on peaceful people at protests, and requiring the Defendants to promulgate official policies restricting the use of Crowd Control Weaponry to only those individuals who pose an imminent risk of serious physical danger to an officer or others. The proposed class includes only peaceful people who were present at protests and who were subjected to Crowd Control Weaponry. During the summer of 2020, the Louisville Metro Police Department ("LMPD") used tear gas, pepper balls, and other military-grade weaponry on thousands of people simply because they attended a protest. Nearly all the victims were peacefully present at the protests: They posed no threat of harm to anyone, nor did they destroy any public or private property. They simply exercised their fundamental right to make their voices heard in support of racial justice, and to demand that Louisville's leaders effect institutional change. The Plaintiffs include CORBIN SMITH, KAYLA MEISNER, TYLER WEAKLEY, STEVIE SCHAUER, WILLA TINSLEY, PATRICK MOORE, and the KENTUCKY ALLIANCE AGAINST RACIAL AND POLITICAL REPRESSION. The Defendants include GREG FISCHER, individually and in his official capacity as Mayor of Louisville, ROBERT SCHROEDER, individually and in his official capacity as Interim Chief of the Louisville Metropolitan Police Department, LaVITA CHAVOUS, individually and in her official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Louisville Metropolitan Police Department, and LOUISVILLE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICER "J. " JOHNSON, LOUISVILLE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICERS JOHN DOES Nos. 1-15 and JANE DOE No. 1, in their individual capacities. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 16, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3r8tySr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ashok Chandran, Esq. Christopher Kemmitt, Esq. Anne Oredeko, Esq. Catherine Logue, Esq. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 40 Rector St., 5th Floor New York, NY 10006 Telephone.: (212) 965-2200 Facsimile: (212) 226-7592 E-mail: achandran@naacpldf.org ckemmitt@naacpldf.org aoredeko@naacpldf.org clogue@naacpldf.org - and - Samuel Shapiro, Esq. Andrew K. Jondahl, Esq. EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF ABADY WARD & MAAZEL LLP 600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 763-5000 E-mail: sshapiro@ecbawm.com ajondahl@ecbawm.com - and - Corey Shapiro, Esq. Heather Gatnarek, Esq. Kevin Muench, Esq. ACLU OF KENTUCKY FOUNDATION, INC. 325 W. Main St. Suite 2210 Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 581-9746 E-mail: corey@aclu-ky.org heather@aclu-ky.org kevin@aclu-ky.org LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Suit Seeks to Continue Class Cert Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PASSION GABOUREL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA INC. d/b/a LENSCRAFTERS, an Ohio corporation; LUXOTTICA RETAIL NORTH AMERICA, INC., a business entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-00471-FWS-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff applies for an ex parte order granting continuance of the Plaintiff's deadline to file her Motion for Class Certification. This application is based on the following grounds: (1) the Plaintiff’s deadline is currently set for June 16, 2023. (2) The Parties agreed to mediate this matter with mediator Marc Feder on his next available date, February 27, 2023. (3) The Plaintiff served her first set of discovery on the Defendant on February 22, 2022, and the Defendant served its responses to the Plaintiff’s first set of written discovery, which included objections, on April 21, 2022. (3) On May 11, 2022, the Plaintiff sent the Defendant a meet and confer letter pursuant to Local Rule 37-1 and a draft Belaire- West notice to address the Defendant's objection regarding the privacy of putative class members. (4) On May 23, 2022, counsel for the parties participated in a conference of counsel pursuant to Local Rules 7-3 and 37-1. (5) On August 16, 2022, Magistrate Judge Maria A. Audero held an Informal Discovery Conference and ordered that a second Informal Discovery Conference be held on August 30, 2022. (6) During the second Informal Discovery Conference on August 30, 2022, the Defendant’s counsel stated that it intended to file a motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss the Plaintiff’s class and representative claims. (7) On August 30, 2022, the Defendant filed its motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss the Plaintiff’s class and representative claims. (8) On September 29, 2022, the Court issued an order staying discovery pending the outcome of the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and extending the Parties' class certification briefing deadlines, including: -- the Plaintiff's deadline to file her motion for class certification to February 17, 2023, -- the Defendant's deadline to file its opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification to April 24, 2023, and -- the Plaintiff's deadline to file her reply in support of her motion to class certification to May 19, 2023. Luxottica designs, manufactures and distributes fashion, luxury, sports and performance eyewear. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 15, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Px4Rcz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Mikael H. Stahle, Esq. Irina A. Kirnosova, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Ave No. 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (424) 532-8868 The Defendant is represented by: Khatereh Sage Fahimi, Esq. Noah J. Woods, Esq. Heidi E. Hegewald, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101.3577 Telephone: (619) 232-0441 Facsimile: (619) 232-4302 E-mail: sfahimi@littler.com nwoods@littler.com hhegewald@littler.com LYNNHAVEN INN: Windheim Files Suit Over Alleged Tip Skimming ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSHUA WINDHEIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LYNNHAVEN INN, INC. d/b/a UPPER DECK ALE & SPORTS GRILLE, Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-015128 (Fla., Cir., June 23, 2023) seek to recover all tips kept by the Defendants, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Windheim was employed by the Defendant as a server. LYNNHAVEN INN, INC. d/b/a UPPER DECK ALE & SPORTS GRILLE owns, operates, and controls the Upper Deck Ale & Sports Grille restaurant located at Hallandale Beach, Florida. [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 Tel: (954) 871-0050 Email: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com MARCHESE & CO: Court Tosses Renewed Class Cert Bid w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALFREDO GOMEZ, v. V MARCHESE & CO and CUT FRESH LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01802-PP (E.D. WIs.), the Hon. Judge Pamela Pepper entered an order: -- Denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification; -- Denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion to supplement class certification record; -- Denying the plaintiff's expedited non-dispositive motion for leave to file surreply brief; -- Denying without prejudice the plaintiff's partial motion for summary Judgment; -- Denying the Defendants' expedited nondispositive motion to strike plaintiff's motion for class certification; -- Denying the Defendants' expedited Non-dispositive motion for leave to file surreply brief; -- Denying the Defendant's motion for Reconsideration and setting briefing schedule. The plaintiff may file a renewed motion for class certification and/or a renewed for summary judgment by the end of the day on July 7, 2023. The defendants may file their opposition briefs to the plaintiff's renewed motions by the end of the day on July 28, 2023. Marchese is a family-owned company providing fresh produce, dairy, and spices to restaurateurs and culinary professional. A copy of the Court's order dated June 19, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NVddtl at no extra charge.[CC] MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Wiacek Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- AUGUSTYN WIACEK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONDELEZ GLOBAL LLC; MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LLC; MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL, INC.; and BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04023 (N.D. Ill., June 24, 2023) alleges violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. According to the complaint, between February 23, 2023, and March 1, 2023, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP ("BCLP"), a law firm with "extensive experience handling the full scope of complex privacy and security issues," lost control over its client Mondelez's current and former employees' highly sensitive personal information in a data breach perpetuated by cybercriminals ("Data Breach"). Mondelez chose to allow BCLP access and control over its current and formers' employees' highly sensitive personal information. The Data Breach began on or around February 23, 2023, when an unauthorized party gained access to BCLP's network, and was not discovered by BCLP until four days later, on February 27, 2022. Mondelez's Breach Notice obfuscated the nature of the breach and the threat it posed—refusing to tell its employees how many people were impacted, how the breach happened, or why it took the Mondelez almost three months to begin notifying victims that hackers had gained access to highly sensitive PII, says the suit. The Defendants' failure to timely detect and report the Data Breach made the victims vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their PII, the suit added. MONDELEZ GLOBAL LLC was founded in 2012. The Company is a manufacturer of processed Cheese. Mondelez Global LLC serves customers in the State of Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Brittany Resch, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 Email: raina@turkestrauss.com sam@turkestrauss.com brittanyr@turkestrauss.com NATIONWIDE CHILDREN: Williams Conditional Cert Bid Nixed --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bri'Ana Williams, V. Nationwide Children's Hospital, Case No. 2:22-cv-03518-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael H. Watson entered an order denying without prejudice the motion for conditional certification, to refiling a new motion under the dark framework. In addition, the previously imposed stay is lifted; the parties shall submit their Rule 26(f) report within 21 days. In dark v. A&L Homecare & Training Ctr., LLC, Case No. 22-3101, 2023 WL 3559657 (6th Cir. May 19, 2023), the Sixth Circuit outlined a new framework courts and parties should use when determining whether other employees are "similarly situated" in Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) cases. Among other things, the Sixth Circuit explained that the two-step certification process (and, indeed, the use of the term "certification" itself) is incorrect. Nationwide Children's Hospital is a comprehensive pediatric hospital and research institute in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XKTvnr at no extra charge.[CC] PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Dec. 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY YAGHYAZARIAN and ELENA THORMAHLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY and PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Ohio corporations, Case No. 2:22-cv-01339-CDS-VCF (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Cam Ferenbach entered an order extending time to complete fact discovery and amend the case management order as follows: Current Proposed Deadline Deadline -- Parties Fact Discovery July 10, 2023 Nov. 7, 2023 -- The Plaintiffs' Expert Aug. 9, 2023 Dec. 7, 2023 Disclosures: -- The Plaintiffs' Motion Aug. 9, 2023 Dec. 7, 2023 for Class Certification -- The Defendants' Oct. 13, 2023 Feb. 12, 2024 Expert Disclosures: -- The Defendants' Opposition Oct. 13, 2023 Feb 12, 2024 to Class Certification: -- The Plaintiffs' Reply in Nov. 27, 2023 March 26, 2024 Support of Class Certification: The case is one of 32 nearly identical statewide class actions against the Defendants and its affiliates challenging the calculation of the Projected Sold Adjustment (PSA) in valuing total-loss claims (the "PSA Cases"). King & Spalding LLP represents the defendants in all the PSA Cases, and Shamis & Gentile P.A., Edelsberg Law P.A., Normand PLLC, and Carney Bates & Pulliam represent nearly all plaintiffs in the PSA Cases. Counsel for the Parties are actively litigating approximately thirty (30) other PSA Cases, with expert reports, class certification briefs, or dispositive motion briefs due nearly every week from June through November 2023. On December 5, 2022, the Court granted the Parties' Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order, which set a fact discovery deadline of July 10, 2023. Progressive Direct operates as an insurance company. The Company underwrites auto, fire, marine, and casualty insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NSnCFW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gustavo Ponce, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 6069 S. Fort Apache Rd., Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89148 - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Christopher Gold, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 The Defendants are represented by: Allison Hill White, Esq. Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq. Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq. J. Matthew Brigman, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30309 - and - James E. Whitmire, Esq. SANTORO WHITMIRE 10100 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite 250 Las Vegas, NV 89135 - and - Julia C. Barrett KING &SPALDING LLP 500 W. 2nd Street Austin, TX 78701 RELIANT REHABILITATION: E.D. Kentucky Dismisses Claims in Cox Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JORDYN COX, et al., Plaintiffs v. RELIANT REHABILITATION HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil No. 3:22-cv-00046-GFVT (E.D. Ky.), Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Central Division, Frankfort, grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and dismisses the Plaintiffs' claims. The matter is before the Court on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Three former residents of skilled nursing facilities bring this action against companies that provided physical therapy during their stays. The Plaintiffs allege that they were defrauded because they were not good candidates for the therapy the Defendants provided. The Defendants now move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs Jordan Cox, Taylor McVay, and David Bleeker are the administrators of the estates of Karl Belcher, Timothy Farrow, and Della Bleeker. At different times between 2011 and 2015, they each resided at a skilled nursing facility in Kentucky. The skilled nursing facilities contracted with Defendants Reliant Rehabilitation Holdings and Reliant Pro Rehab, who provided rehabilitation therapy services to the nursing homes' residents. Belcher received gait training rehabilitation therapy by the Defendants from July 2012 to March 2013. Farrow received therapy from June 2013 to March 2015. And Bleeker received therapy for about two weeks in August 2015. The complaint alleges that each resident had conditions that made them poor candidates for rehabilitation therapy: Belcher was a paraplegic, Farrow had congenital hydrocephalitis affecting his mental responses and one leg amputated, and Bleeker was paralyzed and suffered from contractures. Each died from unrelated causes in January 2017. The Plaintiff administrators filed their original complaint on Aug. 19, 2022, against the Defendants for fraud, fiduciary, and RICO claims. In essence, they allege that the Defendants fraudulently provided and billed for unnecessary and inappropriate rehabilitation therapy. After the Plaintiffs amended the complaint, the Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs brought their claims after the limitations period expired. And even if the claims were timely, the Plaintiffs do not allege a plausible claim for relief. The Plaintiffs bring claims against the Defendants for fraud and aiding and abetting fraud, arguing that the Defendants misrepresented therapy services they provided. But Judge Van Tatenhove opines that the Plaintiffs' fraud claims must be dismissed because the Plaintiffs failed to bring the claims within Kentucky's limitations period for fraud. And even if the claims were timely, the Plaintiffs fail to plead fraud with the particularity required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Van Tatenhove opines that the statute of limitations bars the Plaintiffs' fraud claims because Belcher, Farrow, and Bleeker knew or with reasonable diligence should have known about the alleged fraud when receiving the therapy. Yet even if the Plaintiffs' fraud claims were timely, the Plaintiffs do not state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud. Consequently, the Plaintiffs' fraud and aiding and abetting fraud claims will be dismissed. The Plaintiffs plead a claim against the Defendants under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' RICO claim is barred by the statute of limitations. The Plaintiffs concede that they received notice of their claims, including the existence of the facts underlying the causes of action alleged, on Nov. 13, 2017 -- four years and nine months before they filed their RICO claims. Judge Van Tatenhove opines that the four-year period begins to run when the Plaintiff knew or should have known that they were injured by a RICO violation. The Plaintiffs do not dispute that the statute of limitations bars their claims if a four-year period applies. And because the Plaintiffs failed to bring their RICO claims within the four-year period, the claims are barred. Finally, the Plaintiffs bring claims for breach of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties. The Defendants argue that the statute of limitations also bars the Plaintiffs' fiduciary claims. A five-year limitations period applies to an action for breach of fiduciary duty. Yet, Judge Van Tatenhove opines that unlike with fraud and RICO claims, the discovery rule does not apply to fiduciary duty claims. So, the limitations period begins to run when the alleged breach of duty occurred, not when the Plaintiffs discovered it. The Plaintiffs do not dispute that the alleged breach of fiduciary duties occurred before August 2017. In other words, Kentucky's tolling statute does not apply to nonresidents of Kentucky. The Reliant Defendants are not residents of Kentucky. The complaint alleges that Reliant Rehabilitation Holdings is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Texas and Reliant Pro Rehab is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Texas. The Plaintiffs do not argue that the Defendants are residents of Kentucky. Therefore, KRS 413.190(2) does not toll the Plaintiffs' fiduciary claims and the time to bring them expired before they filed their complaint. Yet, Judge Van Tatenhove concludes that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Generally, a court must dismiss the entire action when the named plaintiffs' claims are resolved before class certification. Accordingly, the Reliant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted. The Plaintiffs' claims against the Reliant Defendants are dismissed. The Reliant Defendants' Motion to Strike Class-Action Allegations is denied as moot. The matter is stricken from the Court's active docket. A full-text copy of the Court's June 23, 2023 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdfpxeb6 from Leagle.com. S.O.S. MAINTENANCE: Jimenez Conditional Cert Bid Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NORMA JIMENEZ, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. S.O.S. MAINTENANCE INC., PETER SEPULVEDA, and MARIA OTANO, Case No. 2:23-cv-01177-GRB-JMW (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge James M. Wicks entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claim as a representative collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b): (1) The Plaintiffs FLSA claim is certified as a representative collective action for all; (2) the Plaintiff is directed to revise the Notice as to the following; (a) to reflect a three-year statute of limitations beginning February 13, 2020; (b) to reflect that the consent forms are to be provided to the Clerk of the Court rather than to plaintiff's counsel; and (3) the Plaintiff's request for the statute of limitations to be equitably tolled is denied without prejudice to potential opt- in plaintiffs seeking equitable tolling on a case-by-case basis. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's request for a blanket equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for all opt-in plaintiffs is denied without prejudice to potential opt-in plaintiffs seeking equitable tolling on a case-by-case basis. The Plaintiff Norma Jimenez brings the instant action against her former employers S.O.S. Maintenance, Peter Sepulveda, and Maria Otano for alleged violations of the overtime provisions of the FLSA and the New York Labor Law. S.O.S Maintenance is a facilities maintenance company that offers preventive maintenance, construction, and installation services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JwU6Di at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew John Farnworth, Esq. Peter Arcadio Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO, P.L.L.C. 490 Wheeler Road, Ste 250 Hauppauge, NY 11788 The Defendant is represented by: Joshua S. Androphy, Esq. Lawrence F. Morrison, Esq. MORRISON AND TENENBAUM, P.C. 87 Walker St., Ste 2 New York, NY 10013 SATELLITE HEALTHCARE: Class Cert. Filing Extended to June 19, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA CARRALEZ, and EUGENE BAUTISTA, v. SATELLITE HEALTHCARE, INC. corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-01613-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kimberly Muller entered an order continuing discovery, motion and other related deadlines as follows: Event Prior Date New Date Deadline to respond to First June 6, 2023 July 11, 2023 Amended Complaint Fact Discovery Cut-Off April 12, 2024 May 17, 2024 Deadline to file Motion for Class May 15, 2024 June 19, 2024 Certification Expert Disclosure (Initial) May 31, 2024 July 5, 2024 Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal) June 21, 2024 July 26, 2024 Expert Discovery Cut-Off July 26, 2024 Aug. 30, 2024 Last Date to Hear Dispositive Sept. 20, 2024 Nov. 1, 2024 Satellite Healthcare is a not-for-profit dialysis provider focusing on patient-centered dialysis and kidney disease service. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CS7I89 at no extra charge.[CC] SPECTRUM HEALTH: Suit Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN R. MCNEILLY, et al., v. SPECTRUM HEALTH SYSTEM, THE DEFINED CONTRIBUTION RETIREMENT PLAN INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF SPECTRUM HEALTH SYSTEM and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 1:20-cv-00870-JMB-PJG (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23, for an Order: 1. Granting final approval to the class action settlement in this action on the terms of the Class Action Settlement Agreement, fully executed on March 10, 2023, and previously filed with the Court on March 10, 2023; 2. Certifying the Class as defined in the March 13, 2023, Preliminary Approval Order; 3. Appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and the Plaintiffs' Counsel as Class Counsel under FED. R. CIV. 23(g); and 4. Finding that the manner in which the Settlement Class was notified of the Settlement was the best practicable under the circumstances and adequately informed the Settlement Class members of the terms of the Settlement, how to lodge an objection and obtain additional information; and Spectrum Health is a not-for-profit, integrated, managed care health care organization. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 16, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Nv3SqC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. Donald R. Reavey, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com donr@capozziadler.com - and - Eric Lechtzin, Esq. Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com TETRA TECH: Brown Loses Bid for Prelim. Nod of $600K Class Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LAGARION BROWN, ROY JACKSON, YAPHETT SAUNDERS, ISAAC SAUNDERS, HAKEEM ALLAMBIE, and NICHLON GARRETT, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TETRA TECH, INC., JESCO ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01133-DJC-DMC (E.D. Cal.), Judge Daniel J. Calabreta of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denies the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of settlement of their class, Fair Labor Standards Act collective, and Private Attorney General Act claims, without prejudice. Plaintiffs Lagarion Brown, Roy Jackson, Yaphett Saunders, Isaac Saunders, Hakeem Allambie, and Nichlon Garrett move for preliminary approval of settlement of their class, Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective, and Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") claims. By and through this Motion, the Plaintiffs seek: (1) conditional certification of the settlement class and FLSA collective; (2) preliminary approval of the settlement; (3) approval of the class notice; (4) appointment of the Plaintiffs as class representatives; (5) appointment of the Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel; (6) appointment of the settlement administrator; and (7) scheduling final approval of the settlement. The Plaintiffs filed a complaint June 3, 2020 seeking redress for themselves and approximately 230 similarly situated environmental technicians who were employed by Defendants to perform post-disaster assessments and cleanup in Butte County, California between June 3, 2016 and May 1, 2022. The complaint is styled as a putative Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 class, FLSA collective, and PAGA action alleging that the Defendants maintained and enforced labor policies against employees that revolved around (1) the Defendants' hourly system of compensation, (2) their meal and rest break practices, (3) their practices around indemnification of expenditure by employees, and (4) their record-keeping procedures in violation of the California Labor Code and federal law. The Parties exchanged discovery and agreed to settle after mediating in February 2022. After several months of negotiating final terms, the parties reached the settlement agreement now presented to the Court. The proposed class to be certified comprises all non-exempt employees of Defendant JESCO Environmental and Geotechnical Services, Inc. ("JESCO") who worked on projects subcontracted by Defendant Tetra Tech, Inc. between June 3, 2016 and May 1, 2022. Members of the Class include employees who belong to one or more of the following three subsets: the Rule 23 Class, the PAGA Class, and the FLSA Collective. The Parties have agreed to settle the claims for $600,000 total, with no part of the settlement reverting to the Defendants under any circumstances. The settlement proposes several deductions from the total amount before it is distributed to the Class: (1) up to 33%, or $200,000, in attorney's fees, (2) litigation expenses estimated at $18,000, (3) up to $10,000 to each of the six Class representatives, (4) $50,000 to PAGA claims, $37,500 of which will be paid to the California Labor and Workplace Development Agency ("LWDA"), with the remaining $12,500 paid to the PAGA Class, and (5) fees not to exceed $5,000 to the settlement administrator. The Parties do not allocate any payments toward the FLSA Collective. Overall, the settlement provides a net settlement amount of approximately $279,500. The net settlement will be distributed to the Class members on a pro rata basis based on the number of workweeks worked by each member. After 180 days, any unclaimed funds will be sent to a cy pres beneficiary. If the settlement is approved, the Plaintiffs and the Class members, other than those who elect not to participate in the settlement, will release their FLSA and state labor law claims. Members of the Rule 23 Class may opt out or object before the final approval hearing. Membership in the PAGA Class is automatic under California law. The settlement provides that the Class members can opt into the FLSA Collective by cashing their settlement check. However, the Parties' proposed notice of settlement does not clearly explain member's rights regarding the FLSA Collective. The Plaintiffs move the Court to preliminarily approve the settlement. The Motion is unopposed. The Court submitted the matter without a hearing. Judge Calabreta has considered the Motion before the Court and finds that the Parties have satisfied the requirements for conditional certification of the class and FLSA collective, appointment of the class representatives, appointment of class counsel, and appointment of the settlement administrator at this preliminary stage. However, he has several concerns with regards to the proposed settlement terms and the notice of settlement which must be addressed before the Court can properly consider preliminary approval of the settlement. First, Judge Calabreta notes that he does not have sufficient information at this juncture to determine if the relief provided to the Class is adequate. As explained by the Plaintiffs' counsel, before reaching settlement they obtained the Defendants' payroll and timekeeping information and performed detailed expert analysis to inform their settlement negotiations, which yielded estimated damages, penalties, and interest of $1,354,302. The Parties' total settlement amount, $600,000, represents approximately 44% of the theoretical maximum recovery. The Parties may wish to provide copies of the damages assessment and model prepared by the Plaintiffs' expert along with any renewed motion. Next, Judge Calabreta notes that although settlements with PAGA penalties accounting for 12% of the gross settlement amount fall within the range previously approved in this district, should the Parties choose to renew their motion for preliminary approval, they will need a more thorough explanation of why the PAGA allocation is fair and reasonable, including further support for their assertion that the penalties would likely have been reduced. Judge Calabreta has concerns also as to whether there is a bona fide dispute about FLSA liability. The Plaintiffs' counsel now admits that that the Plaintiffs lack concrete evidence to prove unpaid wage claims under the Labor Code and FLSA on a class-wide basis. Moreover, the settlement does not allocate the specific value of releasing the contested FLSA claims. Thus, the Plaintiffs must clarify the strength and value of the FLSA claims released before the Court can consider preliminarily approval of the settlement agreement including by providing the Court with any helpful analysis performed by Plaintiffs' expert if appropriate. Moreover, Judge Calabreta finds that the settlement contains "clear sailing" provisions, under which the Defendants agree not to challenge the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees up to $200,000 or incentive awards to the Plaintiffs of up to $10,000. In conjunction with the relatively large percentage of the award that would go toward attorney's fees and the large incentive award, he says these provisions create an inference of a collusive settlement. The clear sailing provisions therefore merit a high degree of scrutiny. If the Parties choose to retain these provisions in their settlement moving forward, the Court will expect a robust showing of fairness at the final approval stage. With respect to the proposed Notice, Judge Calabreta finds that the notice fails to inform the potential Class members of their right to appear through an attorney, if desired. The notice must also be updated to indicate the final approval hearing will be held before the Court. The parties should correct these points in the proposed notice. Lastly, the proposed FLSA opt-in procedure and notice are defective and must be cured before the Court can properly evaluate them. Judge Calabreta notes several deficiencies with the proposed FLSA notice. He says (1) the proposed opt-in by check procedure fails to satisfy the FLSA, which requires written consent from members who wish to opt in to an FLSA collective; and (2) the language of the FLSA notice would only reach potential FLSA Collective members after the final approval hearing, denying them a chance to participate fully in the hearing. In accordance with the foregoing, Judge Calabreta denies the Motion without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's June 23, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3rw699a6 from Leagle.com. TETRA TECH: Pennington Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA PARKER PENNINGTON, et al., v. TETRA TECH, INC., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-05330-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Pennington Plaintiffs move the Court for an order certifying a class consisting of: "All individuals or entities who held title to one or more market- rate units on Parcel A at the Shipyard in San Francisco in August 2, 2018. This motion is brought pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." The class meets the prerequisites of Rule 23(a), common questions of liability predominate over individual questions, and a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy, the Plaintiffs contend. Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy (CPM) seeks appointment as Lead Class Counsel. As Lead Class Counsel, CPM will continue to work with, and has the support of, Bowles & Verna, LLP and Gibbs Law Group, LLP, who also represent individual class members. CPM also seeks appointment of Linda Parker Pennington as the representative plaintiff. Mrs. Pennington is a member of the class that she seeks to represent, she has intimate knowledge of the facts, she understands her duties as class representative, and she has no conflicts of interest with other class members. The Court previously appointed Mrs. Pennington as the Representative the Plaintiff in connection with the Pennington the Plaintiffs' class action settlement with the Homebuilders. The Pennington Plaintiffs are stuck. They purchased market-rate homes on Parcel A at the Shipyard before the negligent and fraudulent conduct of Tetra Tech was widely publicized. Tetra Tech's misconduct has caused the Pennington the Plaintiffs to suffer real property damages because their home values are not appreciating at the same rate as comparable homes throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. Excluded from this class are purchasers of BMR units, the Defendants, their affiliates and subsidiaries, and their officers, directors, partners, employees, and agents; class counsel, employees of class counsel's firms, and class counsel’s immediate family members; defense counsel, their employees, and their immediate family members; and any judicial officer who considers or renders a decision or ruling in this case, their staff, and their immediate family members. Tetra Tech is an environmental construction company located in San Diego. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 16, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44kFaQv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. Anne Marie Murphy, Esq. Donald J. Magilligan, Esq. Julie L. Fieber, Esq. Kevin J. Boutin, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 692-3606 E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com amurphy@cpmlegal.com dmagilligan@cpmlegal.com jfieber@cpmlegal.com kboutin@cpmlegal.com - and - Bradley Bowles, Esq. Jonathan W. Lee, Esq. BOWLES & VERNA LLP 2121 N California Blvd 875 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 935-3300 - and - Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. Andre M. Mura, Esq. Amanda M. Karl, Esq. Mark H. Troutman, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 1111 Broadway Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (888) 610-8385 TOPGOLF PAYROLL: Court Narrows Claims in Benyamin Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOB B. BENYAMIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TOPGOLF PAYROLL SERVICES, LLC; TOPGOLF INTERNATIONAL, INC.; TOPGOLF USA ROSEVILLE, LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-00303-JAM-DB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John A. Mendez entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss: 1. The Court denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s class allegations. 2. The Court grants with leave to amend the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s third, fourth, and fifth claims. 3. The Court also grants with leave to amend the Plaintiff's section 227.3 claim for vacation pay under his seventh cause of action and section 246 restitution claim for sick leave pay under his eighth cause of action. 4. The Court grants with prejudice the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief under his eighth cause of action pursuant to the UCL. The Court denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's class allegations. The Plaintiff brings this putative class action against his former employer, the Defendants Topgolf Payroll Services, LLC, Topgolf International, Inc., Topgolf USA Roseville, LLC, and various fictitious persons, for violating California's labor laws. The Defendants employed the Plaintiff from approximately August 2016 to May 2022. Although the Plaintiff states he generally "worked 40 hours per week, five days per week, and eight hours per day" during his tenure with the Defendants, he provides few other details about his job. Nonetheless, the Plaintiff contends the Defendants violated several California wage and hour laws by failing to: (1) pay minimum and overtime wages; (2) provide meal periods; (3) permit rest breaks; (4) reimburse business expenses; (5) furnish accurate itemized wage statements; and (6) pay all wages due upon his employment's termination. The Plaintiff also contends other employees incurred similar treatment. As a result, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against the Defendants in Placer County Superior Court seeking to represent two employee classes. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44lz3vo at no extra charge.[CC] USAA FEDERAL: Plaintiffs Must Submit Class Cert. Reply by July 14 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHILIP BULLS, DEAN BRINK, CARMIN NOWLIN, NICHOLAS PADAO, and RAPHAEL RILEY on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. USAA FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, and USAA SAVINGS BANK, Case No. 5:21-cv-00488-BO (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Terrence W. Boyle entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion to extend deadline for the Plaintiffs' Reply to Support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel: -- The Plaintiffs shall have up to and including July 14, 2023, to submit their Reply in Support of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel, and -- The Defendants shall have up to and including June 21, 2023, to file a 5-page supplement their Response to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel, limited to presenting new information from the Padao deposition that was delayed due to a family emergency. The joint motion for extension of time is denied as moot. USAA Federal operates as a full-service bank. The Bank accepts deposits, makes loans and provides other services for the public. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JBiFPm at no extra charge.[CC] USERTESTING INC: Monteverde Named Lead Counsel in Dickerson Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BRENNA DICKERSON, Plaintiff v. ANDY MacMILLAN, et al., Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-01320-AMO (N.D. Cal.), Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Plaintiff's uncontested motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and her motion for Monteverde & Associates PC to serve as the interim class counsel. In this putative securities class action, Dickerson filed a motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B). She also seeks appointment of her counsel, Monteverde, as lead counsel for the putative class. The motion is unopposed. The Ninth Circuit has established a three-step process for determining appointment of lead plaintiff in private securities actions arising under the PSLRA. First, the plaintiff must satisfy the PSLRA's notice requirement. Within 20 days of filing the complaint, the plaintiff must publish a notice in a widely circulated national business-oriented publication advising members of the putative class of the pending action. The publication must also notify the putative class that any member has sixty days from the publication of such notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff. Second, the Court must determine the plaintiff most capable of adequately representing the interests of class members. There is a rebuttable presumption that the "most adequate plaintiff" is the person who (1) filed the complaint or made a motion in response to the notice; (2) has the largest financial interest; and (3) otherwise satisfies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Third, putative class members may rebut the presumption that the most adequate plaintiff will satisfy the typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a). Judge Martinez-Olguin examines Dickerson's compliance with these steps. After filing her complaint on March 21, 2023, Dickerson published the required PSLRA notice by PR Newswire on March 23, 2023, announcing the litigation and advising class members that they could move for appointment as lead plaintiff within 60 days. On May 22, 2023, she filed the instant motion. Thus, Dickerson has fulfilled the first requirement. Next, Judge Martinez-Olguin considers whether Dickerson is the most capable of adequately representing the interests of the class members. In addition to filing the complaint, Dickerson has alleged -- and it is uncontested -- that she has the largest financial interest in the litigation. She alleges that she owned 100 shares of UserTesting common stock prior to the announcement of its acquisition, which she was forced to exchange at less than fair value. As no other putative class member has claimed a greater financial interest, Dickerson has established that she has the largest financial interest in the litigation. Finally, in determining whether Dickerson is the most adequate plaintiff, Judge Martinez-Olguin must also examine whether Dickerson satisfies the Rule 23 typicality and adequacy requirements. Dickerson alleges that she suffered the identical harm of being cashed out of her ownership of UserTesting common stock for the unfair acquisition consideration due to the same materially false and misleading statements in the Proxy. She alleges that she is not subject to any unique defenses and there is no evidence of any conflict of interest between her interests and those of other prospective class members. Further, she has satisfactorily alleged that counsel will pursue the action vigorously. No class members have rebutted the presumption that Dickerson will adequately represent the class. Because Dickerson has met the statutory requirements for appointment as lead plaintiff, Judge Martinez-Olguin grants Dickerson's uncontested motion for appointment as lead plaintiff under 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3). Dickerson has selected Monteverde to be lead counsel for the class and has established that Monteverde satisfies the Rule 23(g) factors. Monteverde has investigated the potential claims, including the parties involved, the allegedly false or misleading statements surrounding the company acquisition, and the relevant class period. It has established its extensive experience litigating securities class actions, as well as its knowledge of the applicable law. Monteverde specializes in securities class actions, has been recognized as a Top 50 securities class action firm, and has litigated complex securities class actions in this district and other districts across the United States. Finally, it represents that it committed resources to adequately investigating the claims prior to commencing this action and will continue to do so throughout the pendency of the case. Accordingly, Judge Martinez-Olguin grants Dickerson's motion for Monteverde to serve as the interim class counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's June 23, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc7fe5jw from Leagle.com. VAIL RESORTS: Proceedings Stayed in Quint Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDY DEAN QUINT, JOHN LINN, and MARK MOLINA, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, v. VAIL RESORTS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-03569-DDD-NRN (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge N. Reid Neureiter entered an order granting the motion to stay proceedings until class settlement in parallel action is final: -- Discovery is stayed the final resolution of all appeals in the Hamilton case. Within five days of such final resolution, the parties shall file a Status Report with the Court. -- The Court finds that the Plaintiffs interests are outweighed by the undue burden Vail will experience with having to produce discovery regarding employees who have already released their claims against it. And even a cursory review of the docket indicates that, should this case proceed, innumerable discovery disputes and motion practice are certain to follow. The interests of non-parties, specifically non-party employees of Vail, will be furthered by a stay. In this instance, the Court disagrees with Judge Gallagher and believes that distributing Hoffman-LaRoche notices in this case to thousands of Vail’s Instructors nationwide who have already released claims and expect to receive settlement funds will likely sow confusion. The Court finds that the public interest does not greatly favor one side or the other. In this wage and hour case, the Plaintiffs, who worked for Vail as Snow Sports Instructors or Ticket Scanners, allege that Vail did not pay them for all hours they worked, including overtime premiums. They assert separate claims pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and various state wage and hour laws. On November 21, 2022, (then-Magistrate, now-District) Judge Gordon P. Gallagher issued a Recommendation on Motion to Certify Class and Order on Motions to Compel and to Strike, in which he, among other things, recommended that the Plaintiffs' state law claims be bifurcated from the FLSA claims and stayed pending a resolution of the FLSA claims, and that a Hoffmann-LaRoche notice be sent only to Instructor employees. Vail Resorts is an American mountain resort company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PuAa7M at no extra charge.[CC] ZIGNEGO CO: Cardenas Wins Conditional Class Status Bid ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARISOL CARDENAS, v. ZIGNEGO CO., INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00961-PP (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Pamela Pepper entered an order approving the parties' stipulation for conditional class certification and authorizing notice under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b): "All non-office, hourly employees who worked for Zignego Company on one or more jobsites on or after February 17, 2020." On August 22, 2022, the plaintiff filed an individual and proposed collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. On February 17, 2023, the plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification, seeking leave to send notice to all current and former hourly paid employees who worked for the defendant on or after February 17, 2020. The plaintiff asserts that four of her FLSA claims can be resolved on a collective basis. On March 24, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation for conditional certification of the collective action under 28 U.S.C. section 216(b). Zignego is a road construction company that performs concrete paving projects along with grading work on local, state, and federal projects. A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PuAC5Y 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 ***