/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230724.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, July 24, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 147
Headlines
15 W. 36TH PHOTO: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
2953 BROADWAY: Ye Must File Reply to Opposition by August 7
3M COMPANY: Butler Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Cockman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Winchester Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Wurzlow Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Zammit Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
A&W CONCENTRATE: Sharpe Suit Settlement Granted Prelim. Approval
ABBOTT CARDIOVASCULAR: Overstreet Suit Removed to C.D. California
ABCM CORP: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Certification Bid
ADAM M. BRASKY: Lunger Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Court Dismisses ADA Class Suit in State Jail
ANYTIME SOJU: S.D. New York Enters Judgment in Favor of Jeho Kim
AVAST SOFTWARE: Sued Over Selling Data of Users in Netherlands
BALTIMORE GAS: Court Denies Request to Cancel Preliminary Hearing
BERRY CORP: Bid for Class Cert Evidentiary Hearing OK'd in Torres
BIG MINDS: Faces Robinson Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
BLACK CEO: Ulery Seeks Leave to Conduct Class Certification
BNSF RAILWAY: Court Vacates $228-M Award of Damages in BIPA Suit
BROMACO INC: Faces Montiel Suit Over Busboys' Unpaid Wages
CAPITAL VISION: Bids for Class Certification Due Jan. 19, 2024
CATERPILLAR LOGISTICS: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan
CEDAR FAIR: Court Strikes Shoemo-Flint's Class & Collective Claims
CEDAR FAIR: Wins Bid to Strike Shoemo-Flint Class Allegations
CIGNA HEALTH: Patients' Class Cert. Bid in Sleep Apnea Suit Denied
CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Loomis Sayles Trust Co. Seeks to Certify Class
COAST DENTAL: Faces Usategui Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
COHN LIFLAND: District of New Jersey Dismisses Moore FDCPA Suit
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Cortez Voluntarily Dismisses Class Suit
CORNERSTONE TRADING: Moves to Dismiss Richmond Fire Class Suit
CUYAHOGA COUNTY,OH: Case Management Order Entered in Dunn
DEE MARK: Lorenzo Seeks Conditional Collective Certification
DIAMOND BRACES: Isayeva Suit Seeks Conditional Collective Status
EAST PALESTINE: Fact Discovery Must be Completed by Jan. 5, 2024
FISH NET INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FRONTIER AIRLINES: Faces Hamad Class Suit Over False Advertisements
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Dismisses Class Action Over Vehicle Defects
GLOBE LIFE: Frohn Appeals Denied Redaction Request to 6th Circuit
GOOGLE LLC: Payout Begins in Rivera's Privacy Settlement Suit
GREAT LAKES COLD: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Mitchell Claims
GUARDIAN SAVINGS: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Stamler Suit Recommended
HENKEL CORP: Settles Goldstein Benzene Class Suit for $1.95M
HONDA MOTOR: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due May 10, 2024
HONEYWELL INT'L: Norris Gets 120 Days More to File Class Cert. Bid
INFINITY CUTTING: Rist Sues Over Caller ID Rules Violations
INTEGRATED EVENT: Bernard Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 27
ISM VUZEM: Employee Class Gets Certification in Maslic FLSA Suit
ISS FACILITY: Class Cert Hearing in Garcia Continued to Oct. 12
ISS FACILITY: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert. Hearing
JOHN F. KENNEDY MEMORIAL: Pryor Suit Removed to C.D. California
KEVIN GUAN: Bolivar Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
KTY FRANCHISE: Faces Mitchell Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
LANSING COMMUNITY: Failed to Protect Students' Info, Whitby Says
LAS PARKING: Lagden Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
LESSEREVIL LLC: Markham Sues Over Mislabeled Food Products
LONGNECKER PROPERTIES: Baker Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
LUIS DE LA AGUILERA: Benes Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
MAINTENANCE SUPPLY: Lopez Suit Removed to C.D. California
MANITOBA: Court Approves Disabilities Suit Settlement for $17-M
MARTEN TRANSPORT: Court Enters Order on Class Cert. Deadlines
MDL 2670: Court Won't Review Judgment in Seafood Antitrust Suit
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Court Junks Hamm Bid for Partial Reconsideration
MIDTOWN HOME HEALTH: Heard Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MMJ APPAREL: Toro Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
MSCRIPTS LLC: Court Appoints Robbins as Guardian Ad Litem
MULVADI CORP: Agrees to Authenticate Kona Beans in Class Settlement
NINE MOONS PIERCING: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ONIX GROUP: Bernard Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI
PATRICK O'DANIEL: Baker Files Bid to Stay Filing Fee & Amended Suit
PHE INC: Remus TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
PILLPACK LLC: T-Mobile Ordered to Produce Docs in Williams Suit
PIZZA HUT: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illegal Text Messages
POINT32HEALTH INC: Sued Over Failure to Safeguard Information
PRECISION DOCUMENT: Asaro Sues Over Untimely Paid Overtime Wages
ROLLINS COLLEGE: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY: Fikuru Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
RUST-OLEUM CORP: Bush Seeks to File Unredacted Documents Under Seal
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: UA Local 38 Files Securities Class Action
SEEKING ALPHA: Lingley Sues Over Unregistered Investment Adviser
SHAMROCK FOODS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 9, 2024
SOAPHIA LAUNDRY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Reyes Suit Claims
SOUTHERN WESLEYAN: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SPECIALTY WELDING: Beltran Suit Removed to C.D. California
SSM HEALTH: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in Brashear
STATE FARM: Class Cert Bid Filing Due June 3, 2024
STUBHUB: Court Stays Class Cert Deadline in Refund Litigation
SWIFT BEEF COMPANY: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California
TEACHERS INSURANCE: Court Tosses Haley's Class Certification Bid
TERMINAL ISLAND, CA: Faces Two Class Suits Over COVID-19 Outbreak
THRIVING BRANDS: Settles Goldstein Benzene Class Suit for $1.95M
TJ INSPECTION: Cox Class Action Seeks FLSA Notice
TK&K SERVICES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 12, 2024
TMX FINANCE: Carder Suit Seeks to Suspend Class Cert Deadline
TMX FINANCE: Jackson Seeks to Suspend Class Cert Filing Deadline
TMX FINANCE: Johnson Suit Seeks to Suspend Class Cert Deadline
TONAL SYSTEMS INC: Jones Suit Removed to S.D. California
TOWER PRODUCTS: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
UNITED SERVICES: Black Class Suit Settlement Granted Prelim. OK
UNITED SERVICES: Coleman Files Renewed Bid For Class Status
UNITED SERVICES: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert. Bid by Nov. 21
VENUS LABORATORIES: Court Narrows Claims in Lizama Class Suit
VI-JON: Loughlin Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Briefs Support
VOICE OF GUO MEDIA: Zhang Suit Seeks to Certify Class
WALMART INC: Pagan Sues Over Mislabeled Saltine Crackers
WASHINGTON DC: Seeks July 24 Extension for Class Cert Response
WELLS FARGO: Filing for Winkler Class Cert Bid. Extended to Nov. 15
WEST PENN ALLEGHENY: Trainer Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
WGU CORP: Mitchell Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Phone Calls
WINGS OVER: Court Approves Settlement Deal in Carts
WRIST AFICIONADO: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
YOUTUBE LLC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Colombo Complaint
*********
15 W. 36TH PHOTO: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 15 W. 36th Photo
Corp. The case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. 15 W. 36th Photo Corp., Case No.
1:23-cv-05205-EK-PK (E.D.N.Y., July 7, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
15 W. 36th Photo Corp. is a photography specialty store.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
2953 BROADWAY: Ye Must File Reply to Opposition by August 7
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ye v. 2953 Broadway LLC,
et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-04941-JHR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Jennifer H. Rearden entered an order granting the parties briefing
schedule bid for plaintiff's motion for class certification.
-- The Defendants shall file their opposition July 24, 2023
to the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification:
-- The Plaintiffs shall file their reply: August 7,
2023,
A copy of the Court's order dated July 3, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44OFzLb at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com
3M COMPANY: Butler Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael K. Butler, 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.); 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-03274-RMG (D.S.C., July 10, 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 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: Cockman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------
James Curtis Cockman, 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.); 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-03275-RMG (D.S.C., July 10, 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 Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with thyroid 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: Winchester Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
------------------------------------------------------------
Janice Winchester as Surviving Spouse of Terry Michael Winchester,
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-02298-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 Janice Winchester is an adult resident of the State
of Louisiana, who is the surviving spouse of Terry Michael
Winchester, 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 lymphoma 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: Wurzlow Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------
William Wurzlow, 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-02729-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,
Hashimoto's Disease, and chronic kidney 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: Zammit Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter P. Zammit, 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-02705-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 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
A&W CONCENTRATE: Sharpe Suit Settlement Granted Prelim. Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jelisa Castrodale of Food & Wine reports that while a lot of us
were barely holding things together during that unprecedented
summer of 2020, there was still a bit of so-called normal life out
there. You know, like three people filing a class-action lawsuit
against A&W Root Beer and Keurig Dr Pepper because of the "Made
With Aged Vanilla" claim printed on the side of some of its soda
cans. That kind of normal.
The three plaintiffs alleged that they and other consumers were
misled by the "Made With Aged Vanilla" tout, especially since they
also alleged that A&W's root beer and cream soda got its flavor
from "an artificial, synthetic ingredient" called ethyl vanillin.
"A cheap and inferior substitute for real vanilla, ethyl vanillin
does not come from the vanilla plant," the lawsuit read. "Had
plaintiffs known the truth about the origin of the vanilla
flavoring, they would not have purchased the product at a premium
price. If the products are reformulated such that the vanilla
flavor comes exclusively or predominantly from the vanilla plant or
the products are no longer deceptively labeled, plaintiff would
purchase the drinks again in the future."
Now, almost three years later, a New York judge has sided with the
plaintiffs, and has preliminarily approved a settlement that would
require A&W and Keurig Dr Pepper to give "close to a full refund of
the premium price" to any customer who purchased A&W Root Beer or
Cream Soda during the past seven years.
The settlement requires the defendants -- A&W and Keurig Dr Pepper
-- to pay out $15 million worth of claims to those customers, who
are now part of the Settlement Class. Each customer is entitled to
a minimum of $5.50 and can receive up to $25 if they provide proof
of their soda purchases. (The three plaintiffs will each receive
$5,000 "for their time and effort in prosecuting this matter.")
According to OpenClassActions.com, anyone who purchased either A&W
Root Beer (including the Regular, Diet, and Zero Sugar versions) or
A&W Cream Soda (including the Regular, Diet, and Zero Sugar
versions) that was labeled with the "Made With Aged Vanilla"
wording between February 7, 2016 and June 2, 2023 is eligible for
the settlement.
Customers without proof of purchase will get $5.50, while those
with receipts could collect a higher amount, up to a maximum of
$25. Customers will be able to submit their claims through the
website RootBeerAndCreamSodaSettlement.com (although at the time of
writing, the site is not yet live).
ClassAction.org reports that the payments will be distributed to
eligible class members after the settlement receives final court
approval "and any appeals are resolved." A final approval hearing
has been scheduled for September 18, 2023. (So if you're craving
root beer right now, you might not want to wait for A&W to buy your
next 12-pack.)
Neither A&W Root Beer nor Keurig Dr Pepper have admitted to
mislabeling their products, nor to misleading any customers.
According to ClassAction.org, the companies agreed to the
settlement "to avoid further expense, inconvenience, and
interference with ongoing business operations, and to dispose of
burdensome litigation."
As of this writing, none of A&W's root beers or cream sodas are
marked "Made With Aged Vanilla." [GN]
ABBOTT CARDIOVASCULAR: Overstreet Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Theo Overstreet, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. ABBOTT CARDIOVASCULAR SYS INC., a
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2302388
was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of
Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on July 7, 2023, and assigned Case No.
5:23-cv-01321.
The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges nine causes of action on behalf
of himself and a purported class of similarly situated individuals:
failure to pay all overtime wages; minimum wage violations;
violation of California Labor Code (unreimbursed business
expenses); meal period violations; rest period violations; waiting
time penalties; wage statement violations; unfair competition; and
civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michele J. Beilke, Esq.
Julia Y. Trankiem, Esq.
Steven A. Morphy, Esq.
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627
Phone: 213-532-2000
Facsimile: 213-532-2020
Email: mbeilke@HuntonAK.com
jtrankiem@HuntonAK.com
smorphy@HuntonAK.com
ABCM CORP: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMMY GREENFIELD,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ABCM CORPORATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-03006-LTS-MAR (N.D. Iowa), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting an additional
time to file a resistance to the Plaintiff's motion to certify
class.
The Plaintiff's motion was filed June 23, 2023. The Court's ruling
on these pending motions will affect how the Defendant responds, if
at all, to the Plaintiff's motion to certify.
The Defendant requests until August 9, 2023, to respond to the
Motion to Certify in this matter. The Defendant requests such other
and further relief as may be equitable in this matter.
ABCM operates numerous rehabilitation centers, long-term care
facilities, and independent and assisted living communities.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 29, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XSiyoo at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@2xlaw.com
- and -
Mark D. Sherinian, Esq.
Melissa C. Hasso, Esq.
Emily E. Wilson, Esq.
SHERINIAN & HASSO LAW FIRM
111 E. Grand Ave., Suite 212
Des Moines, IA 50398
E-mail: sherinianlaw@msn.com
mhasso@sherinianlaw.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Olivia R. Beale, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
obeale@mybackwages.com
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Raymond R. Aranza, Esq.
WALENTINE O'TOOLE LLP
11240 Davenport Street
Omaha, NE 68154
Telephone: (402) 330-6300
Facsimile: (402) 330-6303
E-mail: raranza@womglaw.com
ADAM M. BRASKY: Lunger Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adam M. Brasky, Esq.,
et al. The case is styled as Chaim Lunger, Rachel Lunger, on behalf
of themselves and all other similarly situated consumers v. Adam M.
Brasky, Esq., Rupp Pfalzgraf LLC, Case No. 7:23-cv-05912-CS
(S.D.N.Y., July 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Adam Brasky works as a Partner at Rupp Baase Pfalzgraf Cunningham,
which is a Law Firms & Legal Services company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Phone: (516) 668-6945
Fax: (516) 595-1690
Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Court Dismisses ADA Class Suit in State Jail
----------------------------------------------------------------
Randi Love of Bloomberg Law reports that a California inmate's
claims regarding dirty showers and inadequate treatment are being
dismissed from a conditional class action lawsuit.
A stipulation of dismissal was filed on July 6, 2023 in the US
District Court for the Northern District of California to dismiss
the claims with prejudice, according to a notice.
No further details were provided and neither counsel immediately
responded to a request for more information.
Donald Corsetti, an inmate at the Alameda County Santa Rita Jail
since 2021, said he was unable to shower for weeks at a time
because he required Americans With Disabilities Act-compliant
showers that weren't available. [GN]
ANYTIME SOJU: S.D. New York Enters Judgment in Favor of Jeho Kim
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Jeho Kim, Plaintiff v. Anytime Soju, Inc. and Seungeun
Jeong, Defendants, Index No. 22-CV-7049 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jesse M.
Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York enters judgment in favor of the Plaintiff.
Pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Defendants Anytime Soju, Inc. and Seungeun Jeong offered to allow
Jeho Kim to take a judgment against them, in the sum of $17,500,
with respect to the Plaintiff's claims for relief, damages, fees,
expenses, disbursements, and attorneys' fees incurred in the
action. On June 27, 2023, the Plaintiff's attorney confirmed the
Plaintiff's acceptance of the Defendants' Offer of Judgment.
The offer is in complete satisfaction of all claims raised against
the Defendants, including Claim for Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
under the FLSA (Count One), Claim for Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
under the FLSA (Count Two), Claim for Illegal Retention of
Gratuities Under the FLSA (Count Three), Claim for Unpaid Minimum
Wages brought under the NYLL (Count Four), Claim for Unpaid
Overtime Wages brought under the NYLL (Count Five), Claim for
Illegal Retention of Gratuities Under the NYLL (Count Six), Claim
for Failure to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked/Straight Time Wages
(Count Seven), Claim for Failure to Issue Wage Notices (Count
Eight), Claim for Failure to Furnish Wage Statements/Paystubs
(Count Nine), FLSA Collective Claims for Unpaid Minimum Wages,
Overtime Wages, and Liquidated Damages, Rule 23 Class Action Claims
for Unpaid Minimum Wages, Overtime Wages, Liquidated Damages,
Illegal Retention of Gratuities, Failure to Pay Wages for All Hours
Worked/Straight Time Wage, Failure to Issue Wage Notices, and
Failure to Furnish Wage Statements/Paystubs, Claim for pre judgment
and post-judgment interests under the FLSA, claim for pre-judgment
and postjudgment interests under the NYLL, and claim for
Defendant's willful violation.
Accordingly, judgment is entered in favor of Jeho Kim, in the sum
of $17,500, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
Defendants' Rule 68 Offer, dated June 27, 2023.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2023 Rule 68 Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4jkd7mt9 from Leagle.com.
Ryan Kim, Esq. -- RyanKimLaw@Gmail.com -- Ryan Kim Law, P.C. Fort
Lee, NJ, Attorney for the Plaintiff.
Younghoon Ji, Esq. -- info@ahnejilaw.com -- Ahne & Ji, LLP, New
York, New York, Attorneys for the Defendants.
AVAST SOFTWARE: Sued Over Selling Data of Users in Netherlands
--------------------------------------------------------------
NL Times reports that the Czech security firm, Avast, is being sued
in a mass claim lawsuit. The plaintiffs include the CUIC Foundation
(Consumers United In Court), cooperating with the civil rights
organization Privacy First, AD reported on July 7, 2023. The
company, known for its antivirus software, is accused of selling
sensitive data of millions of Dutch users for several years.
The class action lawsuit emerges from a case that first garnered
attention in 2019. It was revealed that Avast had been collecting
sensitive user data for years, including Google searches,
locations, online purchases, viewed YouTube videos, and browsing
histories.
"It is the world turned upside down. You install an antivirus
program to protect your computer, and in return, you get spied on.
We consider this a huge scandal," a spokesman for CUIC told the
news website.
The collected data was then resold through Avast's subsidiary,
Jumpshot. This data was bought by large corporations, including
Google, Microsoft, Yelp, and Pepsi. These companies paid millions
for access to datasets that would enable them to glean detailed
insights into users' online behavior.
Over the past few years, Avast's software, which includes Avast
Secure Browser, AVG Secure Browser, and AVG Online Security, has
been used by more than 400 million people worldwide. This includes
an estimated five million users from the Netherlands.
Most of Avast's software is free, and users often receive ads in
return. The terms and conditions disclosed that customer browsing
history would be collected, but that data would be anonymized to
preserve privacy. However, experts dispute this claim, pointing out
that the data is linked to a unique device ID, making it possible
to trace browsing behavior back to individual users.
CUIC Foundation is particularly shocked that Avast, an antivirus
provider designed to offer users security, was involved in
reselling user data for monetary gain. "That is simply theft. It's
like having a good friend over to stay, and then they rob you of
all your valuable possessions while you're asleep. We shouldn't
consider this normal. It's time to draw the line," the CUIC
spokesperson said.
While Avast ceased the sale of user data in January 2020 and issued
an apology, the CUIC Foundation insisted that duped consumers
deserve compensation for their stolen data. "You should not be able
to get away with this kind of practice," said Wilmar Hendriks,
president of CUIC Foundation. "Saying sorry is one thing, but
compensating customers for their stolen data would be a good
signal," he added.
Dutch people who used Avast's antivirus or browser extension on any
device between 2015-2020 are encouraged to register for
compensation. Registration is free. "The more consumers join, the
greater the chance that Avast will have to provide compensation to
users," Hendriks said. [GN]
BALTIMORE GAS: Court Denies Request to Cancel Preliminary Hearing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Olaniran of CBS News reports that a Baltimore City
Circuit Court judge has denied Baltimore Gas and Electric's request
to cancel the preliminary hearing in a lawsuit against the company
over its campaign to install new equipment at several Baltimore
City homes.
The class action lawsuit, filed on June 23 by several city
residents, alleges that BGE continued a campaign to install
potentially unsafe and unwanted high-pressure gas regulators at
residences in Federal Hill, and shut off gas services for residents
that refused the work.
Last week, a judge ruled that BGE must turn gas service back on for
those without it and issued a 10-day restraining order keeping BGE
from installing gas regulators, and a preliminary hearing was set
for July 10.
On July 5, BGE filed a motion to the court requesting a
cancellation of the preliminary hearing by voluntarily agreeing to
stop installing exterior regulators without written consent.
According to court documents, that motion was denied, but the
hearing is postponed until September 5.
The temporary restraining order against BGE is also extended
through September 5, 2023. [GN]
BERRY CORP: Bid for Class Cert Evidentiary Hearing OK'd in Torres
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUIS TORRES, ALLIA
DEANGELIS, DARRICK INMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. BERRY CORPORATION, ARTHUR T. SMITH, CARY
BAETZ, GARY A. GROVE, BRENT S. BUCKLEY, KAJ VAZALES, and EUGENE J.
VOILAND Case No. 3:20-cv-03464-S (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Karen
Gren Scholer entered an order granting the Defendants' motion for
evidentiary hearing on Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and appointment of class representatives and class
counsel.
Accordingly, the Court ordered that the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and appointment of class representatives and
counsel is set for an evidentiary hearing on August 23, 2023, at
10:00 AM.
Berry Corp. is a company primarily engaged in hydrocarbon
exploration.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 27, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XMerdK at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
BIG MINDS: Faces Robinson Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
AJA-RAE ROBINSON and ANTIONETTE BROWN individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BIG MINDS, TINY HANDS
LLC, DAVID REDLENER and MELINA MALDONADO, Defendants, Case No.
7:23-cv-05908 (S.D.N.Y., July 10, 2023) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiff seeking to recover from the Defendants unpaid
wages, deducted wages, damages for late payment of wages, statutory
penalties, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
Plaintiffs Robinson and Brown were hired by the Defendants as W-2
employees to work as ABA therapists/social workers from May 28,
2021 until May 6, 2022 and from June 4, 2021 until April 26, 2022,
respectively.
Big Minds, Tiny Hands LLC is a New York-based company engaged in
helping children with developmental disabilities.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Paul Liggieri, Esq.
L & D LAW P.C.
11 Broadway, Ste 615
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 374-9786
- and -
Kelly L. O'Connell, Esq.
O'CONNELL LAW, PLLC
175 S.W. 7th Street, Suite 2410
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 209-9246
E-mail: ko@kellyoconnelllaw.com
BLACK CEO: Ulery Seeks Leave to Conduct Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID ULERY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BLACK CEO, LLC
dba SUCCESSFEST and TREVELYN OTTS, Case No. 1:22-cv-02709-MDB (D.
Colo.), the Plaintiff file a renewed motion for leave to conduct
class Certification and damages related discovery from defendant:
1. That Leave of Court be granted to conduct Class Certification
and damages related discovery from the Defendants, including
third-party discovery as necessary, in support of Class
Certification and a final damages judgment;
2. That the Court reserve jurisdiction on the issue of damages
against the Defendants and to otherwise reserve ruling on a
final damages determination against the Defendants until the
completion of discovery and a ruling on Class Certification;
and
3. That the Plaintiff be permitted to seek a final default
judgment
against the Defendants, both as to the individual the
Plaintiff
and the putative Class, upon completion of Class
Certification
and damages discovery from the Defendants and the Court’s
ruling
on Class Certification.
On October 14, 2022, the Plaintiff filed his original Class Action
Complaint against BLACK CEO alleging that it systematically sent
unsolicited text message advertisements, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Do-Not-Call Registry
provisions.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 27, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JLygMn at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI
7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
Davie, FL 33314
Telephone: (954) 889-3359
E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
- and -
Jordan Richards, Esq.
JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (954) 871-0050
E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Trevelyn Otts, Esq.
157 Fleet Street, Suite 801
Oxon Hill, MD 20745
BNSF RAILWAY: Court Vacates $228-M Award of Damages in BIPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert D. Boley, Paula M. Ketcham and Adam L. Littman of The
National Law Review report that In the closely-watched first case
to go to trial under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
(BIPA), a federal judge has now vacated a $228 million award of
statutory liquidated damages. The judge concluded that damages
under BIPA are discretionary and ordered a new trial on damages. A
link to our previous alert on this case is here.
In 2019, a class of truck drivers sued BNSF Railway alleging the
company collected their biometric information (fingerprints)
without their informed consent in violation of BIPA when they
visited BNSF's railyards to pick up and drop off loads. The
Illinois biometric privacy law is among the most stringent in the
country, permitting any person "aggrieved" by a violation to bring
a lawsuit in state or federal court.
After a trial in October 2022, a jury found that BNSF recklessly or
intentionally violated BIPA 45,600 times, equaling the number of
drivers whose fingerprints had been registered at one of BNSF's
Illinois facilities between April 2014 and January 2020. US
District Court Judge Matthew Kennelly entered the damages award,
multiplying the number of violations by $5,000, the statutory
penalty for each "reckless" or "intentional" violation.
However, in ruling on BNSF's post-trial motion last week, Judge
Kennelly agreed with BNSF that damages are discretionary under
BIPA. Section 20 of BIPA provides that "a prevailing party may
recover for each violation" the greater of actual damages or
liquidated damages of $1,000 (for each negligent violation) or
$5,000 (for each intentional or reckless violation). Citing
Illinois law, Judge Kennelly noted that use of the word "may" in a
statute generally indicates a permissive reading, whereas the word
"shall" typically expresses a mandatory reading. Illinois courts
have not squarely decided the issue under BIPA, however, so Judge
Kennelly had to predict how the Illinois Supreme Court would rule.
Four months after the BNSF trial, the Illinois Supreme Court issued
a long-awaited decision in Cothron v. White Castle Sys., Inc., 2023
IL 128004, holding that a claim accrues under BIPA every time a
private entity unlawfully scans or transmits an individual's
biometric identifier or information. The Court rejected the
argument that allowing multiple or repeated accruals could lead to
astronomical damages, citing the permissive language in Section 20
and stating it "appears that the General Assembly chose to make
damages discretionary rather than mandatory under [BIPA]."
Judge Kennelly found the language in Cothron suggests how the
Illinois Supreme Court is likely to rule if it were to decide the
question in the future. Based on his conclusion that damages under
BIPA are discretionary, Judge Kennelly held that the damages award
was a question for the jury. He, therefore, vacated the award of
damages and ordered a new trial limited to the question of damages.
The case is now set for a hearing to set a new trial date. [GN]
BROMACO INC: Faces Montiel Suit Over Busboys' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE IVAN MONTIEL, and BRAYAN MONTIEL, on behalf of themselves,
FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiffs v. BROMACO,
INC. d/b/a AURORA WILLIAMSBURG, AURORA SOHO INC. d/b/a AURORA SOHO,
AURORA EAST, INC. d/b/a MONTESACRO, AURORA FG, INC. d/b/a EVELINA,
AURORA CATERING, INC. d/b/a EMPORIO, BAKER N CO., INC. d/b/a BAKER
N CO, GASPARE VILLA, and RICCARDO BUITONI, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-05266 (E.D.N.Y., July 10, 2023) is brought by the
Plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law alleging that they and similarly situated
individuals are entitled to recover from Defendants unpaid overtime
wages due to an invalid tip credit; unpaid overtime premiums;
illegal retention of gratuities; unpaid spread of hours premium;
statutory penalties; liquidated damages; and attorneys' fees and
costs.
Plaintiffs Jose Ivan Montiel and Brayan Montiel were hired to work
as busboys at Defendants' Aurora Williamsburg restaurant in New
York from June 2014 until January 2023 and from July 2019 until
January 2023, respectively.
Corporate Defendants operate six New York-based restaurants as a
single integrated enterprise, under the control of their owners,
individual Defendants Gaspare Villa and Riccardo Buitoni.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
CAPITAL VISION: Bids for Class Certification Due Jan. 19, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Clark, et al., v. Capital
Vision Services, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-10236 (D. Mass., Feb. 11,
2022), the Hon. Judge Denise J. Casper entered an order granting
motion for extension of time.
-- Fact Discovery to be completed by: September 29, 2023
-- Expert Disclosures due by: October 27, 2023
-- Amendment to the Pleadings by: November 30, 2023
-- Rebuttal Expert Disclosures due by: December 15, 2023
-- Expert Discovery to be December 29, 2023
completed by:
-- Motions for Class Certification January 19, 2024
and Summary Judgment to be
filed by:
-- Decertification and Daubert March 15, 2024
Motions to be filed by:
-- Status Conference set for: Oct. 10, 2023
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Capital Vision provides optometric and retail optical
services.[CC]
CATERPILLAR LOGISTICS: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as McCain v. Caterpillar
Logistics, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01162-JBM-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 27, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PJk3Dq at no extra charge.[CC]
CEDAR FAIR: Court Strikes Shoemo-Flint's Class & Collective Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Tianna Shoemo-Flint, On Behalf of Herself and Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Cedar Fair, L.P., Defendant, Case
No. 3:22-cv-1113 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division,
denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss or for a more definite
statement as moot and grants the Defendant's motion to strike.
The Defendant owns and operates the Hotel Breakers hotel and resort
adjacent to the Cedar Point Amusement Park in Sandusky, Ohio.
Within the Hotel Breakers is a TGI Friday's restaurant, which also
is owned and operated by the Defendant.
Plaintiff Shoemo-Flint has worked as a server at this TGI Friday's
location within the last three years. She contends the Defendant
has violated state and federal law by maintaining a policy and
practice of requiring servers to perform "side work," such as
setting tables, making coffee, restocking glasses, cups and dishes,
refilling salt and pepper shakers, refilling and setting
condiments, rolling silverware, setting tables, clearing tables,
putting up and taking down chairs, sweeping, cleaning, and other
miscellaneous tasks that were not tip-producing work.
The Plaintiff filed suit, alleging that, by willfully failing to
pay the applicable minimum wage, the Defendant violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act, Article II Section 34a of the Ohio
Constitution, and Ohio's Prompt Pay Act, Ohio Revised Code Section
4113.15. She sought to pursue these claims individually and as a
class and a collective action.
The Defendant moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims or, in the
alternative, for a more definite statement of her claims. In
response, the Plaintiff filed her First Amended Class and
Collective Action Complaint. The Defendant filed an answer, as well
as a motion to strike the class and collective action allegations.
The Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition to the motion to strike
and the Defendant filed a brief in reply.
The Plaintiff offers the same definition for the proposed class and
the proposed collective: "All current and former tipped servers
employed by Defendant at any time during the three years prior to
the date of filing this Complaint and continuing through the
conclusion of this matter."
While Judge Helmick disagrees with the Defendant's contention that
this definition is "hopelessly vague" and "overly broad," he agrees
that the Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged facts which would
permit her to maintain this case as a class or collective action.
The Plaintiff alleges only that she was employed by Defendant
within the last three years. There is no indication in the
Complaint when she began working for the Defendant, how long she
worked for the Defendant, or whether she still works for it. She
asserts she is similarly situated to other employees who worked as
servers for the Defendant, but this is no more than a legal
conclusion. At most, the Plaintiff alleges other servers who also
worked for the Defendant during the unknown period in which she
worked for Defendant were subject to the same impermissible policy
and practice.
But, Judge Helmick says there simply is no way of determining
whether this alleged policy and practice was common to "all or a
significant number of the members of the putative class," or if
there were sufficient differences in the application of the policy
which distinguish the Plaintiff's claims from those of other
putative class members.
The Plaintiff asserts it would be premature to grant the
Defendant's motion, arguing the more prudent course is to permit
the parties to conduct discovery on the propriety of class
certification, and present their arguments for and against class
certification with the benefit of a developed factual record.
But, according to Judge Helmick the Plaintiff fails to show how
discovery or for that matter more time would help her. There is no
reason to think discovery is necessary for her to plead facts
showing her personal knowledge of the timing and duration of her
employment. Nor has she shown more time is warranted.
The same holds true for the Plaintiff's collective-action
allegations. Judge Helmick finds that the Complaint does not
contain sufficient factual detail to permit a reasonable inference
that the Plaintiff and the other members of the proposed collective
"suffered from a single, FLSA-violating policy." She offers only
the conclusory allegations that her experiences are typical of the
experiences of all other servers employed by Defendant during the
relevant time period. These allegations do not provide a "colorable
basis" for, much less a "strong likelihood" of, the necessary
conclusion that she is similarly situated to the other defined
members of the collective.
For these reasons, Judge Helmick concludes the Plaintiff fails to
allege facts which would permit her to maintain the case as a class
action or a collective action. He grants the Defendant's motion to
strike and denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss as moot.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yckvdw8y from
Leagle.com.
CEDAR FAIR: Wins Bid to Strike Shoemo-Flint Class Allegations
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tianna Shoemo-Flint, On
Behalf of Herself and Others Similarly Situated, v. Cedar Fair,
L.P., Case No. 3:22-cv-01113-JJH (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge
Jeffrey J. Helmick entered an order granting the Defendant's motion
to strike collective and class allegations.
The Plaintiff offers the same definition for the proposed class and
the proposed collective:
"All current and former tipped servers employed by the Defendant
at
any time during the three years prior to the date of filing this
Complaint and continuing through the conclusion of this
matter."
The Plaintiff asserts it would be premature to grant the
Defendant's motion, arguing "the more prudent course is to permit
the parties to conduct discovery on the propriety of class
certification, and present their arguments for and against class
certification with the benefit of a developed factual record."
Cedar Fair owns and operates the Hotel Breakers hotel and resort
adjacent to the Cedar Point Amusement Park in Sandusky, Ohio.
Within the Hotel Breakers is a TGI Friday's restaurant, which also
is owned and operated by the Defendant.
The Plaintiff Tianna Shoemo-Flint has worked as a server at this
TGI Friday's location within the last three years. She contends the
Defendant has violated state and federal law by maintaining a
policy and practice of requiring servers to perform "side work,"
such as "setting tables, making coffee, restocking glasses, cups
and dishes, refilling salt and pepper shakers, refilling and
setting condiments, rolling silverware, setting tables, clearing
tables, putting up and taking down chairs, sweeping, cleaning, and
other miscellaneous tasks that were not tip-producing work."
The Plaintiff filed suit, alleging that, by willfully failing to
pay the applicable minimum wage, the Defendant violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Ohio's Prompt Pay Act, Ohio Revised Code section 4113.15. She
sought to pursue these claims individually and as a class and a
collective action. The Defendant moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's
claims or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement of her
claims.
Cedar Fair owns and operates the Hotel Breakers hotel and resort
adjacent to the Cedar Point Amusement Park in Sandusky, Ohio.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 28, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O9RttP at no extra charge.[CC]
CIGNA HEALTH: Patients' Class Cert. Bid in Sleep Apnea Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille of Bloomberg Law reports that patients accusing Cigna
Health & Life Insurance Co. of overcharging for medical equipment
like canes and sleep apnea machines lost their bid to have the case
certified as a class action covering thousands of people.
The standard of judicial review that applies to each insurance
claim can't be determined on a class-wide basis, Judge Kari A.
Dooley of the US District Court for the District of Connecticut
said on July 6, 2023. The proper standard turns on multiple
discrete issues, including the terms of the relevant health plan,
whether Cigna's claims processing activities complied with
Department of Labor regulations, and whether any processing. [GN]
CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Loomis Sayles Trust Co. Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Loomis Sayles Trust
Company LLC v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-06706-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), LSTC asks the Court to enter an order
certifying a class as there is no reason to further delay the class
certification decision.
On October 3, 2022, LSTC filed a letter requesting a pre-motion
conference in connection with its anticipated motion for class
certification. LSTC argued in that letter that the class
certification decision could be made without the need for
discovery.
Citigroup disagreed, responding that "any motion for class
certification should be briefed after the close of fact discovery."
On November 2, 2022, the Court held a telephonic conference
regarding LSTC’s anticipated motion and instructed the parties to
proceed with discovery. The Court subsequently ordered that "if the
Plaintiffs believe that discovery has been completed on class
certification issues, they may file a pre-motion letter to that
effect," including "a statement of the change in circumstances that
merits filing the motion at that time."
The parties completed all fact discovery in April 2023. In
Citigroup's own words, it is time to brief LSTC's class
certification motion.
Finally, class treatment is "superior to other available methods
for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy."
Citigroup Global provides banking and financial services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 27, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NN1uf2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew C. Baltay, Esq.
FOLEY HOAG LLP
155 Seaport Blvd.
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 832-1262
E-mail: mbaltay@foleyhoag.com
COAST DENTAL: Faces Usategui Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
KATIE USATEGUI and DEEMA SAID, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COAST DENTAL SERVICES,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-01519 (M.D. Fla., July 10, 2023)
is a putative class action against the Defendant for alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act.
To promote its goods and services, the Defendant allegedly engages
in unsolicited text messaging to those who have not provided
Defendant with their prior express written consent and even after
repeated opt-out requests for the messages to stop. The Defendant's
robotexts have caused Plaintiffs and the Class members harm,
including violations of their statutory rights, statutory damages,
annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of their privacy, says the suit.
Through this action, Plaintiffs seek an injunction and statutory
damages on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class members and any other
available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the unlawful
actions of Defendant, the suit asserts.
Coast Dental Services, LLC provides dental care services with a
principal place of business in Tampa, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street Suite 1744
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
COHN LIFLAND: District of New Jersey Dismisses Moore FDCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HELISHA MOORE, on behalf of herself and those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN &
KNOPF, LLP and CHRISTINA N. STRIPP, Defendants, Civil Action No.
23-833 (MAS) (JBD) (D.N.J.), Judge Michael A. Shipp of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey grants the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
The matter comes before the Court on Defendants Cohn Lifland
Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP ("CLPHK") and Christina N. Stripp's
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Helisha Moore's Complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Plaintiff opposed and
the Defendants replied.
On Aug. 22, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into an automobile loan
agreement with USAlliance Federal Credit Union ("USAFCU") in the
amount of $16,317.12. She used the money from this loan to purchase
a 2012 Chevrolet Cruze. Around January 2016, the Plaintiff stopped
making payments on her loan due to unforeseen financial
circumstances. On May 11, 2016, the Plaintiff defaulted on her
loan, and upon default, a cause of action to enforce the debt
accrued.
On July 25, 2016, USAFCU repossessed the car after accelerating the
loan. Four days later, USAFCU mailed the Plaintiff a redemption
notice which stated that she would have the right to redeem the car
if she paid USAFCU $3,074.29 by Aug. 8, 2016. On Oct. 18, 2016,
USAFCU sent the Plaintiff a deficiency letter informing her that
the car had been sold on July 25, 2016 for $4,800 and that she owed
a balance of $12,386.45. USAFCU sold the car for $1,775.21 more
than it told the Plaintiff she could redeem the car for two months
earlier, and the deficiency balance was $9,361.66 more than the
amount initially listed on the redemption notice.
On Aug. 23, 2021, the Defendants, on behalf of USAFCU, filed a
collection lawsuit against Plaintiff ("the Collection Lawsuit") in
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County Law Division, to
collect on the deficiency. On Jan. 10, 2022, the Defendants moved
for default judgment ("Motion for Default Judgment") in the
Collection Lawsuit in the amount of $28,489.51, alleging that they
were entitled to an additional $11,354.81 in interest and $4,748.25
in attorneys' fees.
On May 11, 2022, the Defendants were granted default judgment, and
a Writ of Execution against the Plaintiff's wages was entered. The
Plaintiff then filed a motion to vacate the default judgment and
wage execution for improper service, which was granted on Aug. 26,
2022. The Collection Lawsuit is still ongoing. It was filed more
than four years after the deficiency letter was sent, and more than
five years after the Plaintiff's alleged default on her car loan.
On Jan. 10, 2023, exactly one year after the Motion for Default
Judgment, the Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint. She asserts
two causes of action against the Defendants: violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and unjust enrichment. She
brings this action individually and as a class action on behalf of
all others similarly situated pursuant to Rule 4:32 of the New
Jersey Rules of Court.
In moving to dismiss, the Defendants contend that the Plaintiff's
FDCPA claim is barred by the statute of limitations, and as such,
the Court should dismiss her FDCPA claim and decline supplemental
jurisdiction over her state-law unjust enrichment claim.
Judge Shipp agrees with the Defendants and grants the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss.
Judge Shipp dismisses Count I. In Count I, the Plaintiff alleges
violations of the FDCPA. The Defendants contend that the only
plausible date for the most recent alleged FDCPA violation is Aug.
23, 2021, when the underlying Collection Lawsuit was initiated.
Judge Shipp agrees with Defendant. He finds that the Defendants'
Motion for Default Judgment does not constitute an independent
FDCPA violation because it was an inevitable consequence of the
Collection Lawsuit. The continuing violation doctrine also does not
apply to this claim.
In Count II, the Plaintiff brings state-law claims of unjust
enrichment and disgorgement. When all federal claims against a
party have been dismissed from an action, the district court may,
in its discretion, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over the remaining state law claims. Since he has dismissed the
Plaintiff's FDCPA claim, Judge Shipp also declines to extend
jurisdiction to this claim. He, accordingly, dismisses Count II.
The Court will enter an order consistent with Judge Shipp's
Memorandum Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5b9kscma from Leagle.com.
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Cortez Voluntarily Dismisses Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTHONY CORTEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00317-ADA-CDB (E.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California orders the Clerk of the
Court to close the file in the case and adjust the docket to
reflect voluntary dismissal of the action.
The action was removed from Kern County Superior Court on March 2,
2023. The parties agreed to extend the Defendant's time to respond
to the complaint. However, the Defendant did not answer or file a
pre-answer motion; instead, the parties filed a Notice of
Settlement on June 20, 2023, in which they represented they had
executed a written settlement agreement. Pending before the Court
is the parties' Stipulation of Dismissal, filed on June 26, 2023,
in which the parties stipulate to dismiss the Plaintiff's
individual claims with prejudice and putative class members' claims
without prejudice.
Judge Baker explains that the Plaintiff is entitled to dismiss his
individual claims (at least) without court order on two independent
bases. First, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to
dismiss his action with a mere notice any time before the opposing
party has answered or filed a motion for summary judgment. Second,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) separately permits a plaintiff to
dismiss his action with a stipulation signed by all parties who
have appeared. The Plaintiff's filing here satisfies both Rule
41(a)(1)(A)(i) & (ii).
In a class action, however, court approval of dismissal may be
required under Rule 41(a)(2) if the class has been certified.
Specifically, Rule 23(e) provides that any claims arising out of
either a (1) "certified class" or (2) "class proposed to be
certified for purposes of settlement may be settled, voluntarily
dismissed, or compromised only with the court's approval."
In this case, the parties jointly seek to dismiss the putative
class claims under Rule 41(a)(1) without prejudice. The case is in
the initial stages, and thus, the Plaintiff has not sought
certification. Indeed, the Defendant has not answered and the case
has not convened for a scheduling conference. Thus, while the case
is a putative class action, no class has yet been certified, nor is
certification being proposed for purposes of settlement.
Because no class has been certified and because any dismissal would
not affect putative class members' claims, Rule 23(e) does not
mandate either Court approval of the parties' settlement or notice
to putative class members. In light of the parties' filing that is
consistent with Rule 41(a)(1) and Judge Baker's finding that under
the circumstances, Rule 23(e) does not require Court approval of
the dismissal, the action has been terminated by operation of law
without further order of the Court.
Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to close the file
in the case and adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of
the action pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1).
A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3dcssma5 from Leagle.com.
CORNERSTONE TRADING: Moves to Dismiss Richmond Fire Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Brown of Inside Indiana Business reports that the owner of the
former plastics recycling company in Richmond where a massive
industrial fire took place in April is seeking dismissal of a class
action lawsuit against him and the company.
Seth Smith and Cornerstone Trading Group LLC claim they are not
liable for damages because the property was at least partially
owned by the city.
The fire broke out April 11 at the building, which the city said
was stacked wall-to-wall with plastic materials, as well as
containers outside that also contained plastics. The blaze sent
plumes of black smoke into the air as well as debris that was found
several miles away, including into parts of Ohio.
The State Fire Marshal's office said air quality tests revealed
asbestos in some of the debris. Some 1,500 people were displaced
from their homes as a result of an evacuation order that stayed in
place for five days.
A cause of the fire has still not been determined, but Richmond
Mayor Dave Snow said at the time the fire was the responsibility of
Smith, whom he called a "negligent business owner."
The class action lawsuit was filed April 20 in Wayne Superior Court
by residents Tushawn Craig and Marquetta Stokes, who live in the
evacuation zone, as well as Limitless Pallets LLC.
In its complaint seeking a dismissal of the suit, Cornerstone said
the city was aware that the company was operating in the building
and "had complete knowledge of whatever dangerous conditions may
have existed at the property, including asbestos in various
portions of the structure."
The defendants said the city assumed "all legal, environmental and
other responsibility" by acquiring the property.
"The City of Richmond, had it desired to cause Cornerstone Trading
Group, LLC to be evicted from the premises, could have easily done
so by filing a legal action to that effect, but failed to do so,"
Cornerstone said in its complaint.
Cornerstone said it did not start the fire or create any conditions
that would have caused the fire to occur, also noting that the city
had disconnected power to the building.
A hearing for the defendants' motion to dismiss has been scheduled
for Oct. 11 at the Wayne County Courthouse. A preliminary pretrial
hearing had previously been set for Nov. 8. [GN]
CUYAHOGA COUNTY,OH: Case Management Order Entered in Dunn
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALANNA DUNN, v. CUYAHOGA
COUNTY, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00364-BMB (N.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan entered a case management order as
follows:
-- The pleadings shall be amended and new Oct. 5, 2023
parties shall be joined on or before:
-- The parties will provide the information July 11, 2023
listed in paragraph two of the
E-Discovery Standard by:
-- Non-expert discovery shall be completed Feb. 2, 2024
by:
-- The dispositive motion deadline and June 5, 2024
class certification deadline is:
-- A telephonic status conference with Oct. 27, 2023
lead counsel is set for:
Cuyahoga County is a large urban county located in the northeastern
part of the U.S. state of Ohio. It is situated on the southern
shore of Lake Erie, across the U.S.-Canada maritime border.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 27, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44j5Bq2 at no extra charge.[CC]
DEE MARK: Lorenzo Seeks Conditional Collective Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FILOGONIO BACILIO LORENZO,
on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective the Plaintiffs, and the
Class, v. DEE MARK INC., d/b/a AROY DEE THAI, DEE JING INC., d/b/a
KUU RAMEN LIMUPOKE INC., d/b/a KUU RAMEN, PENKAE POOLSUK, and
CHATCHAI HUADWATTANA, Case No. 1:23-cv-00048-MKV-GWG (S.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for
conditional collective certification and Court facilitation of
Notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 29, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43AjwXS 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) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
DIAMOND BRACES: Isayeva Suit Seeks Conditional Collective Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE ISAYEVA and
KAHOLY FERNANDEZ, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective the
Plaintiff and the Class, v. DIAMOND BRACES, an unincorporated
entity, association, or affiliation, ORTHOCLUB, P.C., d/b/a DIAMOND
BRACES JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-100 d/b/a DIAMOND BRACES, and OLEG
DRUT, Case No. 1:22-cv-04575-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order granting their motion for conditional
collective certification and for court facilitation of notice
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).
Diamond Braces is an orthodontic provider in the tri-state area.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 29, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DdvGLt 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) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
EAST PALESTINE: Fact Discovery Must be Completed by Jan. 5, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as In re: East Palestine
Train Derailment, Case No. 4:23-cv-00242-BYP (N.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge Benita Y. Pearson entered an order as follows:
-- Fact Discovery shall be completed on January 5, 2024
or before:
-- The party that has the burden of April 1, 2024
Proof on an issue(s) shall identify
its retained expert witness(es) and
provide opposing counsel with a
written expert report(s) on or
before:
-- The party that has no burden of proof May 3, 2024.
on an issue(s) shall identify its
retained expert(s), if any, and
submit an opposing written report(s)
to opposing counsel on or before:
-- Rebuttal report(s), if any, that May 17, 2024
Respond to any new information or
issues raised by experts for the
party that has no burden of proof
on an issue(s) shall be submitted
to opposing counsel on or before:
A copy of the Court's order dated June 28, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44CcO4f at no extra charge.[CC]
FISH NET INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fish Net Inc. The
case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Fish Net Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-05791
(S.D.N.Y., July 6, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Fish Net Limited -- https://www.fishnet.co.uk/ -- is an IT
consultancy firm that offers internet services, web solutions,
software development, network and system services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
FRONTIER AIRLINES: Faces Hamad Class Suit Over False Advertisements
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett of Top Class Actions reports that Frontier Airlines
misleads consumers into believing they are purchasing lower-priced
airfare than they actually are, a new class action lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiff Amira Hamad claims Frontier "makes up whatever discount
it purports" by hitting its customers with "fraudulent and
unwarranted charges" related to fees for personal items and checked
and carry-on bags.
"FRONTIER's bait-and-switch and 'gotcha' tactics are designed to
confuse, trick, and trap consumers to the public's detriment," the
Frontier class action states.
Hamad wants to represent a nationwide class of consumers.
Frontier intentionally hides fees from consumers, says class
action
Hamad argues Frontier "does not make its fee structure clear" to
its customers at the time they purchase tickets, and that it is
even more unclear when a purchase is made with a third-party
vendor.
Further, Frontier is accused of intentionally hiding fees from
consumers as a way to "fraudulently induce sales."
"FRONTIER's fees are not conspicuously shown on its website or on
the websites of third-party vendors, and consumers are often
unaware of FRONTIER's large and plentiful fees until after they
purchase a ticket that initially appeared attractive," the Frontier
class action states.
Hamad claims Frontier is guilty of breach of contract and
fraudulent misrepresentation, under Florida common law, and of
violating the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and
Florida laws regarding misleading advertising.
Plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting declaratory
relief along with an award of actual and punitive damages for
herself and all class members.
In another case involving a company called Frontier, a class action
lawsuit was filed against Frontier Communications in 2020 by a
consumer arguing the cable company charges more than what its
customers agreed to pay for its services.
The plaintiff is represented by Michael G. Mann of The Cochran Firm
Orlando, LLC.
The Frontier charges class action lawsuit is Hamad, et al. v.
Frontier Airlines, Inc., Case No. 6:23-cv-01209, in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida. [GN]
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Dismisses Class Action Over Vehicle Defects
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Woolley of Bloomberg Law reports that General Motors Co.
convinced a California federal court to dismiss a lawsuit over its
vehicles' airbag deployment systems because plaintiff motorists
hadn't sufficiently defined the alleged defect in the cars.
The US District Court for the Northern District of California
agreed to dismiss the proposed class action on July 6, 2023 on the
grounds that the defect plaintiffs describe—software prematurely
cutting off airbag deployment—isn't uniform across class vehicles
or consistent between the plaintiffs' complaint and response in
opposition.
Judge Jon S. Tigar granted plaintiffs three weeks leave to file an
amended complaint, solely to correct deficiencies identified in the
alleged defect's definition. [GN]
GLOBE LIFE: Frohn Appeals Denied Redaction Request to 6th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KAREN FROHN is taking an appeal from a court order denying her
request to redact portions of an Opinion and Order in the lawsuit
entitled Karen Frohn, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Globe Life and Accident Insurance
Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00713, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant for violation
of insurance contract.
On March 31, 2023, the court issued an Opinion and Order granting
the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The court also imposed
a temporary seal on that Opinion because it had allowed the parties
to file certain exhibits and information relating to that motion
under seal.
On May 5, 2023, the Plaintiff responded by asking the court to
redact references to her late husband Greg Frohn's various medical
ailments (and the activities that contributed to those ailments),
as well as information Karen Frohn learned about those ailments
from his doctors while they treated him.
On May 12, 2023, the Court denied the Plaintiff's request to redact
portions of the Mar. 31 Opinion and Order through an Order entered
by Judge Douglas R. Cole.
The appellate case is captioned Karen Frohn v. Globe Life and
Accident Insurance Company, Case No. 23-3530, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on June 27, 2023.
[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant KAREN FROHN, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, are represented by:
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
Todd B. Naylor, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (513) 345-8291
- and -
Catharin R. Taylor, Esq.
CLEMENTS, MAHIN & COHEN
708 Walnut Street, Suite 600
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 721-6500
Defendant-Appellee GLOBE LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY is
represented by:
Michael Nathaniel Beekhuizen, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Lipps, Esq.
CARPENTER LIPPS
280 N. High Street, Suite 1300
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 365-4100
- and -
Glennon P. Fogarty, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL
8001 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1500
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 480-1500
- and -
David W. Sobelman, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL
190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 480-1837
GOOGLE LLC: Payout Begins in Rivera's Privacy Settlement Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Stefanski of NBC Chicago reports that Illinois residents
started receiving payments on July 7, 2023 as part of a
multi-million dollar class-action settlement involving Google.
Hundreds of thousands of Illinois residents who filed claims in a
lawsuit alleging Google violated the state's Biometric Privacy Act
are now seeing their payout, although it won't be as much as
originally expected.
According to documents filed on May 31 in Cook County Circuit
Court, 687,484 Illinois residents who submitted valid claims will
receive somewhere between $95-$96 each. A Cook County judge in
September of last year gave final approval of the $100 million
settlement, more than three months after the agreement was reached
between the plaintiffs and Google.
On June 2, the court ordered the funds be distributed and payouts
were slated to begin "on or before July 7, 2023."
The payments users reported receiving on July 7, 2023 totaled
$95.38.
Residents had until late September of 2022 to file a claim if they
appeared in a photograph on Google Photos anywhere between May 1,
2015 and April 25, 2022 while an Illinois resident. That fall, the
Chicago Tribune reported that the judge indicated around 420,000
claims were filed in the case, which would mean each person could
get around $150. Prior to that, attorneys estimated each person
would be paid somewhere between $200 and $400.
In the many months since, the number of claims submitted soared to
687,484, reducing the amount paid to each person.
The lawsuit, which mirrors one previously settled with Facebook
that resulted in many residents receiving checks worth nearly $400,
claimed the company violated the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act by "collecting and storing biometric data of
individuals who, while residing in Illinois, appeared in a
photograph in the photograph sharing and storage service known as
Google Photos, without proper notice and consent."
If a company is found to have violated Illinois law, citizens can
collect civil penalties up to $5,000 per violation compounded by
the number of people affected and days involved. Since BIPA is an
Illinois law, it only applies to state residents. [GN]
GREAT LAKES COLD: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Mitchell Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lavaris Mitchell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Great Lakes Cold Storage,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01333 (N.D. Ohio, July 7, 2023) arises
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for Defendant's failure to
pay Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees all earned
minimum and overtime wages.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt high-lift
operator and order selector from August 2018 to May 14, 2021. The
job demands of Plaintiff, the Collective Members and the Class
Members routinely foreclosed their ability to take any meal break,
prohibited them from taking a full thirty-minute meal break, or
prohibited them being completely relieved from duty for
thirty-minutes. Nevertheless, Defendant automatically deducted
thirty minutes from every shift of six hour or more worked, thereby
denying them lawful minimum and overtime wages, says the
Plaintiff.
Great Lakes Cold Storage is a cold storage logistics company that
focuses on temperature-controlled food transportation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
E-mail: 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
E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com
GUARDIAN SAVINGS: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Stamler Suit Recommended
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TATUM STAMLER, Plaintiff v. GUARDIAN SAVINGS BANK,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-110 (S.D. Ohio), Magistrate Judge
Stephanie K. Bowman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Western Division, recommends that the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the complaint be denied.
On Feb. 24, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") against the
Defendant. The Defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint on
grounds that Plaintiff lacks standing, thereby depriving the Court
of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Defendant's motion seeks dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1), Fed. R.
Civ. P. Such motions "come in two varieties": (1) a facial attack,
which questions the sufficiency of the pleading with the
allegations to be accepted as true, or (2) a factual attack, where
no presumptive truthfulness applies to the factual allegations. The
Defendant's focus on standing reflects a facial attack.
The Plaintiff generally alleges that between September 2019 and
April 2021, without any prior business relationship or her consent,
the Defendant placed 13 calls and delivered artificial or
prerecorded voice messages to her cellular telephone in violation
of the TCPA. She alleges that the voice messages stated that the
Defendant had "an important message for B___ Emily," and urged the
recipient to return the call during business hours.
The Plaintiff alleges that she does not know Emily B. and did not
authorize her to use Plaintiff's telephone number. She alleges that
she suffered actual harm as a result the Defendant's calls
including an invasion of privacy, an intrusion into her life, and a
private nuisance, and was forced to spend time trying to determine
who the calls were from and how to get them to stop.
In its motion to dismiss, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff
has alleged no "actual injury in fact" and therefore lacks
constitutional standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
In order to establish standing a plaintiff must show: (1) a
concrete and particularized injury-in-fact which (2) is traceable
to the defendant's conduct and (3) can be redressed by a favorable
judicial decision.
Relying heavily on the Eleventh Circuit's approach in Salcedo v.
Hanna, 936 F.3d 1162 (11th Cir. 2019), the Defendant urges the
Court to hold that the Plaintiff's alleged intangible injuries --
invasion of her privacy or intrusion into her life -- are not the
type of concrete injury that can satisfy Article III. Additionally,
even if the TCPA allows for the recovery of statutory damages for
such calls, Defendant points out that statutory damages alone
cannot create standing.
Judge Bowman says the Defendant is correct that Article III
"requires a concrete injury" to demonstrate standing. And it is
also true that the Plaintiff has alleged no "tangible" injury such
as an increase in her cellular phone bill from the unwanted calls.
That said, recent Sixth Circuit cases squarely hold that a
plaintiff's receipt of a single unwanted voicemail "is injury
enough" to establish Article III standing based upon intangible
injury, because the intrusion caused by unwanted phone calls bears
a 'close relationship' to the kind of harm" protected by common-law
intrusion upon seclusion.
Attempting to find room for disagreement, the Defendant contends
that the "non-solicitation" calls at issue are not the type of harm
that the TCPA is intended to protect. It asserts that
"unintentional" calls are not covered by the TCPA, and asserts that
the Plaintiff's own allegations reflect that the individual
Defendant intended to reach was "Emily B." The Plaintiff's
transcription of one pre-recorded call also contains the sentence:
"This is not a solicitation call."
But in the context of a facial attack on jurisdiction mounted under
Rule 12(b)(1), Judge Bowman holds that the factual record remains
undeveloped. And the Defendant cites no controlling case law that a
caller's identification of calls as "not a solicitation"
pre-emptively exempts them from violating the TCPA. It is also far
from clear that a commercial caller that otherwise violates the
TCPA can escape civil liability if the caller can prove the calls
were unintentional and/or not for the primary purpose of
solicitation.
For these reasons, Judge Bowman recommends that the Defendant's
motion to dismiss be denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2023 Report &
Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/59tt5s5f from
Leagle.com.
HENKEL CORP: Settles Goldstein Benzene Class Suit for $1.95M
------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that a settlement has been reached with
Henkel Corp. and Thriving Brands LLC, the defendants, in a class
action lawsuit about allegations that aerosol and spray
antiperspirant products sold under the Right Guard brand contain or
are at risk of containing benzene.
The settlement includes anyone in the United States who purchased
Right Guard Sport and Right Guard Xtreme antiperspirant aerosol and
spray products between Nov. 19, 2018, and June 8, 2023, for
personal, family or household use, and not for resale.
The defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing and disclaim any
liability with respect to any and all claims alleged.
If the court approves the Right Guard settlement, the defendants
will pay $1.95 million into a settlement fund. After payment of
attorneys' fees and costs, incentive awards for the plaintiffs and
notice and administration costs, the available settlement funds
will be used to pay settlement class members who submit a valid
claim.
Class members who do not have proof of purchase will receive up to
$1.75 for up to five covered products per household.
Those who submit proof of purchase with their claim will receive up
to $3 for each covered product, including tax.
Payments may be increased or decreased on a pro rata basis.
The deadline to opt out of or object to the Right Guard settlement
is Oct. 14, 2023.
A final approval hearing will take place Dec. 13, 2023.
The deadline to submit a claim is Oct. 14, 2023.
Who's Eligible
Anyone in the United States who purchased Right Guard Sport and
Right Guard Xtreme antiperspirant aerosol and spray products
between Nov. 19, 2018, and June 8, 2023, for personal, family or
household use, and not for resale.
Potential Award
Up to $3 for each covered product listed on the proof of purchase,
inclusive of all taxes Up to $1.75 for up to five covered products
claimed per household, without proof of purchase.
Proof of Purchase
Receipts or other proof of purchase that reasonably establishes the
fact and date of the purchase of one or more of the covered
products between Nov. 19, 2018, and June 8, 2023. No proof of
purchase is required; however, class member payments may be higher
for those who are able to submit proof.
Claim Form
CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM »
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
10/14/2023
Case Name
Goldstein v. Henkel Corp, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00164 (AWT) in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
Final Hearing
12/13/2023
Settlement Website
AntiperspirantSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Antiperspirant Settlement
c/o Claim Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
info@AntiperspirantSettlement.com
1-844-336-0202
Class Counsel
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
BURSOR & FISHER PA
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP
LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
Defense Counsel
REARDON SCANLON LLP [GN]
HONDA MOTOR: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due May 10, 2024
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hamid Bolooki v. Honda
Motor Company Limited, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-04252-MCS-SK (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarsi entered a scheduling order as
follows:
Event Date
Last Day to Hear Motion to Amend or October 16, 2023
Add Parties:
Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off: April 1, 2024
Expert Disclosure (Initial): April 1, 2024
Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal): April 15, 2024
Expert Discovery Cut-Off: May 3, 2024
Deadline to File a Motion for Class May 10, 2024
Certification:
Deadline to File an Opposition to the May 31, 2024
Motion for Class Certification:
Deadline to File a Reply in Support of June 21, 2024
the Motion for Class Certification:
Hearing Date on Motion for Class July 8, 2024
Certification:
Deadline to File Motion(s) for Summary July 29, 2024
Judgment:
Honda Motor is a Japanese public multinational conglomerate
manufacturer of automobiles, motorcycles, and power equipment.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O5mNtF at no extra charge.[CC]
HONEYWELL INT'L: Norris Gets 120 Days More to File Class Cert. Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL PATRICK NORRIS, ROBERT REID, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. and HONEYWELL FEDERAL
MANUFACTURING & TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
8:22-cv-2210-CEH-MRM, Consolidated into lead Case No.
8:22-cv-1675-CEH-TGW (M.D. Fla.), Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell
of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Tampa Division, grants in part and denies in part the parties'
Joint Motion to Extend Plaintiffs' Class Certification Deadline and
to Stay Discovery.
The matter comes before the Court on the parties' Joint Motion to
Extend Plaintiffs' Class Certification Deadline and to Stay
Discovery, as well as the Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery. The
parties request to stay discovery until the resolution of the
Defendants' motion to dismiss. Although the Plaintiffs initially
opposed the Defendants' motion to stay discovery, they now join in
it. The parties also request that the Plaintiffs' deadline to move
for class certification be extended to 120 days after the
resolution of the Defendants' motion to dismiss.
In this putative class action, the Plaintiffs are current or former
employees of Defendants Honeywell International, Inc., and
Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies, LLC, who were
subject to a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. They allege that the
Defendants violated their rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by
discriminating and retaliating against them because of their
perceived disability and religious beliefs.
The Defendants have moved to dismiss on a variety of grounds. They
argue that: a) the Amended Complaint is a shotgun pleading because
its claims fail to differentiate between the two Defendants; b)
venue is improper for the named Plaintiffs who did not live or work
in Florida; c) the ADA and Title VII claims fail to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted; and d) the Plaintiffs' claims do
not warrant class treatment. Id. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. The
motion remains pending. In the meantime, the parties have moved to
stay discovery and extend the class certification deadline pending
resolution of the motion to dismiss.
Judge Honeywell holds that the parties have not demonstrated that
unusual circumstances justify the requested stay. The pendency of
the motion to dismiss, by itself, does not supply good cause or
reasonableness for the requested stay. Moreover, a preliminary peek
at the motion does not demonstrate an immediate and clear
possibility that the Court will dismiss the action in full.
While she does not express an opinion on the ultimate merits of the
motion to dismiss, Judge Honeywell is not convinced, upon
preliminary review, that none of the named Plaintiffs' claims will
survive. Moreover, to the extent that some of the Defendants'
arguments in support of dismissal allege that the Plaintiffs'
allegations are inadequate to state a claim, the success of those
arguments would likely result in a dismissal without prejudice and
with leave to amend. The action is not likely to end upon
resolution of the motion to dismiss. Therefore, despite the
parties' agreement, Judge Honeywell declines to stay discovery.
On the other hand, Judge Honeywell finds that good cause supports
the Plaintiffs' request to extend the deadline for class
certification. Its preliminary peek of the Defendants' motion to
dismiss suggests that not all the named Plaintiffs' claims are
likely to remain in their existing form after the motion is
resolved. She says any dismissal of claims or changes to the
current allegations would impact all parties' arguments regarding
class certification. Further, unlike a stay of discovery pending a
motion to dismiss, an extension of the class certification deadline
is not disfavored in this District, if the movant establishes good
cause. Finally, an extension of the class certification deadline is
unlikely to impact the other deadlines. This aspect of the parties'
joint motion is due to be granted.
Accordingly, Judge Honeywell grants in part and denies in part the
parties' Joint Motion to Extend Plaintiffs' Class Certification
Deadline and to Stay Discovery. She grants the motion to the extent
that the Plaintiffs' deadline to move for class certification is
extended to 120 days after the Court issues an Order on Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss. She otherwise denies the motion. The Defendants'
Motion to Stay Discovery is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/z4ektwsn from Leagle.com.
INFINITY CUTTING: Rist Sues Over Caller ID Rules Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Rist, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. INFINITY CUTTING TOOLS, INC., Case No. 23-007544-CI
(Fla. 6th Judicial Cir. Ct., Pinellas Cty., July 4, 2023), is
brought for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for
violations Of the Caller ID Rules Of the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act ("FTSA").
The FTSA's Caller ID Rules apply to solicited and consented to
Telephonic Sales Calls, and as such, claims for Caller ID Rules
violations, which requires notice and an opportunity to cease
sending unwanted text message solicitations, before claims for
"text message solicitations the called party does not consent to
receive" can be brought. The FTSA's Caller ID Rules require that
persons making Telephonic Sales Calls transmit--to the consumer's
caller identification service--a telephone number that is capable
of receiving telephone calls.
In direct contravention of the Caller ID Rules, however, many
callers, such as Defendant, make Telephonic Sales Calls a central
part of their marketing strategy, and in doing so, intentionally
transmit telephone numbers to recipient's Caller ID services that
do not connect to the call or seller, because the transmitted
telephone number is not configured for two-way communication. As
such, Plaintiff, brings this action alleging that Defendant
violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number
that was not configured for two-way communication when it made
Telephonic Sales Calls by text message ("Text Message Sales
Calls").
As such, Plaintiff, brings this action alleging that Defendant
violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number
that was not capable of receiving phone calls and does not connect
to either the telephone solicitor or the Defendant when it made
Telephonic Sales Calls by text message ("Text Message Sales
Calls"). Specifically, Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that
promoted Pura Vida ("Pura Vida Text Message Sales Calls") and
violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients'
caller identification services a telephone number that was not
capable of receiving telephone calls and that did not connect the
recipient to either the caller or the Defendant (collectively, the
"Pura Vida Callers"), says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number
that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls ("Plaintiffs Cell
Phone").
The Defendant is a Foreign Limited Liability Company, which sells
various goods to persons throughout the country, including Florida,
through its online store.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Phone: (202) 709-5744
Fax: (866) 893-0416
Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
INTEGRATED EVENT: Bernard Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Bradley Bernard, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. INTEGRATED EVENT AND PARKING SERVICES LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, and SCOTT A. HAMILTON, Individually, Case No.
9:23-cv-81002-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 6, 2023), is brought against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and to recover the unpaid wages owed to him and all other
similarly situated employees, current and former, of the
Defendants.
The Plaintiff generally worked four to five shifts per week and his
shifts were usually 12 hours per shift. From at least February
2022, and continuing through February 3, 2023, the Defendants
failed to compensate Plaintiff at a rate of one and one-half times
Plaintiff's regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a single work week.
The Plaintiff should be compensated at the rate of one and one-half
times Plaintiff's regular rate for those hours that Plaintiff
worked in excess of 40 hours per week, as required by the FLSA.
Plaintiff inquired about whether he was paid overtime and Hamilton
and human resources both confirmed that the company did not pay
overtime. Plaintiff was terminated shortly inquiring after
overtime.
The Defendants knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard
carried out its illegal pattern or practice of failing to pay
proper overtime compensation with respect to Plaintiff and those
similarly situated, as Defendants knew or with reasonable diligence
should have known that Plaintiff and other employees should be paid
for all of their overtime hours at an overtime rate, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a "laborer" on
February 2022.
INTEGRATED EVENT was and continues to be engaged in business in
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul M. Botros, Esq.
Bryan Arbeit, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Phone: (954) 318-0268
Facsimile: (954) 327-3017
Email: pbotros@forthepeople.com
barbeit@forthepeople.com
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 27
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARKIN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
v. Intuitive Surgical Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-03825-AMO (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order modifying
the Class Certification Briefing Schedule as follows:
-- Joint CMC Statement is due: September 28,
2023
-- Case Management Conference: October 5, 2023
-- Deadline to file motion for class October 27, 2023
Certification:
-- Deadline to file opposition to December 6, 2023
motion for class certification:
-- Deadline to file reply in support January 12, 2024
of 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,
most notably with the da Vinci Surgical System.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44dlu1t at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael J. Boni, Esq.
Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
John E. Sindoni, Esq.
BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC
15 St. Asaphs Road
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (610) 822-0200
Facsimile: (610) 822-0206
E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com
jsnyder@bonizack.com
jsindoni@bonizack.com
- and -
Benjamin D. Brown, Esq.
Daniel McCuaig, Esq.
Zachary Glubiak, Esq.
Manuel J. Dominguez, Esq.
Christopher J. Bateman, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS &
TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave., Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: bbrown@cohenmilstein.com
dmccuaig@cohenmilstein.com
zglubiak@cohenmilstein.com
jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com
cbateman@cohenmilstein.com
blandau@hausfeld.com
jkenney@hausfeld.com
- and -
Samuel Maida, Esq.
Brent W. Landau, Esq.
Jeannine M. Kenney, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
600 Montgomery Street, Suite
3200 San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 633-1908
Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
E-mail: smaida@hausfeld.com
blandau@hausfeld.com
jkenney@hausfeld.com
- and -
Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
Icee N. Etheridge, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
E-mail: jcorrigan@srkattorneys.com
jspector@srkattorneys.com
ietheridge@srkattorneys.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Allen Ruby, Esq.
ALLEN RUBY, ATTORNEY AT LAW
15559 Union Ave. #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
- and -
Kathryn E. Cahoy, Esq.
Sonya Winner, Esq.
Cortlin H. Lannin, Esq.
Isaac D. Chaput, Esq.
Andrew Lazerow, Esq.
Ashley E. Bass, Esq.
John Kendrick, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
3000 El Camino Real
5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
Telephone: (650) 632-4700
Facsimile: (650) 632-4800
E-mail: kcahoy@cov.com
swinner@cov.com
clannin@cov.com
ichaput@cov.com
alazerow@cov.com
abass@cov.com
jkendrick@cov.com
ISM VUZEM: Employee Class Gets Certification in Maslic FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SASA MASLIC, et al., v.
ISM VUZEM D.O.O., et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-02556-BLF (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order granting the
Plaintiff Maslic's motion for class certification and setting
deadline to submit notice plan.
-- The Court finds that Maslic has demonstrated that all
requirements for class certification of Claim 8 are satisfied,
and that certification of the class is warranted.
-- The motion for class certification on Claim 8 is granted. The
Court certifies the following class:
"All non-exempt individuals employed by ISM Vuzem, d.o.o., who
worked at the Tesla facility located in Fremont, California,
at
any time from July 1, 2014, through April 30, 2016."
-- The Plaintiff Maslic is appointed as the class
representative.
-- The Law Office of William C. Dresser is appointed as Class
Counsel.
-- The Plaintiff Sasa Maslic shall file a proposed notice plan by
August 7, 2023.
The suit is brought by fourteen individuals who claim that they
were transported to the United States from their home countries of
Bosnia and Herzegovenia, the Republic of Slovenia, and Croatia to
provide cheap labor for American companies.
The Plaintiffs filed this suit in the Alameda County Superior Court
in August 2020, and filed a first amended complaint (FAC) in
October 2020.
Tesla and Eisenmann removed the suit to federal district court in
April 2021, asserting the existence of federal jurisdiction based
on the Plaintiffs' federal statutory claims and the Class Action
Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. section 1453. See Not. of Removal at 3-4.
The case was assigned to Judge Lucy H. Koh, who severed and
remanded one claim to the state court, and also dismissed all wage
and hour
claims against Tesla and Eisenmann.
The Plaintiffs assert the following claims against the Vuzem
the Defendants, Eisenmann, and Tesla:
(1) failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA);
(2) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the FLSA;
(3) failure to pay minimum wages in violation of California
law;
(4) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of California
law;
(5) failure to provide meal breaks and rest periods in
violation
of California law;
(6) failure to provide accurate wage statements in violation of
California law;
(7) failure to pay waiting time penalties in violation of
California law;
(8) a putative class claim for violation of California wage and
hour law;
(9) trafficking and coerced labor under the federal Trafficking
Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and the California
Trafficking Victims Protection Act; and
(10) a claim under California Labor Code section 3706.
Maslic contends that all four requirements of Rule 23(a) are
satisfied in this case, and that certification of a damages class
is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3).
A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3re1SLL at no extra charge.[CC]
ISS FACILITY: Class Cert Hearing in Garcia Continued to Oct. 12
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDIA GARCIA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ISS
FACILITY SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; ISS FACILITY
SERVICES CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware corporation; BROADRIDGE
FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-07807-RS (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order that he August 10,
2023, hearing date for the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification is continued to October 12, 2023.
ISS Facility was founded in 2006. The company's line of business
includes providing facilities support management and consulting.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44dRPoL at no extra charge.[CC]
ISS FACILITY: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert. Hearing
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDIA GARCIA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ISS
FACILITY SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; ISS FACILITY
SERVICES CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware corporation; BROADRIDGE
FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-07807-RS (N.D. Cal.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order approving stipulation and
agreement to continue hearing date for the Plaintiff's motion for
class Certification.
-- The hearing date for the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class
certification is continued from August 10, 2023, to October
12,
2023, or a date thereafter convenient to the Court.
-- On October 24, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a putative class
action
complaint against the Defendants in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Alameda, alleging
various
wage-and-hour claims arising from her employment with the
Defendants.
-- On November 27, 2019, the Defendants removed this matter to
the
Federal District Court for the Northern District of
California.
-- On February 5, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint against the Defendants, adding a representative
enforcement action seeking penalties under the California
Labor
Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA).
-- On February 17, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.
-- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification came on for
hearing on June 30, 2022, and on November 22, 2022, the Court
issued its Order Denying Motion for Class Certification.
-- On March 23, 2023, the Court held a case management
conference
and issued a Case Management Scheduling Order setting August
10,
2023, as the hearing date for the Plaintiff to file a renewed
motion for class certification.
-- On June 6, 2023, pursuant to General Standing Order of Judge
Robert M. Illman, the Plaintiff submitted a request for a
telephonic conference for the purpose of enforcing the
court's
meet and confer requirement, or for the court to fashion an
alternative procedure.
-- On June 13, 2023, the Parties participated in a telephone
conference with Magistrate Judge Illman, wherein the
Magistrate
Judge ordered the Parties to further meet and confer and
submit
a letter brief regarding discovery disputes by June 19,
2023.
ISS Facility was founded in 2006. The company's line of business
includes providing facilities support management and consulting.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 26, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O4QDOQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
Matthew W. Gordon, Esq.
Max N. Sloves, Esq.
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Telephone: (310) 531-1900
Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
mgordon@maternlawgroup.com
msloves@maternlawgroup.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Julie W. Odell, Esq.
Drake A. Mirsch, Esq.
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
19800 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 300
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 633-5600
E-mail: jodell@atllp.com
dmirsch@atllp.com
JOHN F. KENNEDY MEMORIAL: Pryor Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Tracy Pryor, Amanda Bright, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. JOHN F. KENNEDY
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., a California Corporation, Case No.
CVRI2302492 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Riverside, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on July 3,
2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-05281.
The Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges the following claims for relief:
failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods;
failure to provide accurate wage statements; failure to reimburse
business expenses; unlawful wage violations; unfair
competition.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Carrie A. Gonell, Bar No. 257163
David J. Rashé, Bar No. 318400
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
Phone: +1.714.830.0600
Fax: +1.714.830.0700
Email: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com
david.rashe@morganlewis.com
KEVIN GUAN: Bolivar Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Wilmer Bolivar, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Kevin Guan, Jinguo Guan, and America Plus Group Inc. (d/b/a
Gekko Trading), Case No. 1:23-cv-05009 (E.D.N.Y., July 3, 2023), is
brought to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, untimely
paid wages, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), violations of Articles 6 and
19 of the New York State Labor Law ("NYLL"), and the NYLL's Wage
Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA").
The Plaintiff, and all other similarly situated employees, was paid
their wages bi-monthly. The Defendants did not state the correct
gross wages, as defined by NYLL, for any employee on any pay
statement as required by NYLL or deductions from the correct gross
wages. No notification, either in the form of posted notices, or
other means, was ever given to Plaintiff regarding wages are
required under the FLSA or NYLL. The Defendants' failure to provide
accurate wage notices and accurate wage statements denied Plaintiff
their statutory right to receive true and accurate information
about the nature of their employment and related compensation
policies. Moreover, Defendant's breach of these obligations injured
Plaintiff by denying Plaintiff the right to know the conditions of
their compensation, resulting in the underpayment of wages, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a warehouse employee and manual
laborer at the Defendants' wholesale apparel company.
The Defendants own, operate and/or control Gekko Trading.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 792-0046
Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com
KTY FRANCHISE: Faces Mitchell Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
KEYASIA MITCHELL and MY-ASIA MITCHELL, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KTY FRANCHISE
HOLDINGS, INC. and KEVIN YOUNG, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-05906-JGK (S.D.N.Y., July 10, 2023) arises out of the
Defendants' failure to comply with the New York City Fair Workweek
Law, Title 20, Chapter 12 of the New York City Administrative Code;
the New York Labor Law; the NYLL's supporting New York State
Department of Labor Regulations; and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the NYLL and
the FLSA by requiring employees to work off-the-clock at the end
and start of their shifts to avoid having to pay overtime premiums.
The Defendants also violated the NYLL by failing to provide each
employee with a statement, with every payment of wages, listing the
following: phone number of employer; all rates of pay, including
the Fair Workweek premiums, which Defendants did not pay; and all
hours worked. The Defendants further violated the NYLL by failing
to provide employees with wage notices at the time of their hire,
as required by the NYLL, the suit asserts.
Plaintiffs Keyasia Mitchell and My-asia Mitchell were employed as
hourly employees at Defendants' Chick-Fil-A location in New York
from approximately June 2020 through December 2022 and from
approximately September 2018 through December 2022, respectively.
KTY Franchise Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with a
principal place of business in New York, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
335 18th Pl NE
Washington, D.C. 20002
Telephone: (202) 744-1407
Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
E-mail: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com
- and -
John J. Frawley, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
E-mail: jfrawley@flsalaw.com
LANSING COMMUNITY: Failed to Protect Students' Info, Whitby Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANA WHITBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LANSING COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-00738-PLM-RSK (W.D. Mich., July 10, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard Plaintiff and Class members' personally identifiable
information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular
business practices, including, but not limited to full names and
Social Security numbers.
On March 14, 2023, Defendant became aware of suspicious activity on
its computer network. In response, Defendant purports to have
"immediately launched an investigation, with the assistance of
third-party computer specialists." As a result of that
investigation, Defendant concluded on May 24, 2023 that "an
authorized actor may have had access to certain systems" between
"December 25, 2022 and March 15, 2023."
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose PII
was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: (i)
adequately protect the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members; (ii)
warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendant's inadequate
information security practices; and (iii) effectively secure
hardware containing protected PII using reasonable and effective
security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents. The
Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence, at a minimum, and
violates federal and state statutes, says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are or were students and/or student
applicants at LCC or provided Defendant with the relevant PII for
some other purpose.
Lansing Community College is a community college in Michigan
serving more than 17,700 students each year.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Nick Suciu, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com
LAS PARKING: Lagden Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Las Parking
California, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Leonard Lagden, on
behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated
v. Las Parking California, LLC, Does 1 through 50, Case No.
23CV004246 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 6, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
LAZ Parking -- https://lazparking.com/ -- offers convenient, cheap
parking garages throughout the US.[BN]
LESSEREVIL LLC: Markham Sues Over Mislabeled Food Products
----------------------------------------------------------
Karen Markham, individually, and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LESSEREVIL LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-03412 (N.D. Cal., July 7, 2023) arises from the Defendant's
alleged deceptive and misleading practices with its marketing and
sale of its "Lil Puffs" food products in violation of the
California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures, sells, and
distributes the products using a marketing and advertising campaign
focused on claims that appeal to health-conscious consumers. The
Defendant engages in a deceptive marketing campaign to convince
consumers that the products are nutritious and healthful to
consume, and are more healthful than similar products. The
Defendant specifically uses nutrient content claims on its products
that are specifically targeted to children under the age of two.
The said use of nutrient content claims is false, misleading, and
deceptive because Defendant's products contain high amounts of
unsafe fats which increase the risk of severe health issues,
including coronary heart disease, alleges the suit.
Lesserevil LLC is focused on making snack foods, offering a potato
based puff and a line of flavored low carb popcorns.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Ryan Gustafson, Esq.
GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
2330 Westwood Blvd., No. 103
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Telephone: (310) 274-4663
E-mail: jrg@ggallp.com
- and -
Amir Shenaq, Esq.
SHENAQ PC
3500 Lenox Road, Ste. 1500
Atlanta GA 30326
Telephone: (888) 909-9993
E-mail: amir@shenaqpc.com
- and -
Steffan T. Keeton, Esq.
THE KEETON FIRM LLC
100 S Commons, Ste 102
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Telephone: (888) 412-5291
E-mail: stkeeton@keetonfirm.com
LONGNECKER PROPERTIES: Baker Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Malcolm Baker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Longnecker Properties, Inc., d/b/a Longnecker Rigging,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00770 (W.D. Tex., July 7, 2023), is brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act
(collectively, the "FLSA") seeking damages for Defendant's failure
to pay Plaintiff time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all
hours worked over 40 during each seven-day workweek while working
for Defendant paid on a day rate basis.
The Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek
for Defendant. The Plaintiff's weekly work schedule typically
encompassed 105 hours of work for Defendant. However, Defendant did
not pay Plaintiff time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all
hours worked over 40 during each and every workweek. The Defendant
misclassified Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees as
independent contractors, paying them with IRS tax form 1099s. But
Plaintiff, and similarly situated workers, as a matter of economic
reality were in fact the Defendant's employee under the FLSA, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a cook in connection
with its oil and gas service industry business operations.
The Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the
State of Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melinda Arbuckle
Ricardo J. Prieto
WAGE AND HOUR FIRM
5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75254
Phone: (214) 489-7653
Facsimile: (469) 319-0317
Email: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com
rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com
LUIS DE LA AGUILERA: Benes Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Benes, John Mcclure, and Daniel Valdes, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. LUIS DE LA
AGUILERA, AIDA LEVITAN, BERNARDO B. FERNANDEZ, JR., KIRK WYCOFF,
HOWARD FEINGLASS, and WAYNE K. GOLDSTEIN, Case No.
1:23-cv-22488-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 5, 2023), is brought against
the Defendants breach of fiduciary duties.
Corporate directors owe fiduciary duties and obligations to the
corporation and its shareholders. They must ensure, among other
things, that the corporation acts within its lawful authority. They
cannot cause a corporation to act ultra vires—i.e., to act
"'beyond the scope of power allowed or granted by a corporate
charter or by law.'" The directors of U.S. Century Bank (the
"Bank") breached their fiduciary duties, failed in their
responsibilities, and caused the Bank to act ultra vires, in order
to enrich themselves and the private equity funds they represented
that held the Bank's preferred stock.
The Defendants are all current or former members of the Bank's
Board of Directors (the "Board"). At least three members were
appointed to the Board by virtue of their high-level positions with
private equity funds that held a significant share of the Bank's
common and preferred stock.
In 2021, Defendants breached their fiduciary duties when they
devised, approved, and implemented an ultra vires transaction to
exchange the Bank's preferred stock for common stock. That
"Exchange Transaction," effectuated in July 2021, overwhelmingly
favored seven private equity funds, including the directors'
private equity funds, that held the Bank's preferred stock.
The Plaintiffs are holders of voting common stock in the Bank. They
are "Legacy Shareholders" who founded the Bank twenty years ago as
a minority owned community bank focused on helping the Hispanic
community in Miami-Dade County. The ultra vires Exchange
Transaction dramatically and illegally shifted the economic and
voting power in the Bank from these local minority entrepreneurs to
large out-of-state private equity funds. In May 2021, Defendants
approved the Exchange Transaction notwithstanding the fact that the
Bank's governing Articles of Incorporation expressly prohibited the
conversion of Class C and Class D preferred stock to common stock.
Had they wished to carry out the Exchange Transaction lawfully, the
Board should have drafted a proposed amendment to the Articles of
Incorporation and submitted that proposal to the common
shareholders for a vote. The Defendants knowingly and intentionally
did not do so. Absent a properly approved amendment, the Exchange
Transaction was ultra vires, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs holds shares in USCB Financial Holdings, Inc.
Luis de la Aguilera is a citizen of the State of Florida and served
as President, CEO, and a member of the Board of Directors of the
Bank.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jorge L. Piedra, Esq.
Harley S. Tropin, Esq.
Javier A. Lopez, Esq.
Daniel DiClemente, Esq.
KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP
2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, 9th Floor
Miami, FL 33134
Phone: (305) 372-1800
Email: jpiedra@kttlaw.com
hst@kttlaw.com
jal@kttlaw.com
ddiclemente@kttlaw.com
MAINTENANCE SUPPLY: Lopez Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ignacio Gracian Lopez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Maintenance Supply Headquarters,
LP, Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No.
23STCV09365 was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court,
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on July 7, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-05432-SB-AS to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.
Maintenance Supply Headquarters, LP wholesales cutlery and general
hardware. The Company offers products such as appliance parts, bath
hardware, ceiling fans, ceramic tiles, copper fittings, light
bulbs, locks, mirrors, water heaters, and window coverings.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marcus Bradley, Esq.
Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq.
Lirit Ariella King, Esq.
Bradley Grombacher LLP
31365 Oak Crest Drive Suite 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Phone: (805) 270-7100
Fax: (805) 270-7589
Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
lking@bradleygrombacher.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Katherine V. A. Smith, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Phone: (213) 229-7000
Fax: (213) 229-7520
Email: ksmith@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Katie Marie Magallanes, Esq.
Michele L. Maryott, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP
3161 Michelson Drive
Irvine, CA 92612-4412
Phone: (949) 451-3800
Fax: (949) 450-4220
Email: KMagallanes@gibsondunn.com
mmaryott@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Joseph R. Rose, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP
555 Mission Street Suite 3000
San Francisco, CA 94105-0921
Phone: (415) 393-8200
Fax: (415) 374-8306
Email: jrose@gibsondunn.com
MANITOBA: Court Approves Disabilities Suit Settlement for $17-M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Lefebvre of CTVNewsWinnipeg.ca reports that a settlement
for the class action lawsuit involving former residents of a home
for people with developmental disabilities in Manitoba has been
approved by the court.
Koskie Minsky LLP, the law firm representing residents in the suit,
announced the approval on July 7, 2023.
"The settlement provides a $17 million fund for financial
compensation to Class Members who allege they suffered certain
harms, as well as the funding of several reconciliation
initiatives," a news release from the firm reads. "On May 25, 2023,
the Court approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and in the
best interests of the Class."
The lawsuit, which was settled in March, was filed in 2018 by David
Weremy, who lived at the Manitoba Developmental Centre in the
1950s, '60s and '70s, and alleged he and others were abused at the
facility.
At the MDC's peak in the 1970s, 1,200 people were housed, but it is
now home to fewer than 160. The province stopped accepting new
residents in 1996, except for short-term and court ordered
placements.
The province announced operations at MDC would be winding down,
with its closure expected in 2024. Residents will be living in the
community with additional support.
The settlement included a formal apology from Premier Heather
Stefanson, which was read in the Manitoba legislature on June 1.
Class members include everyone who lived at MDC between July 1,
1951 and May 29, 2020, were alive as of October 31, 2016, and have
not opted out of the suit. Accepted claim payments will likely
range between $3,000 and $85,000.
More information about claims can be found online. [GN]
MARTEN TRANSPORT: Court Enters Order on Class Cert. Deadlines
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Linman, Scott v. Marten
Transport, Ltd., Case No. 3:22-cv-00204 (W.D. Wisc., Filed April
11, 2022), the Hon. Judge Stephen L. Crocker entered an order
granting Motion to stay order on motion for extension of time as
follows:
-- The June 30, 2023, deadline to file a motion for class
certification is struck.
-- If the parties do not timely file their motion for preliminary
approval, then the court will reset the deadline for a class
certification motion and perhaps re-set other deadlines, while
keeping the July 15, 2024, trial date in place.
On June 22, 2023, the parties reported that they have settled this
case in principle, and they need until August 18, 2023, to file
their motion for preliminary approval. They ask the court to stay
proceedings until then.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other
Personal Injury.
Marten provides transportation and logistics services.[CC]
MDL 2670: Court Won't Review Judgment in Seafood Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: PACKAGED SEAFOOD PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
This Document Relates To: Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v.
Bumble Bee Foods LLC, et al., 3:18-cv-01014-DMS-MDD, Case No.
15-MD-2670 DMS (MDD) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California denies
Plaintiffs Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. and Affiliated Foods,
Inc.'s motion to reconsider the Court's April 21, 2023 Order.
The Order granted Defendants StarKist Co., Del Monte Corp., and
Dongwon Industries Co.'s motion for partial summary judgment on all
claims for purchases made prior to May 30, 2011.
On April 21, 2023, the Court issued an Order granting the
Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on all claims for
purchases made prior to May 30, 2011. On May 22, 2023, the
Plaintiffs filed the present motion to reconsider that Order on the
ground it is clearly erroneous. In the alternative, the Plaintiffs
move the Court to certify the Order for interlocutory appeal
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). The Defendants filed an
opposition to the motion, and the Plaintiffs filed a reply.
Judge Sabraw states that reconsideration is appropriate if the
district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2)
committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly
unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling
law. As mentioned, the Plaintiffs argue reconsideration is
warranted because the Court committed clear error. Judge Sabraw has
considered the Plaintiffs' arguments and finds no clear error in
its ruling. Accordingly, she denies the Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration is denied.
As an alternative to reconsideration, the Plaintiffs also move for
certification of the Court's Order for interlocutory appeal
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Certification under Section 1292(b) is
proper: When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order
not otherwise appealable under this section, will be of the opinion
that such order involves [1] a controlling question of law [2] as
to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and
[3] that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance
the ultimate termination of the litigation.
Judge Sabraw says the Plaintiffs have not shown that the first
requirement is met. On that requirement, the Plaintiffs suggest the
Court's Order is a controlling question of law, but the Order
itself does not fall within that definition. They also assert
whether the Defendants' direct communications can prove a
conspiracy is a controlling question of law, but that question does
not raise a pure issue of law. Rather, it involves a consideration
of the facts of this particular case and whether those facts are
sufficient to withstand the Defendants' motion. Hence, the
Plaintiffs have not shown the first requirement is met, and absent
that showing, Judge Sabraw declines to certify the Court's decision
for interlocutory review.
For these reasons, the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration or
for interlocutory appeal is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2jh4bvw6 from Leagle.com.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Court Junks Hamm Bid for Partial Reconsideration
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRY HAMM, et al., v.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, Case No. 5:16-cv-03370-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila entered an order denying motion for
partial reconsideration.
-- The Court denies Hamm's motion for reconsideration. If there
was
any confusion on the matter, the Court clarifies that its
denial
of class certification is without prejudice, and Hamm may
renew
his motion for class certification after addressing the
deficiencies identified in this Order and the Class
Certification
Order. If Hamm renews his motion, the parties are advised that
they should not reiterate arguments on the elements of class
certification or other issues on which the Court already found
in
favor of Hamm, unless there hasbeen an intervening change in
law
or further factual developments relevant to those elements or
issues.
-- The Court is doubtful that Mazza is applicable in this
circumstance. The Mazza the Plaintiffs' theory was that the
Defendant car manufacturer omitted information about the
limitations of the braking systems installed in certain cars.
Hamm argues that the Court erred in determining that he is not
typical of the class and that individual questions of reliance
predominate common questions for his California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act (CLRA) claim.
Mercedes-Benz USA was founded in 2000. The Company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of new and used
passenger automobiles.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NGWvMM at no extra
charge.[CC]
MIDTOWN HOME HEALTH: Heard Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Ayonna Heard, on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees
v. MIDTOWN HOME HEALTH CARE LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-02553 (E.D. Pa.,
July 3, 2023), is brought against the Defendant, seeking all
available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and
the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA") as a result of unpaid
overtime wages.
The Plaintiff often worked over 40 hours per week. For example,
during the week starting November 29, 2021, Defendant credited
Plaintiff with working 70 hours. The FLSA and PMWA require that
employers pay employees overtime premium compensation for hours
worked over 40 per week. Plaintiff's regular rate was $13.50 per
hour, and Defendant utilized this rate during Plaintiff's normal,
non-overtime workweeks. For example, during the week starting
November 22, 2021, Plaintiff was paid $13.50 per hour for 35 hours
of work.
However, during weeks in which Plaintiff did work overtime,
Defendant reduced Plaintiff's regular rate and calculated overtime
premium compensation based upon that reduced rate. For example, in
the week starting November 29, 2021, Plaintiff was credited with
working a total of 70 hours and was paid $11.05 per hour for 40
hours of work, and $16.58 per hour for 30 hours of work.
However, during weeks in which Plaintiff did work overtime,
Defendant reduced Plaintiff's regular rate and calculated overtime
premium compensation based upon that reduced rate. For example, in
the week starting November 29, 2021, Plaintiff was credited with
working a total of 70 hours and was paid $11.05 per hour for 40
hours of work, and $16.58 per hour for 30 hours of work., says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a home care worker.
The Defendant owns and operates a business that provides home
health care services to clients in southeastern Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
Michelle Tolodziecki, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Phone: (215) 884-2491
Email: mtolodziecki@winebrakelaw.com
MMJ APPAREL: Toro Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------
Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. MMJ Apparel, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-05793 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 6, 2023), is brought against the Defendant for their failure
to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout
the United States with equal access to the goods and services MMJ
Apparel provides to their non-disabled customers through
https://www.milly.com (hereinafter "Milly.com" or "the website").
Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the
"ADA"), says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.
MMJ Apparel provides to the public a website known as Milly.com
which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and
services, including, the ability to view dresses, swimwear,
T-shirts, skirts, shorts, sweaters, jumpsuits.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
108-26 64th avenue, Second Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (929) 324-0717
Fax: (929) 333-7774
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
MSCRIPTS LLC: Court Appoints Robbins as Guardian Ad Litem
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENT ROBBINS, v. MSCRIPTS,
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No.
3:23-cv-01381-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered
an order appointing Ms. Robbins as guardian ad litem for the
plaintiff.
Here, a preponderance of the evidence supports finding the
plaintiff incompetent. Ms. Robbins' declarations show that the
plaintiff "was diagnosed with brain disease and dementia," which
"creates a mental impairment which significantly limits any
decision making." This shows that he is unable to assist counsel in
the preparation of this case.
Given that Mr. Robbins is incompetent, the court finds that Ms.
Robbins is a suitable guardian ad litem for the plaintiff. The
plaintiff consented to her appointment, she is not a party to the
case, she is the wife of the plaintiff, and she is fully able to
represent him. The defendant does not argue that Ms. Robbins has
any conflict. This conclusion is buttressed by the defendant's
ability to "challenge any appointment, if necessary, after
development of the factual record."
The case is putative data-breach class action brought by named
plaintiff Kent Robbins. Mr. Robbins moves to appoint his wife,
Sarah Robbins, as his guardian ad litem because he has dementia and
is not competent to represent himself.
The defendant contends that it requires more information before
taking a position on the motion. The declarations from Ms. Robbins
describing Mr. Robbins' dementia and his inability to participate
in the litigation are under oath and a sufficient record to appoint
her as guardian ad litem.
This is a putative class action against Mscripts, a mobile pharmacy
company. In 2022 the company detected a misconfiguration in its
cloud storage environment that exposed client data for a six-year
period.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 27, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46TRPMz at no extra charge.[CC]
MULVADI CORP: Agrees to Authenticate Kona Beans in Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ufonobong Umanah of Bloomberg Law reports that Mulvadi Corp. will
certify its Kona coffee meets the product's definition under Hawaii
law, according to a preliminary agreement to settle a class action
suit.
Mulvadi's insurer agreed to pay $7.8 million, beyond the limits of
its insurance policy, after the coffee company declared bankruptcy.
The US District Court for the Western District of Washington will
have to approve the settlement alongside a Hawaiian bankruptcy
court. [GN]
NINE MOONS PIERCING: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nine Moons Piercing,
LLC. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Nine Moons Piercing, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-05161 (E.D.N.Y., July 6, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Nine Moons Piercing -- https://ninemoonspiercing.com/ -- is a
Premier Piercing Studio, located in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
ONIX GROUP: Bernard Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI
------------------------------------------------------------
Ashlea Bernard, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ONIX GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-02556 (E.D. Pa., July
3, 2023), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly
situated individuals' personally identifiable information ("PII")
and protected health information ("PHI"), including names, Social
Security numbers, scheduling, billing, and clinical information
(collectively, "Private Information"), from criminal hackers.
According to a notification letter Onix posted on its website, Onix
experienced a "ransomware incident" on March 27, 2023 affecting its
internal computer systems between the period of March 20 and 27,
2023, which resulted in unauthorized access to Private Information
(the "Data Breach"). Plaintiff and Class Members were, and continue
to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other
forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will remain
for their respective lifetimes.
The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach contained
highly sensitive patient data, representing a gold mine for data
thieves. The data included, but is not limited to, names, Social
Security numbers, birthdates, and unspecified "clinical
information" regarding care at one of Onix's affiliated entities.
The compromised files also contained information maintained for
human resources purposes, including names, Social Security numbers,
direct deposit information, and health plan enrollment
information.
There has been no assurance offered by Onix that all personal data
or copies of data have been recovered or destroyed, or that
Defendant has adequately enhanced its data security practices
sufficient to avoid a similar breach of its network in the future.
Therefore, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and are at an
imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of suffering,
ascertainable losses in the form of harm from identity theft and
other fraudulent misuse of their Private Information, the loss of
the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses incurred to
remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, and the value of
their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of
the Data Breach.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to address Onix's
inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that
it collected and maintained, and its failure to provide adequate
notice to Plaintiff and Class Members of the types of information
that were accessed, and that such information was subject to
unauthorized access by cybercriminals, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff provided her PII and PHI to Addiction Recovery
Services, one of Onix's affiliated groups, and was notified via
letter dated May 26, 2023 that her information was compromised in
the Data Breach.
Onix operates in the hospitality, commercial real estate
development and healthcare industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Sandercock, Esq.
Mason A. Barney, Esq.
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Phone: (212) 532-1091
Email: nsandercock@sirillp.com
mbarney@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.com
PATRICK O'DANIEL: Baker Files Bid to Stay Filing Fee & Amended Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW BAKER V. PATRICK
L. O'DANIEL, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00134-H (N.D. Tex.), the
Plaintiff files a motion to stay filing fee and amended complaint.
On June 13, 2023, the Court severed Case No. 1:23-CV-00086-H and
ordered each Plaintiff to submit a complete amended complaint and
pay the filing fee of $402/file IFP.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 22, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pyv6oh at no extra
charge.[CC]
PHE INC: Remus TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------
The case styled LISA REMUS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHE, INC D/B/A ADAM & EVE
STORES, Defendant, Case No. 22-CA-000641-K, was removed from the
Circuit Court for the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Monroe
County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on July 10, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 4:23-cv-10054-JEM to the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over Defendant's alleged violation of the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
PHE, Inc., d/b/a Adam & Eve Stores, is a retailer of adult and
sexual wellness products in the U.S.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Luis Silva, Esq.
LEECH TISHMAN FUSCALDO & LAMPL, LLC
8470 Enterprise Circle, Suite #100
Lakewood Ranch, FL 34202
Telephone: (941) 877-1830
E-mail: lsilva@leechtishman.com
- and -
Michael H. Sampson, Esq.
LEECH TISHMAN FUSCALDO & LAMPL, LLC
525 William Penn Place, 28th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 261-1600
E-mail: msampson@leechtishman.com
- and -
James K. Paulick, Esq.
LEECH TISHMAN FUSCALDO & LAMPL, LLC
2041 Rosencrans Avenue, Suite 300
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (424) 738-4400
E-mail: jpaulick@leechtishman.com
PILLPACK LLC: T-Mobile Ordered to Produce Docs in Williams Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AARON WILLIAMS, Plaintiff v. PILLPACK LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-05282-DGE (W.D. Wash.), Judge David G. Estudillo
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Tacoma, grants the Plaintiff's unopposed Motion to Enforce
Subpoena Duces Tecum directed to T-Mobile USA, Inc.
Judge Estudillo has considered the Plaintiff's Motion, the
Declaration of Blythe H. Chandler in support of the Plaintiff's
motion and the other pleadings and papers in the matter.
California's Public Utilities Code permits wireless carriers to
produce subscriber information in response to a court order.
Pursuant to this authority, Judge Estudillo orders T-Mobile to
produce the California subscriber information the Plaintiff seeks
in his subpoena.
Delaware's Stored Communications Act permits telephone companies to
provide subscriber information pursuant to a court order. Pursuant
to this authority, Judge Estudillo also orders T-Mobile to produce
the Delaware subscriber information the Plaintiff seeks in his
subpoena.
Pennsylvania law permits disclosure of subscriber information
pursuant to a court order only if the subscriber receives notice
from the party seeking the record and is given an opportunity to be
heard. Notice may be provided to subscribers by a third-party class
action administrator before subscriber information may be provided
to counsel for a proposed or certified class, citing Kelly v.
Verizon Penn., LLC, 2017 WL 11549625, at *9 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 8,
2017); Lee v. Global Tel*Link Corp., 2018 WL 11008970, at *1 (C.D.
Cal. Jan. 16, 2018) (Lee II). The court in the underlying action
already has approved the class notice.
Therefore, Judge Estudillo orders T-Mobile to provide Pennsylvania
subscriber information to the approved notice administrator, Epiq
Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. Epiq will provide to
Pennsylvania subscribers both the class notice and the notice
required under Pennsylvania law that is substantially similar to
the notice attached as Exhibit 6 to the Chandler Declaration in
support of this motion.
He further orders that in searching and providing the subscriber
information described in the subpoena, T-Mobile need not provide
email addresses or search pre-paid accounts. T-Mobile will provide
a data compilation in a *.csv or Excel format spreadsheet format
reflecting the name and billing address for each subscriber of
T-Mobile phone services whose phone number appears on the list
provided, for the date ranges associated with each phone number, to
T-Mobile by the Plaintiff's counsel.
Judge Estudillo orders that the Subpoenaed Information will be
maintained as "Confidential" in accordance with the Protective
Order entered in the underlying action. The Subpoenaed Information
may be used only for purposes of determining class membership and
providing notice to the class in the underlying action, and must be
destroyed upon written request of T-Mobile, or in any event no
later than three years after the date of the final disposition of
this case. Upon written request from T-Mobile, the Plaintiff will
confirm to T-Mobile and its counsel, in writing, when the
destruction of all Subpoenaed Information is completed.
Finally, Judge Estudillo orders the Plaintiff to pay T-Mobile's
actual costs associated with production, up to $3,500.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yurnw46r from Leagle.com.
PIZZA HUT: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illegal Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Andres of TCPAWorld reports that just on July 6, 2023,
Pizza Hut became the latest target of a TCPA class action lawsuit.
The allegations in the Complaint are fairly straightforward.
Danuel Cortez (yes, that is a "u" and not an "I") alleges that he
received multiple text messages from Pizza Hut on his cell phone,
even after he texted "STOP" to opt out.
A purported screenshot of the text messages included in the
Complaint shows that after Danuel texted "STOP," Pizza Hut sent a
confirming text message that he was successfully unsubscribed. But
then, 3 days later, he continued to receive promotional text
messages from Pizza Hut. How did that happen? If these allegations
are true folks, Pizza Hut might find itself in hot water.
Danuel seeks to represent the following class: All persons within
the United States who, within four years prior to the filing of
this Complaint, (1) were sent a text message from Defendant or
anyone on Defendant's behalf, (2) regarding Defendant's goods,
products or services, (3) to said person's residential and/or
cellular telephone number, (4) after making a request to Defendant
to not receive future text messages.
Since this case was just filed, we'll have to keep a close eye on
how things unfold in the coming months. Rest assured, we'll stay on
top of this and provide updates as they roll in. Stay tuned! [GN]
POINT32HEALTH INC: Sued Over Failure to Safeguard Information
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Doe, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
POINT32HEALTH, INC., HEALTH PLANS, INC., and HARVARD PILGRIM HEALTH
CARE, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-11497-WGY (D. Mass., July 3, 2023), is
brought against Defendant because of its failure to properly
safeguard the Private Information entrusted to it, and to remedy
the harms suffered by plaintiff and those similarly situated caused
by this failure.
On April 17, 2023, Defendants became aware that an unauthorized
party was able to access certain of Defendants' systems (the "Data
Breach"). Following an investigation, Defendants discovered a third
party was able to access, copy, and exfiltrate patient information
from its systems. The follow up investigation determined that
information potentially access in the incident varied for each
individual and may have included name, physical address, phone
number, date of birth, health insurance account information, Social
Security number, and clinical information (e.g., medical history,
diagnoses, treatments, dates of service, and provider names)
(collectively, "Private Information"). Defendant sent a notice of
data security letter ("Notice of Data Breach") on June 15, 2023.
By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the
PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and
equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that
information from unauthorized access and intrusion. Despite its
duties to Plaintiff and Class Members to secure and safeguard the
PII entrusted to it, Defendant stored this Private Information on a
database that was negligently and/or recklessly configured.
Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class
Members' Private Information and failed to encrypt or redact this
highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted Private
Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligence.
As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members
suffered ascertainable losses, including but not limited to, a loss
of privacy, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket
monetary losses and expenses, the value of their time reasonably
incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, the
diminished value of their Private Information, and the substantial
and imminent risk of identity theft. Given the theft of information
that is largely static --like Social Security numbers--this risk
will remain with Plaintiff and Class Members for the rest of their
lives, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a victim of the Data Breach.
The Defendants are a non-profit healthcare company based in Canton,
Massachusetts serving the New England region of the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard E. Levine, Esq.
STANZLER LEVINE, LLC
37 Walnut Street, Suite 200
Wellesley, MA 02481
Phone: (617) 482-3198
Email: rlevine@stanzlerlevine.com
- and -
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD, LLP
412 H Street NE
Washington, D.C. 20002
Phone: 202.470.3520
Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
PRECISION DOCUMENT: Asaro Sues Over Untimely Paid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Asaro, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. PRECISION DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No.
1:23-cv-05739 (S.D.N.Y., July 5, 2023), is brought claiming of
failure to: pay overtime premium pay under the Fair Labor Standard
Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("Labor Law"); timely pay
overtime wages under the FLSA; pay wages weekly under N.Y. Lab.
Law; provide the N.Y. Lab. Law Notice and Acknowledgement of
Payrate and Payday; and provide accurate the N.Y. Lab. Law Wage
Statements.
The Plaintiff was paid every two weeks, not every week, he was not
paid overtime premium pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a
week, and he was not paid overtime premium pay in the same week in
which such pay was earned, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant PDS as a Printer
Technician.
PDS, among other things, provides sales, leasing, support,
maintenance and repairs of office equipment, such as printers,
scanners and copiers throughout New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10017-6705
212.392.4772
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
ROLLINS COLLEGE: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rollins College. The
case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Rollins College, Case No.
1:23-cv-05910 (S.D.N.Y., July 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Rollins College -- https://www.rollins.edu/ -- is a private college
in Winter Park, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY: Fikuru Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roosevelt University.
The case is styled as Bazanhe Fikuru, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Roosevelt University, Case No.
1:23-cv-04320 (N.D. Ill., July 6, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Property Damage.
Roosevelt University -- https://www.roosevelt.edu/ -- is a private
university with campuses in Chicago and Schaumburg, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mason A. Barney, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 5the Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Phone: (212) 532-1091
Email: mbarney@sirillp.com
RUST-OLEUM CORP: Bush Seeks to File Unredacted Documents Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY BUSH, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RUST-OLEUM
CORPORATION, Case No. 3:20-cv-03268-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
files administrative motion to file under seal unredacted documents
in Support of plaintiff's reply in support of motion for class
certification and motion to exclude Defendant's Expert Dr. Kivetz.
On July 15, 2021, the Court entered the stipulated protective order
governing the confidentiality of information and documents in the
action.
Subsequently, the Parties participated in discovery during which
materials such as deposition transcripts for various witnesses, and
sales data from third parties were designated as "CONFIDENTIAL" or
"HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY".
Rust-Oleum is a manufacturer of protective paints and coatings for
home and industrial use.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 29, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PSRJi0 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq.
Katherine A. Bruce, Esq.
Kelsey J. Elling, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
kbruce@clarksonlawfirm.com
kelling@clarksonlawfirm.com
- and -
Christopher D. Moon, Esq.
Kevin O. Moon, Esq.
MOON LAW APC
228 Hamilton Ave., 3rd Fl
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (619) 915-9432
Facsimile: (650) 618-0478
E-mail: chris@moonlawapc.com
kevin@moonlawapc.com
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: UA Local 38 Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
UA LOCAL 38 DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PENSION PLAN, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY
HOLDINGS PLC, WILLIAM D. MOSLEY, and GIANLUCA ROMANO, Defendants,
Case No. 3:23-cv-03431-SI (N.D. Cal., July 10, 2023) is a
securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all
purchasers of Seagate common stock between September 15, 2020 and
October 25, 2022, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies against
Seagate and certain of the Company's current and former senior
executives under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.
During the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made false and
misleading statements and engaged in a scheme to deceive the market
and a course of conduct that artificially inflated the price of
Seagate common stock and operated as a fraud or deceit on Class
Period purchasers of Seagate common stock by misrepresenting the
value of the Company's business and prospects by concealing the
significant defects in its underwriting and due diligence practices
and deficiencies in its commercial credit portfolio and related
securitized assets. As Defendants' misrepresentations and
fraudulent conduct became apparent to the market, the price of the
Company's stock fell precipitously as the prior artificial
inflation came out of the stock's price. As a result of their
purchases of Seagate common stock during the Class Period,
Plaintiff and other members of the Class suffered economic loss,
i.e., damages, under the federal securities laws, says the suit.
Plaintiff UA Local 38 Defined Contribution Pension Plan purchased
Seagate common stock during the Class Period.
Seagate Technology Holdings PLC is a global supplier of data
storage products with its principal product development facilities
in Fremont, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Post Montgomery Center
One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 288-4545
Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Spencer A. Burkholz, Esq.
Danielle S. Myers, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101-8498
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
E-mail: spenceb@rgrdlaw.com
danim@rgrdlaw.com
SEEKING ALPHA: Lingley Sues Over Unregistered Investment Adviser
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Lingley and Sandy Papadopoulos, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. SEEKING ALPHA, INC., Case No.
1:23-cv-05849-VM (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2023), is brought against the
Defendant who provides personalized investment advice even though
they are not registered as an investment adviser.
The Defendant is breaking the law on a massive scale by operating a
nationwide business that provides personalized investment advice
through its website and client electronic mail alerts, all without
having registered with appropriate state or federal authorities.
The Defendant's abject failure to register requires Defendant to,
at a minimum, disgorge all fees it has collected from class
members. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek rescission and
restitution on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated.
Defendant sells investment advice to clients through two premium
subscription services: Seeking Alpha Premium, and Seeking Alpha Pro
(together, the "Premium Services"). The Premium Services provide
customized investment advice to subscribers, including personalized
recommendations based on Defendant's proprietary "Quant Ratings"
tailored to each individual subscriber's portfolios. Defendant
touts that its recommendations substantially outperform typical
stock indices like the S&P 500. Defendant charges Premium Service
subscribers hundreds or thousands of dollars per year in exchange
for the personalized investment advice they receive.
But despite offering investment advice in exchange for compensation
as its primary business, Defendant is not registered as an
investment adviser, either with the SEC or with any of the states
in which it conducts business. Defendant's failure to register
renders its provision of investment advice illegal and vitiates any
agreements with its subscribers. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and the
class are entitled to a refund of the tens of millions of dollars
Defendant has received in exchange for its illegal investment
advice, plus interest at any applicable statutory rate, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a paid subscriber of Defendant's Seeking Alpha
Premium service.
The Defendant operates a nationwide investment-adviser firm that
primarily delivers personalized investment advice through its
website and through electronic mail to its clients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Mayes, Esq.
Jason S. Alloy, Esq.
Matthew T. Parrish, Esq.
Edward A. Bedard, Esq.
ROBBINS ALLOY BELINFANTE LITTLEFIELD LLC
500 14th Street, NW
Atlanta, GA 30318
Phone: (404) 856-3266
Fax: (404) 856-3255
Email: jmayes@robbinsfirm.com
jalloy@robbinsfirm.com
mparrish@robbinsfirm.com
ebedard@robbinsfirm.com
- and -
Frederic J. Bold, Jr., Esq.
BONDURANT MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP
1201 W. Peachtree St., Ste. 3900
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 881-4100
Fax: (404) 881-4111
Email: bold@bmelaw.com
- and -
J. Thomas Clarkson, Esq.
GRIFFIN DURHAM TANNER CLARKSON
75 14TH Street NE, Suite 2130
Atlanta, GA 30309
Email: tclarkson@griffindurham.com
SHAMROCK FOODS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 9, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GEORGE VALDEZ,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SHAMROCK FOODS COMPANY, an Arizona Corporation; and DOES 1 through
25, inclusive; Case No. 5:22-cv-01719-SSS-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Sunshine S. Sykes entered an order continuing deadline for
the Plaintiff to file motion for class certification and resetting
briefing schedule:
-- Class Certification Motion Filing Feb. 9, 2024
Deadline:
-- Class Certification Opposition: March 1, 2024
-- Class Certification Reply: March 15, 2024
-- Class Certification Hearing: April 12, 2024
Shamrock is a family-owned and-operated foodservice distributor and
nationally recognized dairy company.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pIgv9R at no extra charge.[CC]
SOAPHIA LAUNDRY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Reyes Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
NANCY REYES and other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v.
SOAPHIA LAUNDRY CENTERS, LLC, GERALD BROWN, Defendants, Case No.
177037232 (Fla. Cir., 11th Judicial, Dade Cty., July 10, 2023) is
an action by the Plaintiff and other opt-in similarly situated
employees for damages exceeding $50,000, excluding attorneys' fees
or costs, for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Florida Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiff performed work for Defendants as a non-exempt
employee from January 2018 through June 2019. She worked hours off
the clock and Defendants failed to pay minimum wages and/or
overtime wages for those hours, says the suit.
Soaphia Laundry Centers is a laundry service provider based in
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason S. Remer, Esq.
REMER, GEORGES-PIERRE & HOOGERWOERD PLLC
2745 Ponce De Leon Blvd.
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 416-5000
Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com
SOUTHERN WESLEYAN: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southern Wesleyan
University. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Southern
Wesleyan University, Case No. 1:23-cv-05911 (S.D.N.Y., July 10,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Southern Wesleyan University -- https://www.swu.edu/ -- is a
private Christian university in Central, South Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
SPECIALTY WELDING: Beltran Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Joseph Beltran, individually and on behalf of
other individuals similarly situated v. SPECIALTY WELDING AND
TURNAROUNDS, LLC, a Louisiana corporation, and DOES 1-10 inclusive,
Case No. 23STCV10757 was removed from the Superior Court of
California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on July 10,
2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-05529.
The Plaintiff's Complaint sets forth the following claims: failure
to pay all wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to
provide rest periods; failure to reimburse business expenses;
failure to provide accurate wage statements; failure to provide
sick pay; failure to pay vested and accrued vacation; failure to
pay all wages owed at termination; and violation of California
Business and Professions Code sections.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Steve L Hernandez, Esq.
Ryan M Estes, Esq.
Jose Pomposo Barajas, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90067-4704
Phone: 310.595.3000
Fax: 310.595.3300
Email: steve.hernandez@us.dlapiper.com
ryan.estes@dlapiper.com
jose.pomposo@us.dlapiper.com
SSM HEALTH: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in Brashear
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH J. BRASHEAR,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SSM
HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, Case No. 4:22-cv-00569-SRC (E.D. Mo.), the
Hon. Judge Stephen R. Clark entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify the class.
The Court denies the Plaintiffs' passing request for equitable
tolling. Finally, the Court orders the parties to meet and
confer—i.e., actually speak—regarding the Plaintiffs notice to
prospective collective-action members.
By no later than July 13, 2023, the parties must file the date(s),
time(s), and duration of all such meet-and-confer sessions and a
description of any agreement reached. If the parties cannot agree,
the Court orders each party to submit its best proposal and the
Court will choose one proposal to adopt in full.
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs provided substantial
allegations that the putative class members were together victims
of a common policy or plan. The Plaintiffs adequately allege that,
despite SSM's written policy to pay for all hours worked, its
actual practice did not compensate employees for time worked during
the meal break.
The Court denies the Plaintiffs' informal request to toll the
statute of limitations.
The Plaintiffs also seek court approval regarding the means and
substance of the Plaintiffs' proposed notice to putative members of
the conditionally certified class.
The Plaintiffs asks the Court to authorize notice by mail, e-mail,
text message, and posting at SSM facilities. They also request
reminder notice by e-mail and text message. While SSM does not
oppose the sixty-day notice period, SSM opposes the method and
content of the Plaintiffs' proposed notice, as well as what
information the Court requires SSM to disclose to the Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiff Sarah Brashear, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, seeks conditional certification and
court-authorized notice, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
against the Defendant SSM Health Care. SSM opposes conditional
certification and disagrees with Brashear's requested notice
methods.
The Plaintiffs asks the Court to conditionally certify the
following class under the FLSA:
"all hourly employees who worked for SSM, or any of its
subsidiaries, anywhere in the united states, at any time from
May
24, 2019, through the final disposition of this matter, and were
subject to an automatic meal break pay deduction."
SSM Health provides health care services. The Hospital offers
cardiology, pediatrics, oncology, emergency care, and orthopedic
surgery.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 29, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pGr7pW at no extra charge.[CC]
STATE FARM: Class Cert Bid Filing Due June 3, 2024
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARMEN DANIELLE MORA
SANCHEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, HIDAY & RICKE,
P.A., JEFF RICKE, an individual, and ROBERT HIDAY, an individual,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00372-TJC-LLL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Timothy
J. Corrigan entered a Phase one case management and scheduling
order as follows:
Deadline for providing mandatory Completed
initial disclosures:
Deadline for moving to join a party or Aug. 28,
2023
amend the pleadings:
Deadline for disclosing expert reports on
class certification:
the Plaintiff: Dec. 29,
2023
the Defendant: Jan. 27,
2024
Rebuttal: Feb. 28,
2024
Deadline for completing all discovery and April 29,
2024
filing motions to compel.
Deadline for moving for class certification. June 3,
2024
Deadline for filing any Daubert motions June 3,
2024
related to class certification.
Deadline for responses to motions for class July 3,
2024
certification and Daubert motions.
Deadline for optional replies, limited July 24,
2024
to 10 pages.
Hearing on class certification motion Oct. 21,
2024
(the Court will issue a separate notice
if it wishes to hear argument on any
Daubert motions at this hearing).
State Farm operates as an insurance company. The Company offers
vehicle, auto, accident, homeowners, condo owners, renters, life
and annuities, fire and casualty, health, disability, flood,
business, and boat insurance products and services.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 28, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NHql3T at no extra charge.[CC]
STUBHUB: Court Stays Class Cert Deadline in Refund Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IN RE: STUBHUB REFUND
LITIGATION, Case No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order granting the joint
stipulation on motion to Modify ESI protocol and stay class
certification deadline.
-- The June 29, 2023, hearing on StubHub's Motion to Modify the
Stipulated Order Governing Discovery of Electronically Stored
Information is vacated and continued to July 13, 2023.
-- The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their motion for class
certification is stayed until StubHub's Motion to Stay is
resolved.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 28, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XIfTxC at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
Bradley K. King, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500
Burbank, CA 91505
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
bking@ahdootwolfson.com
Tiasha Palikovic, Esq.
Jessica L. Hunter, Esq.
WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC
18 Half Mile Road
Armonk, NY 10504
Telephone: (914) 319-9945
Facsimile: (914) 273-2563
E-mail: tpalikovic@wittelslaw.com
jlh@wittelslaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
William P. Donovan, Jr., Esq.
Daniel Campbell, Esq.
Emilie O’Toole, Esq.
William W. Hameline, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206
Telephone: (310) 277-4110
Facsimile: (310) 277-4730
E-mail: wdonovan@mwe.com
dcampbell@mwe.com
eotoole@mwe.com
whameline@mwe.com
SWIFT BEEF COMPANY: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Gabriel Garcia, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. SWIFT BEEF COMPANY, a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2302855
was removed from the Superior Court of the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Riverside, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
July 7, 2023, and assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-01323.
The Plaintiff alleges he was employed by Defendant "during the time
period relevant to this Complaint." The Plaintiff alleges Defendant
violated the Labor Code by failing to pay minimum wage for all
hours worked; pay wages and overtime; permit lawful meal periods;
permit lawful rest periods; provide complete and accurate wage
statements; and timely pay earned wages during employment and at
separation of employment.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jonathon M. Watson, Esq.
SPENCER FANE LLP
1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 2000
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303) 839-3800
Facsimile: (303) 839-3838
Email: jmwatson@spencerfane.com
- and -
Michele Ballard Miller, Esq.
Ethan Chernin, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
401 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 850
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Phone: (310) 393-4000
Facsimile: (310) 394-4700
Email: mbmiller@cozen.com
echernin@cozen.com
TEACHERS INSURANCE: Court Tosses Haley's Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA HALEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
TEACHERS INSURANCE AND ANNUITY ASSOCIATION, Case No.
1:17-cv-00855-JPO-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Paul Oetken
entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
The court recognized that the case could be ripe for class
treatment using tools permitting courts to "identify subclasses of
'more homogenous groups defined by common legal or factual
questions.'"
The Plaintiff did not avail herself of this opportunity. Instead,
in her supplement briefing, the Plaintiff again sought a class
definition identical to that which the Second Circuit vacated, and
the Plaintiff relies on a virtually indistinguishable set of
arguments as before, even though the Second Circuit has rejected
them.
The case is a putative class action brought by Melissa Haley
against Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America
(TIAA) alleging that TIAA engaged in prohibited transactions with
the Washington University Retirement Savings Plan and other
retirement plans in violation of section 406 of the Employee
Retirement Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
The Court previously granted class certification under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The Second Circuit vacated and
remanded, instructing the Court to consider whether certain ERISA
affirmative defenses raised by TIAA would make class treatment
unwarranted because individual issues raised by the defenses
predominate over those common to the class.
The Plaintiff Melissa Haley is an employee of Washington University
(WashU) and a participant in the Washington University Retirement
Savings Plan, an employee benefit plan regulated by ERISA. WashU
was the official Plan Administrator for Haley's Plan.
Haley then moved for class certification, seeking certification of
mandatory classes under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)
and 23(b)(2) as well as an opt-out class under Rule 23(b)(3). The
Court first denied class certification under 23(b)(1) and (b)(2),
but it certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class.
The class consisted of:
"All individual account retirement plans governed by ERISA (the
"Plans") for which, at any time from February 5, 2011 through
the
date of judgment:
(a) Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association (TIAA) provided
services that included collateralized loans for Plan
participants (the "Borrowing Participants");
(b) TIAA required the Borrowing Participants to provide
collateral
in the amount of 110% of the principal balance of the Loans,
which collateral TIAA invested in its general account; and
(c) (i) TIAA charged Loan interest at a rate in excess of the
interest rate credited to Borrowing Participants on
the
invested collateral;
(ii) TIAA kept for or paid to itself amounts earned on the
amount of the invested collateral, equal to the
principal amount of the outstanding Loans, that were
in
excess of the amounts credited to Borrowing
Participants;
(iii) the amounts that TIAA credited to Borrowing
Participants
on the invested collateral in excess of the principal
amount of the Loan would have received had the
collateral remained in the Borrowing Participants'
designated investment options; and/or (iv) TIAA
caused
loss to the Participant Borrowers and the Plans.
The class certified by the Court included almost one million
individual loan transactions and approximately 8,000 plans that
engaged TIAA's services during the class period.
Teachers Insurance is a financial organization that provides
investment and insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 27, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3D7VCI8 at no extra charge.[CC]
TERMINAL ISLAND, CA: Faces Two Class Suits Over COVID-19 Outbreak
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bird Marella reports that Bird Marella and co-counsel the American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Prison Law Office (PLO) filed
two class-action lawsuits against Terminal Island and Lompoc
federal prisons in connection with the inefficient measures of
prison officials to prevent the spread of coronavirus and provide
adequate medical care in both facilities, in violation of the
Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
The lawsuits, filed on behalf of several prisoners at Lompoc and
Terminal Island, details how overcrowding, unsanitary environments,
and lack of preventative measures have led to thousands of
infections and several deaths. Furthermore, both Terminal Island
and Lompoc have neglected advisement from the CARES Act and
Attorney General William Barr to transfer high-risk inmates to home
confinement to save lives and reduce the staggering amount of
infections.
Bird Marella and the ACLU are requesting the court to put in place
an expedited process to reduce the prison population and
immediately release into home confinement all incarcerated people
who can be released safely, in accordance with the CARES Act and AG
Barr's directives, and to direct Terminal Island and Lompoc to
implement social distancing measures, provide prisoners and staff
with personal protective equipment, improve sanitation, and provide
necessary medical care.
Click here to view the ACLU press release. To read coverage from
the Los Angeles Times, please click here. The Bird Marella pro bono
team includes principals Naeun Rim, Terry Bird and Dorothy Wolpert,
counsel Shoshana Bannett, and associates Christopher Jumin Lee and
Jimmy Threatt. [GN]
THRIVING BRANDS: Settles Goldstein Benzene Class Suit for $1.95M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that a settlement has been reached with
Henkel Corp. and Thriving Brands LLC, the defendants, in a class
action lawsuit about allegations that aerosol and spray
antiperspirant products sold under the Right Guard brand contain or
are at risk of containing benzene.
The settlement includes anyone in the United States who purchased
Right Guard Sport and Right Guard Xtreme antiperspirant aerosol and
spray products between Nov. 19, 2018, and June 8, 2023, for
personal, family or household use, and not for resale.
The defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing and disclaim any
liability with respect to any and all claims alleged.
If the court approves the Right Guard settlement, the defendants
will pay $1.95 million into a settlement fund. After payment of
attorneys' fees and costs, incentive awards for the plaintiffs and
notice and administration costs, the available settlement funds
will be used to pay settlement class members who submit a valid
claim.
Class members who do not have proof of purchase will receive up to
$1.75 for up to five covered products per household.
Those who submit proof of purchase with their claim will receive up
to $3 for each covered product, including tax.
Payments may be increased or decreased on a pro rata basis.
The deadline to opt out of or object to the Right Guard settlement
is Oct. 14, 2023.
A final approval hearing will take place Dec. 13, 2023.
The deadline to submit a claim is Oct. 14, 2023.
Who's Eligible
Anyone in the United States who purchased Right Guard Sport and
Right Guard Xtreme antiperspirant aerosol and spray products
between Nov. 19, 2018, and June 8, 2023, for personal, family or
household use, and not for resale.
Potential Award
Up to $3 for each covered product listed on the proof of purchase,
inclusive of all taxes
Up to $1.75 for up to five covered products claimed per household,
without proof of purchase.
Proof of Purchase
Receipts or other proof of purchase that reasonably establishes the
fact and date of the purchase of one or more of the covered
products between Nov. 19, 2018, and June 8, 2023. No proof of
purchase is required; however, class member payments may be higher
for those who are able to submit proof.
Claim Form
CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM »
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
10/14/2023
Case Name
Goldstein v. Henkel Corp, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00164 (AWT) in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
Final Hearing
12/13/2023
Settlement Website
AntiperspirantSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Antiperspirant Settlement
c/o Claim Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
info@AntiperspirantSettlement.com
1-844-336-0202
Class Counsel
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
BURSOR & FISHER PA
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP
LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
Defense Counsel
REARDON SCANLON LLP [GN]
TJ INSPECTION: Cox Class Action Seeks FLSA Notice
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWN COX, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TJ INSPECTION,
INC. Case No. 5:23-cv-00187-G (W.D. Okla.), the Plaintiff files
motion for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) notice or alternatively,
to amend complaint.
Cox demonstrates notice is appropriate because he and similarly
situated plaintiffs were subject to TJ Inspection’s policy of
denying work to those who joined the Farmer case.
He requests the Court authorize the notice documents. He further
proposes the following schedule for completing the notice process.
Deadline Subject
10 Business days from Cox’s counsel shall send a copy
of
order authorizing notice the Court-approved Notice and
Consent
to the Farmer plaintiffs Form to the Farmer plaintiffs by
First Class U.S. Mail, email, and
by
text.
60 Days from sending The Farmer plaintiffs shall have
60
Notice and Consent Forms days from the initial mailing of
the
to the Farmer plaintiffs Court-approved Notice to return
their
signed Consent forms to Cox’s
counsel
for filing with the Court.
Although not necessary because they are already parties, Cox
further requests, in the alternative, that he be allowed to amend
his complaint to name all opt-in plaintiffs as parties.
On January 25, 2022, Korey Farmer filed an FLSA collective action
against TJ Inspection. Farmer v. TJ Inspection, Inc., Case No.
5:22-cv-00066.
Farmer alleged he and other inspectors employed by TJ Inspection
regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek and were paid day
rates without overtime pay. Id. July 19, 2022, Judge Ezra
authorized FLSA notice by mail, email, text, reminder notice, and
set a 45-day opt-in period.
TJ Inspection is an oil & energy company offering inspection
services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 27, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pzBKuD at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
David I. Moulton, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Telecopier: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
dmoulton@brucknerburch.com
TK&K SERVICES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 12, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSUE PALMA, as an
individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
v. TK&K SERVICES, Case No. 1:23-cv-00434-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Christopher D. Baker entered a scheduling order as
follows:
-- The parties are ordered to exchange the July 17, 2023
initial disclosures required by Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(a)(1) on or before:
-- The parties are ordered to complete all June 5, 2024
discovery pertaining to non-experts on or
before:
-- All discovery pertaining to experts on or Aug. 12, 2024
Before:
-- The parties are directed to disclose all June 19, 2024,
expert witnesses, in writing, on or before:
-- To disclose all rebuttal experts on or July 12, 2024
Before:
-- The Plaintiff's anticipated motion for Jan. 12,
2024.
class certification shall be filed no
later than:
-- The Defendant's opposition to the Feb. 16, 2024
Plaintiff's motion for class
Certification shall be filed no
later than:
-- The Plaintiff shall file a reply no March 8, 2024
later than:
-- A hearing on the anticipated motion March 22,
2024
for class certification shall be
heard on or before:
-- All non-dispositive pre-trial motions, Aug. 21, 2024
including any discovery motions, shall
be filed no later than:
-- All dispositive pre-trial motions shall Oct. 12,
2024
be filed no later than:
The Plaintiff raises on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated the following claims against the Defendant:
(1) recovery of unpaid minimum wages and liquidated damages,
(2) recovery of unpaid overtime wages,
(3) failure to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu
thereof,
(4) failure to provide rest periods or compensation in lieu
thereof,
(5) failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements,
(6) failure to reimburse business expenses, and
(7) unfair competition
TK&K Services provide quality control and quality assurance and
inspection services for a broad range of fuel system-related
construction projects.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 27, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XN5MYu at no extra charge.[CC]
TMX FINANCE: Carder Suit Seeks to Suspend Class Cert Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN CARDER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TMX FINANCE
CORPORATE SERVICES, INC. AND TMX FINANCE, LLC, Case No.
4:23-cv-00088-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting his unopposed motion to suspend or stay
deadline for filing motion for class certification and memorandum
of law.
The Plaintiff filed this Class Action Complaint on April 6, 2023.
Pursuant to Local Rule 23.2 for the Southern District of Georgia,
the Plaintiff is required to file his Motion for Class
Certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 no later
than "90 days after the filing of a complaint in a class action."
Here, the current deadline is Wednesday, July 5, 2023.
On April 21, 2023, the Defendants were served with the Complaint
and giving the Defendants through May 12, 2023, within which to
file a responsive pleading.
On May 1, 2023, the Defendants filed their Consent Motion for
Extension of Time to Respond to the Complaint which was granted on
May 2, 2023 allowing the Defendants through June 26, 2023 within
which to file a response to the Complaint.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 28, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43eXWYt at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Marcio W. Valladares, Esq.
Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
Ra O. Amen, Esq.
Seth Diamond, Esq.
MORGAN AND MORGAN
200 Stephenson Ave, Suite 200
Savannah, GA 31405
Telephone: (912) 443-1006
E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
mvalladares@ForThePeople.com
rmaxey@ForThePeople.com
ramen@ForThePeople.com
sdiamond@forthepeople.com
TMX FINANCE: Jackson Seeks to Suspend Class Cert Filing Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEWAYNE JACKSON, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. TMX FINANCE
CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., and TMX FINANCE CORPORATE SERVICES, INC.,
Case No. 4:23-cv-00099-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff files
unopposed motion to suspend or stay deadline for filing motion for
class certification and memorandum of law.
The Plaintiff requests suspension or tolling of time to file his
motion for class certification pursuant to Local Rule 23.2. The
Plaintiff believes additional time is needed to conduct and
complete the discovery which would serve as the substance for the
motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff anticipates that at the Rule 26(f) meeting, counsel
will propose a revised class certification briefing schedule, to be
submitted to the Court for review and approval. This requested
relief resides well within the discretion permitted under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules, as well as
the inherent authority with which this Court is vested in managing
and controlling its docket.
The Plaintiff filed his class action complaint on April 13, 2023.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 29, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XRATC2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
- and -
James M. Evangelista, Esq.
EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC
500 Sugar Mill Road, Suite 245A
Atlanta, GA 30350
Telephone: (404) 205-8400
Facsimile: (404)205-8395
E-mail: jim@ewlawllc.com
- and -
Rebecca Franklin Harris, Esq.
FRANKLIN LAW, LLC
2250 E. Victory Dr., Suite 102
Savannah, GA 31404
Telephone: (912) 335-3305
Facsimile: (912) 335-3305
E-mail: rebecca@franklinlawllc.com
TMX FINANCE: Johnson Suit Seeks to Suspend Class Cert Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHAPLIN JOHNSON and BRENDA
DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. TMX FINANCE CORPORATE SERVICES, INC. AND TMX FINANCE, LLC, Case
No. 4:23-cv-00108-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs Chaplin
Johnson and Brenda Davis move the Court to suspend or toll the
deadline for filing a motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs filed this Class Action Complaint on April 25, 2023.
Pursuant to Local Rule 23.2 for the Southern District of Georgia,
the Plaintiffs are required to file their Motion for Class
Certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 no later
than "90 days after the filing of a complaint in a class action. "
The current deadline is Monday, July 24, 2023.
On April 27, 2023, and May 8, 2023, the Defendants were served with
the Complaint giving the Defendants through May 29, 2023, within
which to file a responsive pleading.
On May 25, 2023, the Defendants filed their Consent Motion for
Extension of Time to Respond to the Complaint, which was granted on
May 30, 2023, allowing the Defendants through July 13, 2023 within
which to file a response to the Complaint
Additionally, for the Plaintiffs to properly advance a motion for
class certification and comply with the legal requirements of Rule
23 and relevant case law, the Plaintiffs need additional time to
propound, receive, and review discovery responses and documents
from the Defendants, conduct depositions, and prepare motions and
memoranda, including expert reports.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 28, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44DZSuN at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Marcio W. Valladares, Esq.
Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
Ra O. Amen, Esq.
Seth Diamond, Esq.
MORGAN AND MORGAN
200 Stephenson Ave, Suite 200
Savannah, GA 31405
Telephone: (912) 443-1006
E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
mvalladares@ForThePeople.com
rmaxey@ForThePeople.com
ramen@ForThePeople.com
sdiamond@forthepeople.com
TONAL SYSTEMS INC: Jones Suit Removed to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Julie Jones, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Tonal Systems, Inc., Does 1-100,
inclusive, Case No. 37-02023-00023025-CU-CO-CTL was removed from
the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on July 10,
2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01267-JES-BGS to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Class Action
Fairness Act.
Tonal -- https://www.tonal.com/ -- is a smart home gym that uses
artificial intelligence and expert-led coaching to provide strength
training.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
Kas L. Gallucci, Esq.
Ronald Marron, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Phone: (619) 696-9006
Fax: (619) 564-6665
Email: alexis@consumersadvocates.com
kas@consumersadvocates.com
ron@consumersadvocates.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Tiffany Cheung, Esq.
MORRISON AND FOERSTER
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2675
Phone: (415) 268-7000
Fax: (415) 268-7522
Email: tcheung@mofo.com
TOWER PRODUCTS: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tower Products Inc.
The case is styled as Yordaliza Taveras, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tower Products Inc.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-05832-AT (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Tower Products, Inc. -- https://www.towerproducts.com/ -- is a
leading manufacturer of environmentally sensitive pressroom
chemistry based in Easton, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick William Gallagher, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: pgallagher@mizrahikroub.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Glen P. Doherty, Esq.
HODGSON RUSS LLP
677 Broadway, Suite 401
Albany, NY 12207
Phone: (518) 433-2433
Email: gdoherty@hodgsonruss.com
UNITED SERVICES: Black Class Suit Settlement Granted Prelim. OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mika Pangilinan of Insurance Business reports that a Georgia
federal judge has granted preliminary approval to a deal settling a
class action lawsuit accusing USAA of underpaying taxes in total
loss claims.
Around 9,000 policyholders joined the suit, claiming that they were
not properly compensated for title ad valorem tax (TAVT) under
their USAA policies.
The plaintiffs have sought a settlement close to $2.3 million,
according to Repairer Driven News, with each owed an average of
$252.
The judge also ordered USAA to pay nearly $573,000 in attorney's
fees.
The lawsuit was initiated by Jahazel Black, who argued in her 2021
complaint that USAA failed to fully cover the TVAT on her insured
2009 Honda Civic Sedan LXS that was totaled following an accident
in October 2018.
USAA deemed Black's car to have a base value of $5,291 and an
adjusted value of $4,345. However, the insurer issued a final
payment of $4,277 after accounting for various fees.
Black's complaint argued that the TAVT on her car amounted to 7% of
its value, indicating that she should have received an additional
$295.50 on top of the $49.25 that USAA reimbursed.
The lawsuit also claimed that USAA failed to compensate Black for
license plate transfer fees, which amounts to a minimum loss of
$5.
It went on to allege that USAA breached its policy with the
plaintiff and violated Georgia law by not fully covering the TAVT
and license plate transfer fees in the total loss claim.
Similar instances of underpayment were outlined by other plaintiffs
in the class action suit.
A final hearing is scheduled for December 13, during which the suit
is expected to be settled.
Last year, USAA was hit with a lawsuit by a policyholder in
California over allegations that it charged excessive premiums
during the last two years of pandemic-related lockdowns. [GN]
UNITED SERVICES: Coleman Files Renewed Bid For Class Status
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EILEEN-GAYLE COLEMAN and
ROBERT CASTRO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION and USAA
GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. 3:21-cv-00217-RSH-KSC (S.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs renew their motion to the Court, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), for an Order
certifying two classes defined as:
The Good Driver Class
"All enlisted persons who
(a) at any time on or after December 28, 2017, purchased or
renewed an automobile insurance policy including collision
coverage from GIC,
(b) qualified as good drivers under Cal. Ins. Code section
1861.025 according to USAA's records,
(c) were not offered a good driver discount from United
Services,
(d) paid more for that policy than they would have paid
in United Services, and
(e) at any time in which clauses (a) through (d) have been
satisfied, garaged vehicles in the State of California.
The Discrimination Class
"All enlisted persons who
(a) at any time on or after February 4, 2018, purchased or
renewed
an automobile insurance policy including collision coverage
from GIC,
(b) paid more for that policy than they would have paid in
United
Services, and
(c) at any time in which clauses (a) through (b) have been
satisfied, garaged vehicles in the State of California.
USAA is a financial services group composed of several companies
operated under common management and control.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 27, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44hz0B6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Harvey Rosenfield, Esq.
Benjamin Powell, Esq.
CONSUMER WATCHDOG
6330 South San Vincente Blvd., Suite 250
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Telephone: (310) 392-0522
Facsimile: (310) 392-8874
E-mail: Harvey@ConsumerWatchdog.org
Ben@ConsumerWatchdog.org
- and -
Jay Angoff, Esq.
Cyrus Mehri, Esq.
Michael Lieder, Esq.
MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
2000 K Street NW, Suite 325
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 822-5100
Facsimile: (202) 822-4997
E-mail: Jay.Angoff@findjustice.com
CMehri@findjustice.com
MLieder@findjustice.com
- and -
Gary Mason, Esq.
Danielle Perry, Esq.
Theo Bell, Esq.
MASON LLP, Esq.
5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
Washington, D.C. 20016
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
E-mail: GMason@MasonLLP.com
DPerry@MasonLLP.com
TBell@MasonLLP.com
UNITED SERVICES: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert. Bid by Nov. 21
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MALLOREY TOMCZAK, LUIS
RIVERA-SOLIS, KALITHA HEAD, JOSEPHINE WALKER, AND LESLIE WYATT, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED
SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, AND GARRISON PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:21-cv-01564-MGL (D.S.C.), the Hon.
Judge Mary Geiger Lewis entered a fifth amended scheduling order as
follows:
1. The Plaintiffs shall file their motion Nov. 21, 2023
for class certification no later than:
2. The Defendants shall file their brief in Feb. 23, 2024
opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification no later than:
3. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply March 25, 2024
brief in support of their motion for
class Certification no later than:
4. Counsel shall file and serve affidavits May 24, 2024
of records custodian witnesses proposed
to be presented by affidavit at trial
no later than:
5. Fact discovery shall be completed no March 27, 2024
later than:
6. Expert discovery shall be completed April 11, 2024
no later than:
USAA is a financial services group composed of several companies
operated under common management and control.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 27, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rb212z at no extra charge.[CC]
VENUS LABORATORIES: Court Narrows Claims in Lizama Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DELIA DE SANTIAGO LIZAMA,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, et al., v.
VENUS LABORATORIES, INC., d/b/a Earth Friendly Products, Inc., Case
No. 4:22-cv-00841-RLW (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Ronnie L. White
entered an order granting in part and denying in part Venus' motion
to dismiss and strike allegations in the First Amended Complaint.
-- The motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is
Granted as to the Plaintiff Michelle Olsen.
-- The Court dismisses the Plaintiff Michelle Olsen's claims
against
Venus, without prejudice.
-- The Court further dismisses for lack of standing claims the
Plaintiff Delia De Santiago Lizama seeks to bring on behalf of
unnamed class members to the extent the claims are related to
products that are not laundry detergents or dish soaps.
-- The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and strike allegations in
the
First Amended Complaint is denied.
-- The Court will issue a separate Order of Partial Dismissal.
In sum, the Court agrees with Venus that personal jurisdiction does
not exist for the Plaintiff Olsen’s claims, and the Court will
dismiss these claims without prejudice. The Court finds that the
Plaintiff Lizama adequately alleges facts showing that some of the
products she did not purchase are substantially similar to those
she did purchase, and the misrepresentations made about these
products are also substantially similar.
The Court further denies the Defendant’s motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim about the Plaintiff Lizama’s claims
under the MMPA, for breaches of warranties, unjust enrichment,
negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and for injunctive relief.
Finally, the Court declines to strike the nationwide class
allegations pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).
The Plaintiffs Lizama and Olsen allege in their First Amended
Complaint that Venus Laboratories has misled and continues to
mislead consumers into believing its products are "green, " in
other words, that they are safe and not harmful to the environment.
the Plaintiffs contend they and other environmentally conscious
consumers paid a
premium price for Venus Laboratories' products based on the
Defendant's representations that its products are non-toxic, safe,
and environmentally friendly.
More specifically, the Plaintiff Lizama alleges she bought ECOS
(TM) Hypoallergenic Laundry Detergent -- Lavender, ECOS (TM)
Hypoallergenic Dish Soap -- Free & Clear, and ECOS (TM)
Hypoallergenic Laundry Detergent - Magnolia & Lily.
the Plaintiff Olsen, who is a citizen of California, alleges she
purchased Venus Laboratories’ products from Whole Foods Market in
Pasadena, California. More specifically, the Plaintiff Olsen
alleges she bought ECOS (TM) Hypoallergenic Laundry Detergent --
Free & Clear.
Venus manufactures a variety of household cleaning and personal
care products under the name ECOS (TM), which are sold in retail
stores nationwide.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 27, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3D6LcIX at no extra charge.[CC]
VI-JON: Loughlin Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Briefs Support
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTINA LOUGHLIN,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
VI-JON, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-11555-MLW (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order granting her assented-to Motion
for Impoundment for Leave to Briefs In Support of Class
Certification and in Opposition to the Defendant's Motions to
Exclude Under Seal.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2 and the Stipulated Protective Order
entered in this case, the Plaintiff Loughlin, with the consent of
the Defendant, requests leave to file an unredacted version of the
following briefs under seal until further order of the Court:
-- the Plaintiff's Reply in Support of her Motion for Class
Certification, Appointment of Class Representatives, and
Appointment of Class Counsel and certain exhibits in support
thereof;
-- the Plaintiff's Opposition to the Defendant's Motion to
Exclude
the Plaintiff's Microbiology Expert Dr. Elizabeth Fortunato;
-- the Plaintiff's Opposition to the Defendant's Motion to
Exclude
the Plaintiff's Damages Expert Michael Pakter;
-- the Plaintiff's Opposition to the Defendant's Motion to
Exclude
the Plaintiff's Survey Expert James L. Gibson; and
-- the Plaintiff's Expert Rebuttal Reports.
The case is a putative class action brought pursuant to M.G.L. c.
93A related to the Defendant's Representations on the labels of its
hand sanitizer products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 29, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JXTc2N at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward L. Manchur, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD L. MANCHUR,
P.C.
Peabody, MA 01960
Telephone: (978) 333-1013
E-mail: manchurlaw@gmail.com
- and -
Naomi B. Spector, Esq.
Scott A. Kamber Esq.
Adam C. York, Esq.
KAMBERLAW LLP
1501 San Elijo Hills Road South, Suite 104-212
San Marcos, CA 92078
Telephone: (310) 400-1053
E-mail: nspector@kamberlaw.com
skamber@kamberlaw.com
ayork@kamberlaw.com
VOICE OF GUO MEDIA: Zhang Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rong Zhang, et al., v.
Voice of Guo Media, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01079-SMB (D.
Ariz.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
-- certifying the Proposed Class;
-- appointing them as Class Representatives; and
-- appointing counsel as Class Counsel for the Class.
The action arose from a scheme to defraud by the Defendant Miles
Guo, a foreign national residing in New York who owns, directs, or
otherwise controls the Defendants Saraca Media and GTV Media, as
well as the Defendants Voice of Guo Media and Sara Wei.
Guo founded and controls Saraca, caused Saraca to incorporate GTV
as a wholly-owned subsidiary to operate a social media platform,
and contributed all of the assets of the platform to GTV.
In April 2020, Guo caused Saraca and GTV to launch a Stock Offering
and, from April through at least June 2020, Saraca and GTV, along
with other the Defendants, all promoted the Stock Offering and
solicited thousands of individuals to purchase "privately" offered
shares of GTV common stock.
For investors with less than $100,000 to invest, Guo, Saraca, and
GTV provided Wei, an Arizona resident, and VOG, an Arizona entity,
with documents to allow those investors to purchase GTV securities
through VOG.
As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiffs and Class
members were injured. They made the required donations to one of
the ROL Entities or Guo, and after confirming the donations, Wei
sent the Plaintiffs and Class members the LPAA to designate her as
their agent in connection with the purchase of shares of GTV
securities.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 29, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3K1DOSZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Esq.
Malcolm T. Brown, Esq.
Lillian R. Grinnell
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 545-4600
Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
E-mail: kaufman@whafh.com
brown@whafh.com
grinnell@whafh.com
- and -
Bernard Daskal, Esq.
Ling Ding, Esq.
LYNCH DASKAL EMERY LLP
137 W. 25th St.
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 302-2400
E-mail: daskal@lde.law
ding@lde.law
WALMART INC: Pagan Sues Over Mislabeled Saltine Crackers
--------------------------------------------------------
Yadira Pagan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Walmart Inc., Defendant, Case No.
6:23-cv-01278 (M.D. Fla., July 10, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendant for violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act arising from
its false and misleading representations of saltine crackers under
the Great Value brand.
According to the complaint, despite labeling the product as "Made
With Whole Grain," the amount of whole grains, in absolute and
relative terms compared to refined grains, is de minimis or
negligible. This is shown through the ingredient list on the side
of the package, showing the most predominant ingredient is not
whole grain wheat flour but "UNBLEACHED ENRICHED FLOUR." The
statement "Made With Whole Grain" is misleading because even though
the product contains some whole grains, it is not a nutritionally
significant amount, understood as sufficient to meaningfully
achieve the Dietary Guidelines' recommendations of daily whole
grain consumption, says the suit.
The Plaintiff purchased the product on one or more occasions within
the statutes of limitations for each cause of action alleged, at
Walmart locations in Brevard County, between August 2019 and the
present.
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of over 5,000 supercenters throughout the U.S.,
selling everything from furniture to groceries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Wright, Esq.
THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A.
515 N Flagler Dr Ste P300
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 514-0904
E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com
- and -
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
WASHINGTON DC: Seeks July 24 Extension for Class Cert Response
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as V.C., et al., v. DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:23-cv-01139-CKK (D.D.C.), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order granting its consent motion for an
extension of time to oppose the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
The Defendant District of Columbia (the District) moves under Rule
6(b)(1)(A) and with the Plaintiffs' consent for a two-week
extension of time -- until July 24, 2023 -- to respond to the
Plaintiffs' pending Motion for Class Certification.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 30, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44LCA6d at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Brian L. Schwalb, Esq.
Stephanie E. Litos, Esq.
Matthew R. Blecher, Esq.
Pamela A. Disney, Esq.
Brendan Heath, Esq.
Andrew J. Saindon, Esq.
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL LITIGATION DIVISION
400 Sixth Street, N.W., Suite 10100
Washington, D.C. 20001
Telephone: (202) 807-0371
E-mail: pamela.disney@dc.gov
WELLS FARGO: Filing for Winkler Class Cert Bid. Extended to Nov. 15
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GEOFF WINKLER, as
court-appointed receiver for J&J Consulting Services, Inc., an
Alaska corporation; J&J Consulting Services, Inc., a Nevada
corporation, and J and J Purchasing LLC, Florida limited liability
company, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 2:22-cv-00529-GMN-NJK
(D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Nancy J. Koppe entered an order extending
case deadlines in the class action as follows:
Current New
Deadline Deadline
Fact Discovery Cutoff Aug. 29, 2023 Oct. 6, 2023
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) July 31, 2023 Sept. 7,
2023
Expert Disclosures
Rebuttal Expert Disclosures Aug. 29, 2023 Oct. 6, 2023
Expert Discovery Cut-off Sept. 28, 2023 Nov. 6, 2023
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Oct. 9, 2023 Nov. 15,
2023
Certification Deadline
the Defendant's Deadline to Nov. 8, 2023 Dec. 22,
2023
Respond to Motion for Class
Certification
Dispositive Motions Deadline Jan. 18, 2024 Feb. 23,
2024
Joint Pretrial Order Feb. 20, 2024 Mar. 30,
2024
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) Feb. 20, 2024 Mar. 30,
2024
Pretrial Disclosures
Wells Fargo offers online and mobile banking, home mortgage, loans
and credit, investment and retirement, wealth management, and
insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 27, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44z7lLE at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
Tom Watts, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
E-mail: dgirard@girardsharp.com
tomw@girardsharp.com
- and -
Eric Gibbs, Esq.
David K. Stein, Esq.
Kyla Gibboney, Esq.
Emily Beale, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 350-9700
Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
ds@classlawgroup.com
kjg@classlawgroup.com
eb@classlawgroup.com
- and -
Robert L. Brace, Esq.
Maria F. Elosu, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. BRACE
1807 Santa Barbara St.
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 886-8458
E-mail: rlbrace@rusty.lawyer
mariaelosulaw@gmail.com
- and -
Miles N. Clark, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MILES N. CLARK LLC
5510 S. Fort Apache Rd., Suite 30
Las Vegas, NV 89148-7700
Telephone: (702) 856-7430
E-mail: miles@milesclarklaw.com
- and -
Jarrod L. Rickard, Esq.
Katie L. Cannata, Esq.
SEMENZA KIRCHER RICKARD
10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, NV 89145
Jeffrey C. Schneider, Esq.
Jason K. Kellogg, Esq.
Marcelo Diaz-Cortes, Esq.
LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN
SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP
100 SE 2nd Street
Miami Tower, 36th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 403-8788
Facsimile: (305) 403-8789
E-mail: jcs@lklsg.com
jk@lklsg.com
md@lklsg.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Joseph G. Went, Esq.
Sydney R. Gambee, Esq.
HOLLAND & HART LLP
9555 Hillwood Drive, 2nd Floor
Las Vegas, NV 89134
Telephone: (702) 669-4600
Facsimile: (702) 669-4650
E-mail: jgwent@hollandhart.com
srgambee@hollandhart.com
- and -
K. Issac deVyver, Esq.
Alicia A. Baiardo, Esq.
Anthony Q. Le, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS
1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 315-8200
Facsimile: (310) 315-8210
E-mail: KdeVyver@mcguirewoods.com
ABaiardo@mcguirewoods.com
ALe@mcguirewoods.com
WEST PENN ALLEGHENY: Trainer Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Richard Trainer, Glen Beatty and Wayne Todd,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. WEST PENN
ALLEGHENY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. and ALLEGHENY HEALTH NETWORK, was
removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on July 7, 2023, and assigned Case No.
2:23-cv-01237-DSC.
On May 23, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint on behalf of a
purported class and collective against Defendants, alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law ("WPCL"), in the Court
of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the "State Court
Action").[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Christopher S. Bouriat, Esq.
Mariah H. McGrogan, Esq.
Joshua R. Sallmen, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
Reed Smith Centre
225 Fifth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 288-4119/3152/5446
Fax: (412) 288-3063
Email: cbouriat@reedsmith.com
mmcgrogan@reedsmith.com
jsallmen@reedsmith.com
WGU CORP: Mitchell Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Phone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN MITCHELL, JR. and BRADY MISNER, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WGU CORPORATION, (formerly
known as, and also known as, "Western Governors University"),
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01332 (N.D. Ohio, July 7, 2023) is a
class action brought by the Plaintiff for damages, injunctive
relief, equitable relief, and any other relief deemed just and
proper arising from Defendant's alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and the Federal Communications Commission
Rules promulgated thereunder.
The Plaintiffs seek redress for Defendant's willful violations of
the TCPA, and the Rules, by placing telemarketing phone calls to
Plaintiffs' cellular telephones using automatic telephone dialing
systems and/or prerecorded voices without their express written
consent, and by placing telemarketing phone calls to Plaintiffs'
and other class members' cellular telephones after they had
requested that Defendant cease such calls and/or after they were
registered on the federal "Do Not Call Registry."
WGU Corporation is an online, nonprofit, competency-based
university based in Salt Lake City, Utah.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brendan J. Donelon, Esq.
DONELON, P.C.
4600 Madison, Suite 810
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 221-7100
Facsimile: (816) 709-1044
E-mail: brendan@donelonpc.com
- and -
Daniel W. Craig, Esq.
DONELON, P.C.
6642 Clayton Rd., #320
St. Louis, MO 63117
Telephone: (314) 297-8385
Facsimile: (816) 709-1044
E-mail: dan@donelonpc.com
WINGS OVER: Court Approves Settlement Deal in Carts
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TY CARTS, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, v. WINGS OVER HAPPY VALLEY MDF, LLC d/b/a WINGS OVER
HAPPY VALLEY, et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-00915-YK (M.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Yvette Kane entered an order granting the joint motion
to approve the Settlement Agreement.
The Plaintiffs' Counsel asserts that his firm spent 300 hours on
this litigation and typically employs a billing rate of $350 per
hour.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 28, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3POg8Fm at no extra charge.[CC]
WRIST AFICIONADO: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wrist Aficionado,
LLC. The case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Wrist Aficionado, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-05207 (E.D.N.Y., July 7, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Wrist Aficionado -- https://wristaficionado.com/ -- are passionate
about providing our clients with the finest luxury timepieces and
accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
YOUTUBE LLC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Colombo Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN COLOMBO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
YOUTUBE, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-06987-JD (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order denying YouTube's motion
to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Colombo says that YouTube "failed to develop or implement a
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)-compliant data
collection policy," and "therefore failed to comply with any
BIPA-compliant policy in [its] handling of [his] personally
identifying information." (emphases omitted). At the pleadings
stage, this is enough to move forward. While "'the duty to
disclose' a written policy under Section 15(a) 'is owed to the
public generally, not to particular persons whose biometric
information the entity collects,'" Zellmer v. Facebook, Inc., Case
No. 18-cv-01880-JD, 2022 WL 16924098.
The Plaintiff Nathan Colombo sued the Defendants for violating the
BIPA. The operative second amended complaint (SAC) presents two
claims alleging that YouTube violated Sections 15(a) and (b) of
BIPA by collecting sensitive biometric identifiers and biometric
information through its "Face Blur" and "Thumbnail Generator" video
editing tools without first obtaining the necessary informed
written consent or providing data retention and destruction
policies to consumers.
YouTube is an American online video sharing and social media
platform headquartered in San Bruno, California, United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 28, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PT9DkC 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 ***