/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230801.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, August 1, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 153 Headlines 26-30 JACKSON AVENUE: Alonso Sue Over Breach of Labor Laws 3M COMPANY: Anglemyer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Barclay Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Dennis Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Dolezal Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Harrison Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Stewart Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams A&W CONCENTRATE: Settles Sharpe Mislabeling Class Suit for $15M A.J. CAPITAL PARTNERS: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ADVANCED MEDICAL: Buechler Files Suit in D. Maryland AKASH MANAGEMENT: Robinson Sues Over Labor Law Violations ANITA INTERNATIONAL: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York APTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL: Bullard Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ARDAGH GLASS INC: Castaneda Suit Removed to N.D. California ASSURANT INC: Steen Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia AT&T SERVICES INC: Herrera Suit Removed to D. New Jersey BABY TREND: Johnson Sues Over Unsafe and Defective Strollers BARBOURVILLE NURSING HOME: Hamilton Files Suit in E.D. Kentucky BERKELEY COUNTY, SC: Fosdick Suit Removed to D. South Carolina BETTERBODY FOODS: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BIG HEART USA: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BIRDWELL CALIFORNIA: Bullock Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BITWISE INDUSTRIES: Nunn et al. Sue Over Wrongful Termination BLACK CEO: Ulery Allowed Leave to Conduct Class Cert. BLAIRS WESTERN WEAR: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BLOOMFIELD COLLEGE: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BOB EVANS: Settles Williams Labor Violations Class Suit for $5M BOSTON POST: Pichardo Suit Seeks Conditional Collective Status BOYDS L.P.: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BP EXPLORATION: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Gilliam Suit BP EXPLORATION: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Jones B3 Suit BRITAX CHILD: Parties Seek to Hold Bid for Class Certification BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP: Valenzuela Suit Removed to C.D. California BURLINGTON STORES: Payton-Fernandez Suit Seeks Collective Status CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL: Gomez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS: Roach Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CAPITAL ONE: Davis Seeks to File Documents Under Seal CAPITOL TECHNOLOGY: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CAPTIFY HEALTH: F.S. Suit Removed to D. Kansas CARGILL MEAT: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 22 CARL H. BAXMEYER: Calhoun Files ADA Suit in N.D. Indiana CENGAGE LEARNING: Seeks to Exclude Spulber's Testimony in Bernstein CENGAGE LEARNING: Seeks to File Objections Under Seal CENTRAL GARDEN: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CHRIS REYKDAL: N.D. Suit Files Bid for Class Certification CHURCH CHURCH: Settlement Deal in Hollins Gets Initial OK CITY PLUMBING & ELECTRIC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York COCKTAIL KINGDOM: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York CONNEXIN SOFTWARE: Filing for Class Certification Bids Due Dec. 22 COUPLE SPA 65 INC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York CRESTWOOD BEHAVIORAL: O'Brien Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CRWW INC: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DAVIS & ELKINS COLLEGE: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DAVITA INC: Bowling's Bid for Collective Certification OK'd in Part DISH NETWORK: Fulmore Files Suit in D. Colorado DMB MESA PROVING: Miller Files Suit in D. Arizona EILEEN GRAYS: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ELECTRIC BIKE: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ERIE INSURANCE: Grzymkowski Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania EXICURE INC: Faces Colwell Securities Suit Over Stock Losses FESTIVAL TOWER: Settles Class Suit Over Balcony Closures GAUGHAN SOUTH: Williams Sues Over Antitrust Act Violation GEICO INDEMNITY: Settles Class Suit Over Total Loss Underpayments GENWORTH FINANCIAL: King Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII GLL ORTEGA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Melendez Suit Says GLOBAL E-TRADING: Sihler Files RICO Suit in M.D. Florida GOODRX HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs' Bid for Interim Co-Lead Counsel OK'd GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Balles Suit Removed to C.D. California GREYSTAR CALIFORNIA: Court Stays Class Cert. Briefing in Zeff Suit GROCERY OUTLET: Smith Sues Over Failure to Provide Minimum Wage GSI OUTDOORS: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GWG HOLDINGS INC: Faces Bayati Shareholder Suit in Texas Court HALAL GUYS: Compelled to Produce Unredacted Records HAMPDEN-WILBRAHAM REGIONAL: Landers Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. HANCOCK REGIONAL HOSPITAL: Fleece Suit Removed to C.D. California HANOVER INSURANCE: MSP Recovery Suit Removed to S.D. Florida HARVARD COLLEGE: Weiss Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct HAWAIIAN HOST: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HCA HEALTHCARE INC: Aragon Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee HEALTH RECOVERY: Court Cancels Oral argument on Class Cert Bid HENRY FORD: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Dec. 15 HERITAGE VALLEY: Fails to Secure Private Info, Redd Claims HOME DEPOT: Dalton Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota HOMEAGLOW INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HSBC BANK: Ji Dong Cheng Suit Seeks to Certify Class HV GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss 3rd Amended Ramirez Suit Granted in Part HWS LLC: Class Certification Briefing Sched Modified in Hall Suit HYUNDAI AMERICA: McCrory et al. Sue Over Defective Inflators INEOS PIGMENTS: Decker Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages INTEGRO PROFESSIONAL: Noel Suit Removed to S.D. Florida INTERNATIONAL CLAIMS: Nichols Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida INTERNATIONAL CLAIMS: Nichols Sues Over Unpaid Wages INTOUCH CREDIT UNION: Baines-Thomas Files Suit in E.D. Texas IPSWITCH INC: Reese Files Suit in D. Massachusetts JNL PRODUCTIONS: Yu Sues Over Unpaid Compensations JOHNSON C. SMITH UNIVERSITY: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JOLYN CLOTHING: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JORNS & ASSOCIATES: SC&RCI Files Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. JPAY LLC: Faces Oliver Class Suit Over Sell and Confiscate Tablets JUST REAL FOOD: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KANE AND MCHENRY: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KIRKLAND LAKE: Oral Argument Hearing Set for Sept. 7 KLS LOGISTICS: Parks Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania KONICA MINOLTA: Cezus Must File Class Certification Bid by Oct. 6 KUIU LLC: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York L.A. T-SHIRT & PRINT: Bullock Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LAKES AREA: Class Settlement in Collins Suit Gets Final Approval LANSING COMMUNITY COLLEGE: Sued Over Failure to Safeguard PII LE SPORTSAC INC: $45K in Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Murphy Suit LE SPORTSAC INC: Class Settlement in Murphy Suit Has Final Approval LEADPOINT INC: Wins Barton Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages LEE KUM KEE: Arroyo Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation LIVWELL PRODUCTS: Court Narrows Claims in Scheibe Class Action LOWE'S HOME CENTERS: Jackson Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania M&T BANK: Plaintiffs Allowed Leave to File Supplemental Declaration MAGELLAN HEALTH: Court Explains $75K Fee Award for Anderson's Atty. MAKE-UP ART COSMETICS: Herrera Suit Removed to S.D. New York MANAGED CARE OF NORTH AMERICA: Gonzalez Files Suit in S.D. Florida MANAGED CARE OF NORTH AMERICA: Jernigan Files Suit in S.D. Florida MANAGED CARE OF NORTH AMERICA: Williams Files Suit in S.D. Florida MARCHESE & CO: Gomez-Velazquez Files Renewed Class Cert. Bid MARS INC: Prescott Suit Transferred to E.D. New York MERCYFIRST INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Martin Suit Alleges META PLATFORMS: Northwestern Joins Class Suit Over SocMed Platforms META PLATFORMS: Santoro Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida META PLATFORMS: Settles Instagram Privacy Class Suit for $68.5M METROPOLITAN OPERA: Viti Suit Removed to S.D. New York MUNRO & COMPANY: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MY PERFECT PET: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NATIONAL GENERAL: King Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Policyholders NATIONSBENEFITS: A.T. Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Woodward Files Suit in D. Nebraska NEPTUNE WELLNESS: Settles Gong Securities Suit in NY Court NESTLE USA: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Falcone Class Suit NEW JERSEY: C.P. Class Suit Seeks to Clarify Court's Order NG LABS INC: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Court Adjourns Scheduling Order in Canava NUT HOUSE: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York OAK GROVE ASSISTED: Kluender Suit Transferred to W.D. Wisconsin OFFICE DEPOT: Brown Suit Removed to N.D. Oklahoma OPEN DOOR: Fails to Pay Timely Wages, Chambers Suit Alleges ORANGE UNIFIED SCHOOL: Lackland Files Suit in S.D. New York PG&E CORPORATION: Wheeler Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PINNACLE PROPANE: Fitton Files Suit in N.D. Texas POTOMAC RIVER RUNNING: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PRIME HEALTHCARE: 401(k) Plan ERISA Suit Seek to Certify Class PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Kroeger Seeks to File Documents Under Seal PRYSMIAN CABLES: Montana Files Renewed Bid for Collective Action PUPFORD LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York R&B CORPORATION: Lackland Files Suit in S.D. New York RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Medina Suit Removed to S.D. Florida RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Powers Suit Seek to Certify Class RELIANCE FIRST: Wins Barton Class Suit Over Unsolicited Texts RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN: Weigel Files Suit in D. Minnesota ROHR INC: Court Grants Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Morgan Suit SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Rodriguez Sues Over Deceptive Marketing of TVs SECURLY INC: Faces Bate Class Suit Over Data Privacy Breach SHAUM'S CASABLANCA: Exotic Dancer Class Get Conditional Status SHIFTPIXY INC: Faces Splond Labor Suit in Nevada Court SHOE CARNIVAL INC: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SHUN LEE: Bid to Dismiss Wang Class Suit Tossed SIRIUS XM: Faces Mitchell Class Suit Over Labor Law Violations SLT LENDING SPV: Petrulakis Files Suit in N.D. Indiana STABILITY AI: Court Dismisses AI Class Claims, New Complaint Ok'd STASH INVESTMENTS: Santiago Files Suit in C.D. California STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Bernard Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Status TRACFONE WIRELESS: Esparza Suit Removed to C.D. California TRANS UNION: Stipulation on Class Discovery Approved in Johnson TUSIMPLE HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Suit over IPO in CA Court TUSIMPLE HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Links to CN Company UNITED AIRLINES: Seeks to Extend Class Cert Deadlines in Sambrano UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Ruling on Bid to Seal Docs Entered in Desert UNITED STATES: Settles Class Suit Over Bias Against Minorities UNITEDLEX CORPORATION: Behrendt Suit Removed to S.D. Florida VISTA OUTDOOR: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WALMART INC: Morales Suit Transferred to E.D. New York WALT DISNEY: Nielsen Seeks Leave to File Documents Under Seal WAYFAIR LLC: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WHITESTONE HOME FURNISHINGS: Robertson Files Suit in W.D. Missouri WILCO LIFE: Hearing on Summary Judgment Bid Continued to August 11 YOSHIDA & GARCIA: Reneau FDCPA Suit Removed to C.D. California ZILLOW GROUP: Filing for Class Certification Bids Due May 9, 2024 ********* 26-30 JACKSON AVENUE: Alonso Sue Over Breach of Labor Laws ---------------------------------------------------------- ANSELMO MUÑOZ ALONSO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 26-20 JACKSON AVENUE CORP. d/b/a POM'S GOURMET MARKET and FAHD ALI MUSLEH, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-CV-05041 (E.D.N.Y., July 3, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants employed the Plaintiff as a cook approximately from June 2019 until March 2023. The Plaintiff and party plaintiffs worked more than 40 hours each workweek. Allegedly, the Defendants violated the Plaintiff's rights by failing to pay or underpaying the Plaintiff overtime compensation at a rate not less than one and one-half times the Plaintiff's regular rate of pay for the hours the Plaintiff worked more than 40 per workweek. Moreover, Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid or underpaid overtime compensation, spread-of-hours wages, and such other relief available by law, the suit says. The Defendant 26-20 Jackson Avenue Corp. is a New York business corporation with its office in Queens County. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon D. Sherr, Esq. Justin A. Zeller, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007-2036 Telephone: (212) 229-2249 Facsimile: (212) 229-2246 E-mail: bsherr@zellerlegal.com jazeller@zellerlegal.com 3M COMPANY: Anglemyer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------- Willard Anglemyer, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND) COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-03396-RMG (D.S.C., July 14, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with bladder 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: Frederick T. Kuykendall III, Esq. THE KUYKENDALL GROUP, LLC 201 East Second Street Bay Minette, AL 36507 Phone: (205) 252-6127 Facsimile: (205) 449-1132 Email: ftk@thekuykendallgroup.com 3M COMPANY: Barclay Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Barclay, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND) COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-03393-RMG (D.S.C., July 14, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with Stage III 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: Frederick T. Kuykendall III, Esq. THE KUYKENDALL GROUP, LLC 201 East Second Street Bay Minette, AL 36507 Phone: (205) 252-6127 Facsimile: (205) 449-1132 Email: ftk@thekuykendallgroup.com 3M COMPANY: Dennis Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Dennis, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND) COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-03386-RMG (D.S.C., July 14, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frederick T. Kuykendall III, Esq. THE KUYKENDALL GROUP, LLC 201 East Second Street Bay Minette, AL 36507 Phone: (205) 252-6127 Facsimile: (205) 449-1132 Email: ftk@thekuykendallgroup.com 3M COMPANY: Dolezal Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Arthur Dolezal, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND) COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-03390-RMG (D.S.C., July 14, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frederick T. Kuykendall III, Esq. THE KUYKENDALL GROUP, LLC 201 East Second Street Bay Minette, AL 36507 Phone: (205) 252-6127 Facsimile: (205) 449-1132 Email: ftk@thekuykendallgroup.com 3M COMPANY: Harrison Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------- William Harrison, 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-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:23-cv-03399-RMG (D.S.C., July 17, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a state police officer and was diagnosed with bladder 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: James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq. Keith Jackson, Esq. Jeremiah Mosley, Esq. RILEY & JACKSON, P.C. 3530 Independence Dr. Birmingham, AL 35209 Phone: 205-879-5000 Facsimile: 205-879-5901 3M COMPANY: Stewart Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------ Charles Stewart, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-03366-RMG (D.S.C., July 14, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Phone: 631-600-0000 Facsimile: 631-543-5450 - and - Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 A&W CONCENTRATE: Settles Sharpe Mislabeling Class Suit for $15M --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that A&W Concentrate Co. and Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. agreed to a $15 million class action settlement to resolve claims they falsely advertised their root beer and cream soda as containing real vanilla. No proof of purchase is required The class is made up of U.S. residents who, between Feb. 7, 2016, and June 2, 2023, purchased, in the U.S., for personal use and not for resale, one or more A&W Root Beer or Cream Soda products that contained the statement "made with aged vanilla" on their label. The covered products are: A&W Root Beer - Regular A&W Root Beer - Diet A&W Root Beer - Zero Sugar A&W Root Beer - Ten A&W Cream Soda - Regular A&W Cream Soda - Diet A&W Cream Soda - Zero Sugar The plaintiffs allege the A&W root beer and cream soda products were misleadingly labeled as containing aged vanilla when they are actually made using ethyl vanillin, an artificial vanilla flavoring. The defendants deny any wrongdoing and assert their labeling is proper but agreed to the settlement to avoid continuing litigation. Keurig Dr Pepper, which owns A&W Concentrate Co., makes a number of popular soft drink brands in addition to A&W and Dr Pepper, including Sunkist, Hawaiian Punch, Snapple, Schweppes and others. Under the terms of the A&W settlement, class members are eligible to claim in one of three tiers a refund based on the number of products they purchased: Tier 1: Class members who submit a claim without proof of purchase will receive $5.50 per household. Tier 2: Class members who file a claim with and without proof of purchase will receive a guaranteed minimum of $5.50, plus an additional $0.50 per unit purchased for which they provided valid proof of purchase, up to a maximum of 39 units supported by proof of purchase, for a combined total of $25 per household. Tier 3: Class members who file all claims with proof of purchase will receive a guaranteed minimum of $5.50 and $.50 per unit for which proof of purchase they provide for every unit over 11 units they purchased, up to 50 units for $25. Class members may file only a single claim per household, regardless of how many people reside at their address. Individual cash payment amounts may be proportionately reduced depending on the number of valid claims submitted. The deadline to request to be excluded from or to object to the settlement is Aug. 28, 2023. A final hearing in the A&W settlement will take place Sept. 19, 2023. The deadline to submit a claim form is Oct. 18, 2023. Who's Eligible U.S. residents who, between Feb. 7, 2016, and June 2, 2023, purchased, in the U.S., for personal use and not for resale, one or more A&W Root Beer or Cream Soda products that contained the statement "made with aged vanilla" on their label. Potential Award Up to $25. Proof of Purchase Proof is not required to make a claim; however, those who wish to provide proof must provide objectively verifiable documentation of a transaction that reflects the purchase of one or more products during the class period, establishes the number of units purchased and shows the purchase occurred during the class period. 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 10/18/2023 Case Name Sharpe, et al. v. A&W Concentrate Co., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00768-BMC, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York Final Hearing 9/18/2023 Settlement Website RootBeerAndCreamSodaSettlement.com Claims Administrator Sharpe v. A&W Concentrate Co. c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC PO Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 Class Counsel Michael R. Reese REESE LLP Defense Counsel Russ Falconer GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP [GN] A.J. CAPITAL PARTNERS: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against A.J. Capital Partners, L.P. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. A.J. Capital Partners, L.P., Case No. 1:23-cv-05398-BMC (E.D.N.Y., July 17, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. A.J. Capital Partners, L.P. (AJCP) -- https://ajcpt.com/ -- is a vertically integrated real estate investment manager anchored by the core principles of hospitality, placemaking, and residentially inspired design.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com ADVANCED MEDICAL: Buechler Files Suit in D. Maryland ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advanced Medical Management, LLC. The case is styled as James Buechler, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Advanced Medical Management, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01891-JKB (D. Md., July 13, 2023). The nature if suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. Advanced Medical Management, LLC (AMM) -- https://www.amm.cc/ -- provides operational, administrative and technical healthcare management services to large physician organizations, government agencies, and health plans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John R. Garza, Esq. GARZA LAW FIRM, P.A. 17 W Jefferson St Ste 100 Rockville, MD 20850 Phone: (301) 340-8200 Fax: (301) 294-6159 Email: jgarza@garzanet.com AKASH MANAGEMENT: Robinson Sues Over Labor Law Violations --------------------------------------------------------- JONNATHAN A. ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AKASH MANAGEMENT, a California Limited Pieology Pizzeria, a California Limited Company; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV15487 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 3, 2023) alleges claims against the Defendants' violations of various provisions of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in approximately April 2022 as a non-exempt employee with the title of Cashier/Shift Lead and worked during the liability period for Defendants until Plaintiff's separation from Defendants' employment in approximately August 2022 at Defendants' Pieology Pizzeria location in Bakersfield. Moreover, this representative action is for recovery of penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. It alleges that the Defendants have implemented policies and practices which led to unpaid wages resulting from Defendant's: (a) failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, (b) failure to provide meal periods, (c) failure to provide rest periods, (d) failure to pay all wages earned and owed upon separation from Defendant's employ, (e) failure to pay wages timely during employment, (f) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, (g) failing to reimburse business expenses, (h) failure to pay reporting time pay, (i) failing to pay sick pay, and (j) for tip theft. Headquartered in Pomona, Akash Management, LLC dba Pieology Pizzeria, owns and operates as franchisees of Pieology Pizzeria Restaurants in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Gregory Mauro, Esq. Michael Calvo, Esq. Lauren Falk, Esq. Ava Issary, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com Michael@j ameshawkinsaplc.com Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com ANITA INTERNATIONAL: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anita International Corp. The case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Anita International Corp., Case No. 1:23-cv-05161-VSB (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Anita -- https://www.anita.com/en/ -- is well-known as a specialist for top-quality lingerie and swimwear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ara Vahe Naljian, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 584-5575 Email: analjian@steinsakslegal.com APTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL: Bullard Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Bullard, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. APTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company; APTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL GP, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. C23-01524 (Cal. Super. Ct., Contra Costa Cty., June 21, 2023), is brought under California Labor Code as a result of the Defendants failure to pay overtime wages to the Plaintiff and the other class members for all overtime hours worked. The Plaintiff and the other class members worked over 8 hours in a day, and/or 40 hours in a week during their employment with Defendants. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California. This pattern and practice involved, inter alia, failing to pay them for all regular and/or overtime wages earned and for short, late, interrupted, and/or missed meal periods and rest breaks in violation of California law. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and the other class members were entitled to receive certain wages for overtime compensation and that they were not receiving accurate overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in the State of California, County of Contra Costa. APTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC whose employees are engaged in work throughout the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cody Payne, Esq. Kim Nguyen, Esq. PAYNE NGUYEN, LLP 100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 360–9882 Facsimile: (310) 928–7469 Email: cody@paynellp.com kim@paynellp.com - and - David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com jeff@tomorrowlaw.com ARDAGH GLASS INC: Castaneda Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Alex Castaneda, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ARDAGH GLASS INC. and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. CV035665 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 17, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-03547. The Plaintiff alleges that Ardagh violated the overtime requirements of California Labor Code by failing to pay Plaintiff and the putative class members all overtime wages due and by failing to pay overtime at the proper regular rate of pay.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Sabrina L. Shadi, Esq. Nicholas D. Poper, Esq. Matthew J. Goodman, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509 Phone: 310.820.8800 Facsimile: 310.820.8859 Email: sshadi@bakerlaw.com npoper@bakerlaw.com mgoodman@bakerlaw.com ASSURANT INC: Steen Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Daris Steen, William Judson, Sr., Richard Stein, Kareem Bacon, Doug Moore, Demetrios Lahiri, as a Class Representative, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Assurant, Inc., Brandon Brown, Ash Bauer, Joseph Amendola, in their individual and professional capacities; Case No. 1:22-cv-04571 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on July 14, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-03115-LMM-CMS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights for Job Discrimination (Race). Assurant, Inc. -- http://www.assurant.com/-- is a global provider of risk management products and services with headquarters in Atlanta.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeanne-Marie Bates Christensen, Esq. John S. Crain, Esq. WIGDOR, LLP-NY 85 Fifth Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 257-6800 Email: jcrain@wigdorlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Eli Freedberg, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.-NY 900 Third Avenue, 8th Floor New York, NY 10022-3298 Phone: (212) 583-9600 - and - Daniel E. Turner Jennifer Bachman Miller LITTLER MENDELSON 3424 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30326 Phone: (404) 443-3525 Fax: (404) 420-2480 Email: dturner@littler.com jbmiller@littler.com AT&T SERVICES INC: Herrera Suit Removed to D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Carlos Herrera, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AT&T Services, Inc., Case No. HUD-L-001607-23 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 22, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-03395-WJM-LDW to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. AT&T Services, Inc. -- https://www.att.com/ -- provides telecommunication services. The Company offers wireless network, cell phone, digital television, internet, land line telecommunication services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Zemel, Esq. ZEMEL LAW LLC 660 Broadway Paterson, NJ 07514 Phone: (862) 227-3106 Fax: (973) 525-2552 Email: dz@zemellawllc.com The Defendant is represented by: Andrew B. Joseph, Esq. Matthew J. Fedor, Esq. Alison Thompson, Esq. Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 600 Campus Drive Florham Park, NJ 07932 Phone: (973) 549-7264 Email: andrew.joseph@faegredrinker.com matthew.fedor@faegredrinker.com alison.thompson@faegredrinker.com BABY TREND: Johnson Sues Over Unsafe and Defective Strollers ------------------------------------------------------------ GREGARY JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BABY TREND, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-01283 (C.D. Cal., July 3, 2023) alleges claims against the Defendant for breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, the California's Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. This nationwide class action is brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and other similarly situated consumers who purchased Baby Trend's Sit N' Stand Double and Ultra Strollers, whose model numbers begin with "SS76" or "SS66" for personal or household use and not for resale. The Plaintiff claims that these products contain a safety defect in the form of an unreasonable risk of physical harm, namely, head or neck entrapment between the pivoting front canopy and the armrest or seat back of these products. Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to disclose this defect to consumers at the point of sale. Headquartered in California, Baby Trend manufactures, distributes, markets, and sells children's products nationwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander E. Wolf, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN 280 South Beverly Drive, Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (872) 365-7060 E-mail: awolf@milberg.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com BARBOURVILLE NURSING HOME: Hamilton Files Suit in E.D. Kentucky --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barbourville Nursing Home, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Helen Hamilton, by and through her Power of Attorney, Melissa Buchanan, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Barbourville Nursing Home, Inc. doing business as: Barbourville Health and Rehabilitation Center, Management Advisors, Inc., SEKY Holding Co., Terry E. Forcht, John Does 1-5 being sued as unknown Defendants, Case No. 6:23-cv-00131-REW-HAI (E.D. Ky., July 14, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability. Barbourville Nursing Home, Inc. -- https://www.barbourvillehrc.com/ -- provide 24-hour nursing care and long and short term rehablilitation services. The company also offer physical, occupational, and speech therapy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen M. Garcia, Esq. GARCIA, ARTIGLIERE & MEDBY & FAULKNER - KY 444 E. Main Street, Suite 108 Lexington, KY 40507 Phone: (502) 584-3805 Fax: (502) 584-3811 Email: edoc@lawgarcia.com BERKELEY COUNTY, SC: Fosdick Suit Removed to D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Loretta Fosdick, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Berkeley County, Case No. 2023-CP-08-01638 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina on July 14, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-03375-RMG. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges violations by the County of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marybeth Mullaney, Esq. MULLANEY LAW 652 Rutledge Avenue, Suite A Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (843) 588-5587 Email: marybeth@mullaneylaw.ne The Defendants are represented by: Bob J. Conley, Esq. CLEVELAND & CONLEY, LLC 171 Church Street, Suite 310 Charleston, SC 29401 Phone: (843)577-9626 Email: bconley@clevelandlaborlaw.com BETTERBODY FOODS: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against BetterBody Foods & Nutrition LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BetterBody Foods & Nutrition LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-05173-PAE-BCM (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. BetterBody Foods -- https://betterbodyfoods.com/ -- is the online health food store providing the best natural, organic, vegan and vegetarian ingredients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com BIG HEART USA: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Big Heart USA, LLC. The case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Big Heart USA, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-05159-JGK (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Big Heart -- https://bighearttoys.com/ -- aims to help and support families with neurodiverse children.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ara Vahe Naljian, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 584-5575 Email: analjian@steinsakslegal.com BIRDWELL CALIFORNIA: Bullock Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Birdwell California!, LLC. The case is styled as Justin Bullock, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Birdwell California!, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06014 (S.D.N.Y., July 13, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Birdwell -- https://www.birdwell.com/ -- is a manufacturer of board shorts and casual apparel that supplies through online and offline shops.[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 BITWISE INDUSTRIES: Nunn et al. Sue Over Wrongful Termination ------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE NUNN, KAILA WEBB, and KASANDRA JIMENEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BITWISE INDUSTRIES, INC., BW INDUSTRIES INC., BWRD, LLC and ALPHA WORKS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 23-50425-TMH (Bankr. D. Del., July 3, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' alleged violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and the California Labor Code. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and the other similarly situated former employees who worked for Defendants and who were terminated without cause, as part of, or as the result of, the mass layoffs, plant closings, or termination of a covered establishment ordered by Defendants on or about May 29, 2023 and within 30 days of that date, and who were not provided 60 days' advance written notice of their terminations by Defendants, as required by the WARN Act. Headquartered in Fresno, Bitwise Industries, Inc. is a California corporation wholly owned by BW Industries, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher D. Loizides, Esq. LOIZIDES, P.A. 1225 King Street, Suite 800 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 654-0248 Facsimile: (302) 654-0728 E-mail: loizides@loizides.com - and - Jack A. Raisner, Esq. Rene S. Roupinian, Esq. RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP 270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 221-1747 Facsimile: (212) 221-1747 E-mail: jar@raisnerroupinian.com rsr@raisnerroupinian.com BLACK CEO: Ulery Allowed Leave to Conduct Class Cert. ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID ULERY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BLACK CEO, LLC d/b/a SUCCESSFEST, and TREVELYN OTTS, Case No. 1:22-cv-02709-MDB (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to conduct class certification and damages related discovery from the Defendants. The Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act [TCPA]. The Plaintiff also purports to bring this action on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated persons. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants "placed thousands of nonconsensual text message advertisements to consumers' telephone numbers nationwide using an automatic telephone dialing system in violation of the TCPA." A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43GeMA0 at no extra charge.[CC] BLAIRS WESTERN WEAR: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blairs Western Wear, Inc., II. The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Blairs Western Wear, Inc., II, Case No. 1:23-cv-05588-CM (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Blair's Western Wear -- https://www.blairswesternwear.com/ -- is a western store that sells high-quality western apparel, boots, western graphic tees, bags, purses, and jewelry.[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 BLOOMFIELD COLLEGE: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bloomfield College And Seminary. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Bloomfield College And Seminary, Case No. 1:23-cv-06052 (S.D.N.Y., July 14, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bloomfield College of Montclair State University -- http://www.bloomfield.edu/-- is a private college in Bloomfield, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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: michael@gottlieb.legal BOB EVANS: Settles Williams Labor Violations Class Suit for $5M --------------------------------------------------------------- Dani Kington of Anthens County Independent reports that parties in a federal class action lawsuit alleging labor violations by Bob Evans Restaurants agreed to a $5 million settlement last week. The plaintiffs include employees of the Bob Evans at 357 E State St. in Athens and other locations across the country. The lawsuit alleged that employees at Bob Evans locations were classified as tipped employees and therefore paid less than minimum wage — even though those employees were routinely required to spend substantial portions of their shifts performing nontipped work. Bob Evans continues to deny all claims put forward in the lawsuit, according to the settlement agreement. The agreement is pending final approval by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs Rebecca Bailey and Regina Jensen both worked at the Athens Bob Evans location. Jensen also worked at a Parkersburg, West Virginia location, along with another plaintiff, Vickie Rash. (Bailey's attorney, Michael Fradin, declined to connect the Independent to the plaintiffs to avoid complications with the settlement.) The lawsuit says the Athens Bob Evans required Bailey and other employees to "perform numerous job duties when there was no possibility for that employee to generate tips, such as before the restaurant opened or after it had closed," including cleaning and stocking. The alleged practice violated both federal and state law, which requires tipped employees to spend less than 20% of their time on nontipped work. The practice was "widespread, repeated and part of a pattern," affecting not only Bailey and Athens workers, but Bob Evans workers throughout Ohio, the lawsuit says. The lawsuit made similar claims regarding Bob Evans labor practices in the other states. Bailey, Jensen and Rash are among 15 named plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which also represents about 5,000 unnamed current or former Bob Evans employees across Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan and New York who opted into the lawsuit. About one-third of the settlement will go to the plaintiff's attorney fees. That leaves over $3.2 million to be divided among the approximately 5,000 plaintiffs. The amount each individual receives will depend on the number of hours each individual worked during the period under security by the lawsuit, as well as minimum wage laws in each state. Bailey's attorney Michael Fradin said, "What I really like about these kinds of cases is the main plaintiffs are doing this in order to do what's best for their similarly situated coworkers." The 15 named plaintiffs will each receive an additional $2,000. The lawsuit initially included many claims beyond those related to the proportion of time employees spent on nontipped work. These included claims of inadequate overtime compensation and failure to provide notice to tipped employees of their rights. These other claims were dismissed, although the court rejected Bob Evans's attempt to have the claims related to nontipped work dismissed as well. Attorneys for Bob Evans did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The lawsuit was initially filed in 2018 in Pennsylvania. Other, similar lawsuits were then merged into the case including one in Ohio that was added in November 2019. The Ohio lawsuit was initially filed shortly after a similar lawsuit against Athens Buffalo Wild Wings settled in 2018. Fradin said that settlement was helpful in generating interest in this case, as it demonstrated that workers could fight back against practices he described as "common in the restaurant industry." Fradin said he hopes this lawsuit will similarly embolden workers in the industry. "These kinds of cases create somewhat of a buzz within communities of these workers who are working very, very hard and not always being compensated accordingly," Fradin said. This buzz can lead to further labor litigation, resulting in changes within the industry, he added. [GN] BOSTON POST: Pichardo Suit Seeks Conditional Collective Status -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SECUNDINO GARCIA PICHARDO and ERIC RATZLAFF on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective the Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. BOSTON POST FOOD CORP. d/b/a C-TOWN, and C TOWN SUPERMARKETS 1-20, Case No. 1:22-cv-09157 (JPO)(SLC) (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for conditional collective certification and for Court facilitation of Notice pursuant to 29 U.s.c. section 216(b). A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 7, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43wQDvE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: CK Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 BOYDS L.P.: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boyds, L.P. The case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Boyds, L.P., Case No. 1:23-cv-05587-PAE-JW (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Boyds -- https://www.boydsphila.com/ -- offers luxury designer & contemporary women's & men's apparel, shoes & accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com BP EXPLORATION: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Gilliam Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit captioned EARL GILLIAM v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., Case No. 17-3234 (E.D. La.). Before the Court is BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP America Production Company, and BP p.l.c.'s, (collectively, the "BP Parties") motion to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiff's general causation expert, Dr. Jerald Cook, and their motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff opposes both motions. The Court also considers the Plaintiff's motion to admit the expert report of Dr. Cook as a sanction for the Defendants' alleged spoliation, which the Defendants oppose. The case arises from the Plaintiff's alleged exposure to toxic chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. He alleges that he was exposed to crude oil and dispersants from his work as an onshore cleanup worker. He represents that this exposure has resulted in the following health problems: sinus problems, eye irritation/watering, eye burning, congestion, cough, bronchitis, asthma, shortness of breath, headache, dizziness, syncope, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, gastroenteritis, abdominal cramps, onychomycosis, skin peeling, fungal infection to feet, pain in feet, anxiety, nerve pain, and leg cramps. The Plaintiff's case was originally part of the multidistrict litigation ("MDL") pending before Judge Carl J. Barbier. His case was severed from the MDL as one of the "B3" cases for plaintiffs, who either opted out of, or were excluded from, the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement (In re Oil Spill by Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mex., on Apr. 20, 2010, No. MDL 2179, 2021 WL 6053613, at *2, 12 & n.12 (E.D. La. Apr. 1, 2021). He opted out of the settlement. After the Plaintiff's case was severed, it was reallocated to this Court. The Plaintiff asserts claims for general maritime negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence against the defendants as a result of the oil spill and its cleanup. To demonstrate that exposure to crude oil, weathered oil, and dispersants can cause the symptoms the Plaintiff alleges in his complaint, he offers the testimony of Dr. Jerald Cook, an occupational and environmental physician. Dr. Cook is the Plaintiff's sole expert offering an opinion on general causation. In his report dated March 14, 2022, Dr. Cook utilizes a "general causation approach to determine if a reported health complaint can be from the result of exposures sustained in performing [oil spill] cleanup work." The BP Parties contend that Dr. Cook's expert report should be excluded on the grounds that that it is unreliable and unhelpful. The Defendants also move for summary judgment, asserting that if Dr. Cook's general causation opinion is excluded, plaintiff is unable to carry his burden on causation. The Plaintiff opposes both motions. He contends that the Defendants' failure to record quantitative exposure data during the oil spill response amounts to spoliation, and seeks the admission of Dr. Cook's report as a sanction. The Defendants oppose his motion. The Plaintiff has the burden of proving that the legal cause of his claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or other chemicals used during the response. At issue here is whether the Plaintiff has produced admissible general causation evidence. To prove that exposure to the chemicals in oil and dispersants can cause the medical conditions he alleges, he offers the testimony of an environmental toxicologist, Dr. Cook. Judge Vance notes that Dr. Cook issued an omnibus, non-case specific general causation expert report that has been used by many B3 plaintiffs. The Court finds that Dr. Cook's failure to identify the level of exposure to a relevant chemical that can cause the conditions asserted in the Plaintiff's complaint renders his opinion unreliable, unhelpful, and incapable of establishing general causation. In sum, the Plaintiff, as the party offering the testimony of Dr. Cook, has failed to meet his burden of establishing the reliability and relevance of Dr. Cook's report, Judge Vance holds. Given that Dr. Cook's report is unreliable and fails to provide the "minimal facts necessary" to establish general causation in this case, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to exclude Dr. Cook's testimony. Judge Vance finds that the Plaintiff's spoliation motion suffers a number of deficiencies. Among other things, Judge Vance finds that the Plaintiff's contention that BP's failure to conduct monitoring amounts to spoliation is based on the faulty premise that BP was obligated to develop evidence in anticipation of litigation. In their motion for summary judgment, the Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment because the Plaintiff cannot establish either general or specific causation. Here, the Court has excluded testimony from the Plaintiff's only expert offering an opinion on general causation. Given that the Plaintiff cannot prove a necessary element of his claims against the Defendants, his claims must be dismissed, Judge Vance holds. Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. For these reasons, the Court grants the BP Parties' motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Cook. The Court denies the Plaintiff's motion to admit Dr. Cook's report as a sanction for the Defendants' alleged spoliation. The Court also grants the BP Parties' motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Reasons dated July 6, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5fy6puk6 from Leagle.com. BP EXPLORATION: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Jones B3 Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit captioned LARRY JONES v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., Case No. 17-4381 (E.D. La.). Before the Court is BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP America Production Company, and BP p.l.c.'s, (collectively, the "BP Parties") motion to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiff's general causation expert, Dr. Jerald Cook, and their motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff opposes both motions. The Court also considers the Plaintiff's motion to admit the expert report of Dr. Cook as a sanction for the Defendants' alleged spoliation, which they oppose. The case arises from the Plaintiff's alleged exposure to toxic chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The Plaintiff alleges that he was exposed to crude oil and dispersants from his work as an onshore and offshore cleanup worker. He represents that this exposure has resulted in the following health problems: high blood pressure, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, sinusitis, shortness of breath, chronic pancreatitis, and rashes/lesions. The Plaintiff's case was originally part of the multidistrict litigation ("MDL") pending before Judge Carl J. Barbier. His case was severed from the MDL as one of the "B3" cases for plaintiffs, who either opted out of, or were excluded from, the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement (In re Oil Spill by Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mex., on Apr. 20, 2010, No. MDL 2179, 2021 WL 6053613, at *2, 12 & n.12 (E.D. La. Apr. 1, 2021). The Plaintiff opted out of the settlement. After his case was severed, it was reallocated to this Court. He asserts claims for general maritime negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence against the Defendants as a result of the oil spill and its cleanup. To demonstrate that exposure to crude oil, weathered oil, and dispersants can cause the symptoms the Plaintiff alleges in his complaint, he offers the testimony of Dr. Jerald Cook, an occupational and environmental physician. Dr. Cook is the Plaintiff's sole expert offering an opinion on general causation. The BP Parties contend that Dr. Cook's expert report should be excluded on the grounds that that it is unreliable and unhelpful. The Defendants also move for summary judgment, asserting that if Dr. Cook's general causation opinion is excluded, the Plaintiff is unable to carry his burden on causation. The Plaintiff opposes both motions. He contends that the Defendants' failure to record quantitative exposure data during the oil spill response amounts to spoliation, and seeks the admission of Dr. Cook's report as a sanction. The Defendants oppose his motion. The Plaintiff has the burden of proving that the legal cause of his claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or other chemicals used during the response, Judge Vance notes. At issue here is whether the Plaintiff has produced admissible general causation evidence. To prove that exposure to the chemicals in oil and dispersants can cause the medical conditions he alleges, he offers the testimony of an environmental toxicologist, Dr. Cook. The Court finds that Dr. Cook's failure to identify the level of exposure to a relevant chemical that can cause the conditions asserted in the Plaintiff's complaint renders his opinion unreliable, unhelpful, and incapable of establishing general causation. In sum, the Plaintiff, as the party offering the testimony of Dr. Cook, has failed to meet his burden of establishing the reliability and relevance of Dr. Cook's report, Judge Vance opines. Given that Dr. Cook's report is unreliable and fails to provide the "minimal facts necessary" to establish general causation in this case, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to exclude Dr. Cook's testimony. The Plaintiff's motion seeks the sanction of admission of Dr. Cook's report. He asserts that this sanction is appropriate because BP's decision to not record quantitative exposure data during the BP Oil Spill response has deprived him of data which would quantitatively establish his exposure. Judge Vance finds that the Plaintiff's spoliation motion suffers a number of deficiencies. Among other things, Judge Vance explains, the Plaintiff's contention that BP's failure to conduct monitoring amounts to spoliation is based on the faulty premise that BP was obligated to develop evidence in anticipation of litigation. The Court, thus, denies the Plaintiff's motion to admit Dr. Cook's report as a sanction despite its failure to meet the requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 702. In their motion for summary judgment, the Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment because the Plaintiff cannot establish either general or specific causation. Here, the Court has excluded testimony from plaintiff's only expert offering an opinion on general causation. Given that the Plaintiff cannot prove a necessary element of his claims against the Defendants, his claims must be dismissed, Judge Vance holds. Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. For these reasons, the Court grants the BP Parties' motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Cook. The Court denies the Plaintiff's motion to admit Dr. Cook's report as a sanction for the Defendants' alleged spoliation. The Court also grants the BP Parties' motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Reasons dated July 6, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p2t474n from Leagle.com. BRITAX CHILD: Parties Seek to Hold Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIFFANY COLEMAN, KELI SWANN, and HEATHER BROOKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BRITAX CHILD SAFETY, INC., Case No. 0:21-cv-00721-SAL (D.S.C.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order holding in abeyance the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel and the Defendant's Motion to Exclude Expert Opinion of John R. Yannaccone, pending Court approval of the parties' forthcoming class action settlement, and during the time for appeals of final approval, if granted by the Court. Britax Child Safety is a company that manufactures child seats. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ohxo4F at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Harper T. Segui, Esq. Martha A. Geer, Esq. Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: hsegui@milberg.com mgeer@milberg.com jcohen@milberg.com The Defendant is represented by: Kevin A. Hall, Esq. M. Todd Carroll, Esq. Bryant S. Caldwell, Esq. Mark P. Henriques, Esq. WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US), LLP 1221 Main Street, Suite 1600 Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (803) 454-6504 E-mail: kevin.hall@wbd-us.com todd.carroll@wbd-us.com bryant.caldwell@wbd-us.com mark.henriques@wbd-us.com - and - Purvi G. Patel, Esq. Erin M. Bosman, Esq. Zachary S. Newman, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 6000 Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543 Telephone: (213) 892-5200 Facsimile: (213) 892-5454 E-mail: PPatel@mofo.com EBosman@mofo.com ZNewman@mofo.com BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP: Valenzuela Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sonya Valenzuela, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 23STCV04542 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 29, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-05162-SSS-KK. The Plaintiff's original Complaint brought two counts alleging violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). The Plaintiff generally averred that Build-A-Bear, without obtaining Plaintiff's consent, "secretly wiretapped" Plaintiff's conversation with Build-A-Bear on Build-A-Bear's web chat and that Build-A-Bear allows a third-party "to eavesdrop on such communications in real time and during transmission, which then enables them to harvest transcript data for marketing and other purposes."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ben Suter, Esq. Gabriel Lee-Sanchez, Esq KEESAL, YOUNG & LOGAN A Professional Corporation 450 Pacific Avenue San Francisco, CA 94133 Phone: (415) 398-6000 Facsimile: (415) 981-0136 Email: ben.suter@kyl.com gabriel.lee-sanchez@kyl.com BURLINGTON STORES: Payton-Fernandez Suit Seeks Collective Status ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIM PAYTON-FERNANDEZ, LAVERN COLEMAN, and DARNIEL WILLIAMS, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, v. BURLINGTON STORES, INC., BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY WAREHOUSE CORPORATION, BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, INC., and BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00608-AMD (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- Conditionally certifying a collective under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); -- Authorizing judicial notice of this lawsuit to all collective action members; and -- Facilitating notice by requiring the Defendants to produce an electronic list of collective action class members with the requested contact information. Burlington Stores operates a chain of apparel and home product retail stores. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 7, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XXrQ2m at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq. Christopher Timmel, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 E-mail: seth@klafterlesser.com jak@klafterelesser,com christopher.timmel@klafterlesser.com - and - Michael A. Galpern, Esq. JAVERBAUM WURGAFT HICKS KAHN WIKSTROM & SININS Laurel Oak Corporate Center 1000 Haddonfield-Berlin Road, Suite 203 Voorhees, NJ 08043 Telephone: (856) 596-4100 E-mail: mgalpern@lawjw.com CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL: Gomez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Environmental Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Hector Gomez, Salvador Torres, individuals, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Set California Environmental Systems, Inc., Case No. S-CV-0050786 (Cal. Super. Ct., Placer Cty., June 29, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment." California Environmental Systems, Inc (CES) -- https://www.calenvirosystems.com/ -- is a full service mechanical contractor providing plumbing, heating and air conditioning systems installation and design/build services for the healthcare, institutional, commercial and industrial sectors throughout the western United States.[BN] CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS: Roach Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against California State Teachers' Retirement System, et al. The case is styled as Marilyn Roach, on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. California State Teachers' Retirement System (CALSTRS), Case No. 23CV004246 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 13, 2023). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil." The California State Teachers' Retirement System (CALSTRS) -- http://www.calstrs.com/-- provides retirement, disability and survivor benefits for California's 965,000 prekindergarten through community college educators and their families.[BN] CAPITAL ONE: Davis Seeks to File Documents Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLARENCE DAVIS, v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A., Case No. 1:22-cv-00903-AJT-IDD (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff moves the Court pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5(C) to file documents designated as "Confidential" by the Defendant, Capital One, N.A under seal, in connection with the Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel. A Non-Confidential Reply Brief and a Notice of Filing of Motion to Seal are being filed by the Plaintiff contemporaneously with this Motion. Capital One offers financial products and services such as personal and business checking, savings accounts, investment, mortgages, issues credit card, business loans, and commercial banking solutions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 7, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rAr3Zk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terry C. Frank, Esq. TERRY FRANK LAW 6722 Patterson Avenue, Suite B Richmond, VA 23226 Telephone: (804) 899-8089 Facsimile: (804) 899-8229 E-mail: terry@terryfranklaw.com - and - James S. Wertheim, Esq. Michael C. Hartmere, Esq. Thomas Alvord, Esq. LAW HQ, PC 299 S. Main Street, #1300 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 E-mail: jim@lawhq.com Michael.Hartmere@lawhq.com thomas@lawhq.com The Defendant is represented by: Jon S. Hubbard, Esq. Robert A. Angle, Esq. Andrew B. Buxbaum, Esq. Brooke K. Conkle, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 1001 Haxall Point Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 697-1200 Facsimile: (804) 697-1339 E-mail: jon.hubbard@troutman.com robert.angle@troutman.com andrew.buxbaum@troutman.com brooke.conkle@troutman.com - and - Daniel JT McKenna, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 665-8500 Facsimile: (215) 864-8999 E-mail: mckennad@ballardspahr.com CAPITOL TECHNOLOGY: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capitol Technology University. The case is styled as James Murphy, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Capitol Technology University Corporation A/K/A Capitol Technology University, Case No. 1:23-cv-06158 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Capitol Technology University (formerly Capitol College) -- https://www.captechu.edu/ -- is a private university in South Laurel, Maryland near Washington, DC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal CAPTIFY HEALTH: F.S. Suit Removed to D. Kansas ---------------------------------------------- The case styled as F.S., individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Captify Health, Inc.; Advent Health Service, LLC doing business as: AdventHealth Shawnee Mission; Your Patient Advisor; John Does 1-50; Jane Does 1-50; Case No. 2023-CV-000915-TO was removed from the District Court of Sedgwick County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on July 14, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:23-cv-01142-DDC-KGG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. Captify Health -- https://captifyhealth.com/ -- improves the value of digestive health care with technology-enables services for physician practices and health systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lucy McShane, Esq. Maureen M. Brady, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC 1656 Washington Street, Suite 120 Kansas City, MO 64108 Phone: (816) 888-8010 Email: lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Alvin David Lodish, Esq. Kassia Fialkoff, Esq. DUANE MORRIS, LLP 201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3400 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 960-2200 Fax: (305) 960-2201 Email: alodish@duanemorris.com kfialkoff@duanemorris.com CARGILL MEAT: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 22 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD MARIN, SAMANTHA LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. 1:22-cv-00578-ADA-SKO (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sheila K. Oberto entered an order regarding joint stipulation requesting for modification of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification deadline and related deadlines: -- Class Certification Discovery Cut-Off: Nov. 20, 2023 -- The Plaintiffs' deadline to file Motion Dec. 22, 2023 for Class Certification: -- The Defendant's deadline to file its Jan. 26, 2024 Opposition: -- The Plaintiff's deadline to file their Feb. 26, 2024 Reply: -- Hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for April 10, 2024 class certification: Cargill Meat operates as a processor and distributor of fresh beef, pork, turkey, and cooked and marinated meats. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44OcJL2 at no extra charge.[CC] CARL H. BAXMEYER: Calhoun Files ADA Suit in N.D. Indiana -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carl H. Baxmeyer, et al. The case is styled as Julie Calhoun, Guardian, individually and as Class Representatives of a class of similarly situated individuals on behalf of Randy Joseph Nowak; Laura McLellan Guardian, individually and as Class Representatives of a class of similarly situated individuals on behalf of Edward Douglas McLellan; Roy Saenz, Power of Attorney designee, individually and as Class Representatives of a class of similarly situated individuals on behalf of David M. Burns; Craig Coburn-McDonald, Power of Attorney designee, individually and as Class Representatives of a class of similarly situated individuals on behalf of Melissa McDonald v. Carl H. Baxmeyer, as President of the St. Joseph County Board of Commissioners; Mark Root, as President of the St. Joseph County Council; St. Joseph County, Indiana, a unit of government; Case No. 3:23-cv-00589-DRL-SLC (N.D. Ind., June 26, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Carl Baxmeyer -- https://www.baxmeyer4commissioner.com/about -- has held several positions during his career, each providing learning and growing opportunities for him as an individual.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kent Hull, Esq. HULL LAW FIRM 238 S Hawthorne Dr South Bend, IN 46617 Phone: (574) 287-3806 Fax: (574) 287-3116 Email: hkent507@gmail.com CENGAGE LEARNING: Seeks to Exclude Spulber's Testimony in Bernstein ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bernstein et al v. Cengage Learning, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-07541-ALC-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendant seeks leave to redact selected portions of Your Court's Opinion and Order regarding Cengage's motion to exclude the testimony of Daniel F. Spulber, and Court's Report and Recommendation regarding the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. These documents contain extensive references to Cengage's confidential and proprietary business information. Many of these references are to information that the Court has previously sealed. Cengage will file unredacted versions via ECF using the "Selected Parties" viewing level, with highlighting to indicate its proposed redactions. The Daubert order and Report contain proprietary information regarding Cengage's business activities and financial information, including references to specific, non-public revenue figures. The Documents containing "trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information," such as the revenue figures and other non-public details at issue here, may be placed under seal upon a showing of good cause. Cengage offers courses for instructor and trainer development, supplementary information, certifications, and online training. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 7, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Q7lY4P at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Christopher Chorba, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7396 Facsimile: (213) 229-6396 E-mail: CChorba@gibsondunn.com CENGAGE LEARNING: Seeks to File Objections Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUGLAS BERNSTEIN, ELAINE INGULLI, TERRY HALBERT, EDWARD ROY, LOUIS PENNER, and ROSS PARKE, as personal representative of THE ESTATE OF ALISON CLARKE-STEWART, v. CENGAGE LEARNING, INC., Case No. 19-cv-7541-ALC-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), Cengage requests leave to file its Objections under seal, with a redacted copy available on the public docket. Cengage moves the Court, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court’s Local Rules, and Your Honor's Individual Rules of Practice, for leave to file under seal Cengage's Objections to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave's Report & Recommendation on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and supporting Appendix. An unredacted copy of Cengage's brief has been filed provisionally under seal, concurrently with this Motion. Cengage has also concurrently filed a copy of the brief, with proposed redactions, to the public docket. Cengage seeks leave to redact limited excerpts of its Objections from the public record that contain confidential, non-public information regarding Cengage's contracts and business dealings with authors, including non-parties, as well as non-public internal business strategies. In particular, Cengage seeks to redact excerpts from and express references to the terms and provisions in its non-public contracts with authors. Redaction of this information is necessary to ensure that Cengage's business interests are not detrimentally affected, that its competitors do not gain an unearned advantage, and that it is not prejudiced in future contract negotiations. The sealing and redaction of Cengage's Objections is warranted because nondisclosure of Cengage’s contract terms and related information is essential to preserve the privacy of Cengage's competitive and proprietary business information and is narrowly tailored to that goal. Cengage Learning offers courses for instructor and trainer development, supplementary information, certifications, and online training. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 7, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Y5Leuo at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Christopher Chorba, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7396 Facsimile: (213) 229-6396 E-mail: CChorba@gibsondunn.com - and - Michael Hugh Gibson, Esq. Glenn Charles Edwards, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 230 Park Avenue, Ste 1130 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 404-8726 Facsimile: (212) 818-9606 E-mail: MHGibson@duanemorris.com CENTRAL GARDEN: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Garden & Pet Company. The case is styled as Alison Michele Cruz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Central Garden & Pet Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-05426-CM (S.D.N.Y., June 26, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Central Garden & Pet Company -- https://www.central.com/ -- is engaged in the garden and pet industries in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ara Vahe Naljian, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 584-5575 Email: analjian@steinsakslegal.com CHRIS REYKDAL: N.D. Suit Files Bid for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as N.D. et al., on behalf of a class of those similarly situated, v. CHRIS REYKDAL, in his capacity as the SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION and OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, a Washington State agency, Case No. 2:22-cv-01621-LK-MLP (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class defined as: "All individuals who turned 21 during or after the 2019-2020 school year and had not yet turned 22 by two years before the filing of this action or will turn 21 during the pendency of this action who are provided or were provided a FAPE under the IDEA by any school district in Washington and who but for their turning 21 would otherwise qualify or would have qualified for a FAPE because they have not or had not yet graduated from high school with a "regular high school diploma" as defined at 34 C.F.R. § 300.102(a)(3)(iv)." The Plaintiffs in this case challenge the State of Washington's generally applicable practice of ending special education prior to age 22 in clear violation of the IDEA under long-standing Ninth Circuit law. They seek to enjoin OSPI from allowing the school districts it supervises to deny ongoing or compensatory special education services to similarly situated persons on that ground. Class certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2) because OSPI has "acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole." OSPI has uniformly refused to require LEAs to provide special education until the age of 22 as required by the IDEA, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff N.D. was a special education student who received a FAPE through a placement by a Washington public school district at a residential school outside the state until his placement was terminated on August 31, 2022, shortly after he turned 21. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 10, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ya0QNl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ian B. Crosby, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 401 Union Street, Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 516-3880 Facsimile: (206) 516-3883 E-mail: icrosby@susmangodfrey.com - and - Lara Hruska, Esq. Alex Hagel, Esq. Kaitlin Leifur-Masterson, Esq. CEDAR LAW PLLC 113 Cherry Street, PMB 96563 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 607-8277 Facsimile: (206) 237-9101 E-mail: lara@cedarlawpllc.com alex@cedarlawpllc.com kaitlin@cedarlawpllc.com The Defendant is represented by: Brian Rowe, Esq. S. Todd Sipe, Esq. Elana S. Matt, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 Telephone: (206) 464-7744 E-mail: Brian. Rowe@atg.wa.gov Todd.Sipe@atg.wa.gov Elana.Matt@atg.wa.gov CHURCH CHURCH: Settlement Deal in Hollins Gets Initial OK ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETH HOLLINS, v. CHURCH CHURCH HITTLE + ANTRIM, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00304-JD-APR (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Jon E. Deguilio entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement agreement, pending the final approval hearing. As previously stated, for purposes of the Proposed Settlement only, the Court preliminarily certifies the following class, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3): The class consists of (a) all individuals (b) to whom defendant Church Church Hittle + Antrim sent a letter seeking to collect a medical or healthcare debt stating (i) "We may take legal action against you for the collection of the above amount", or (ii) "We may file suit against you" or (iii) "[client] does not wish to file suit against you. However, if you do not pay or make payment arrangements, we will proceed as necessary”; (c) on behalf of Aberdeen Ventures d/b/a Immediate Care Center, (d) which letter was sent at any time from August 18, 2019 through and including September 8, 2020. For settlement purposes only, the Court preliminarily appoints the named-the Plaintiff, Beth Hollins, as the Class representative and finds that she meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court also preliminarily appoints counsel for the Plaintiff, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, as Class Counsel. If for any reason the proposed settlement agreement ultimately does not become effective, the parties will notify the Court and return to their positions in this lawsuit as those positions existed right before the parties executed the proposed stipulation. Class Members have until October 9, 2023, to submit a claim, request to be excluded, or object to the Agreement. The Defendants Church Church Hittle + Antrim and Elizabeth Barnes, on behalf of creditor Aberdeen Ventures, attempted to collect a $81.52 medical debt incurred by the Plaintiff Beth Hollins. In attempting that collection, the Defendants sent Hollins two letters in which they threatened or implied that litigation might be instituted against her. On August 18, 2020, the Plaintiff Beth Hollins filed her Complaint in the instant action on behalf of herself and on behalf of a putative class. On January 7, 2021, the Plaintiff, as an individual and representative of the class, moved for preliminary approval of a class settlement and preliminary certification of a putative class for settlement purposes. CHHA is a full-service law firm, providing a myriad of legal services including: complex litigation, personal injury, governmental entity and municipal law, education, business formation and representation, divorce and family law, estate planning and administration, real estate law, criminal law, labor and employment law, mediation services and appellate litigation. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46XO4FS at no extra charge.[CC] CITY PLUMBING & ELECTRIC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against City Plumbing & Electric Supply Co. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. City Plumbing & Electric Supply Co., Case No. 1:23-cv-05401-JLR (S.D.N.Y., June 26, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. City Plumbing & Electric Supply Co. -- https://www.cpesupply.com/ -- offers plumbing and electrical products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com COCKTAIL KINGDOM: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cocktail Kingdom, LLC. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Cocktail Kingdom, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-05334-KAM-SJB (E.D.N.Y., July 13, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cocktail Kingdom -- https://www.cocktailkingdom.com/ -- offers a full spectrum of professional and custom barware, artisan bitters and syrups fit for the most discerning bartender.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com CONNEXIN SOFTWARE: Filing for Class Certification Bids Due Dec. 22 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAZANDRA BARLETTI, individually, as natural parent and next friend of A.B. and C.B., minors; ANDREW RECCHILONGO; SHARONDA LIVINGSTON, individually, as natural parent and next friend of K.J., a minor; BRADLEY HAIN, individually, as natural parent and next friend of N.H. and T.H., minors; HAILEY JOWERS; and IKRAM CHOWDHURY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CONNEXIN SOFTWARE, INC. d/b/a OFFICE PRACTICUM, Case No. 2:22-cv-04676-JDW (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joshua D. Wolson entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. The Parties shall meet and confer to Aug. 4, 2023 set aside dates to hold open for depositions before the close of discovery on or before: 2. Motions for class certification shall be filed Dec. 22, 2023 on or before: Responses, if any, shall be filed on Feb. 2, 2024 or before: Reply briefs, if any, shall be filed by: Feb. 16, 2024 3. Affirmative expert reports, if any, are due by: March 8, 2024 4. Rebuttal expert reports, if any, are due by: April 5, 2024 5. The Parties shall complete all discovery by: April 26, 2024 Connexin is a provider of electronic medical records and practice management software. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Q4sYj8 at no extra charge.[CC] COUPLE SPA 65 INC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Couple Spa 65, Inc. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Couple Spa 65, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-05336 (E.D.N.Y., July 13, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Couple Spa 65, Inc. is a New York Domestic Business Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com CRESTWOOD BEHAVIORAL: O'Brien Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crestwood Behavioral Health, Inc. The case is styled as Megan O'Brien, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Crestwood Behavioral Health, Inc., Case No. 23CV004894 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 14, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Crestwood Behavioral Health, Inc. -- https://crestwoodbehavioralhealth.com/ -- is proud to be California's leading provider of mental health services, assisting thousands of clients from across the state.[BN] CRWW INC: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CRWW, Inc. The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CRWW, Inc.., Case No. 1:23-cv-06141 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. CRWW, Inc. -- https://crwwassociates.com/ -- is a manufacturer in Claremont, North Carolina.[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 DAVIS & ELKINS COLLEGE: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Davis & Elkins College, Inc. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Davis & Elkins College, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06053 (S.D.N.Y., July 14, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Davis & Elkins College -- https://www.dewv.edu/ -- is a private college in Elkins, West Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal DAVITA INC: Bowling's Bid for Collective Certification OK'd in Part ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Nina Y. Wang of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's motion for conditional collective certification in the lawsuit styled JAMES BOWLING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAVITA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-03033-NYW-KLM (D. Colo.). The matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for FLSA Conditional Certification and Court-Authorized Notice. The Court has reviewed the Motion, the related briefing, the applicable case law, and the entire docket, and concludes that oral argument would not materially assist in the resolution of the matters. Plaintiff James Bowling initiated this collective action on Nov. 10, 2021, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-219, and filed his Amended Complaint on Feb. 14, 2022. He alleges generally that Defendant DaVita, Inc., has failed to provide bona fide meal breaks to its employees and has failed to adequately compensate its employees for time worked during their meal breaks. According to Mr. Bowling, DaVita nurses and technicians regularly work six-hour shifts, which entitle them to a 30-minute unpaid, uninterrupted meal break. Employees--either automatically through the company's time-management software or manually--clock out for those 30-minute meal breaks. Each pay period, to account for those unpaid meal breaks, DaVita deducts 30 minutes from each six-hour shift worked before time records are processed through payroll. However, the Plaintiff claims that DaVita requires and expects its nurses and technicians to work during their unpaid meal breaks, and that nurses and technicians regularly work during their unpaid meal breaks. He alleges that these practices have deprived nurses and technicians of overtime compensation they are legally entitled to for weeks in which they worked over 40 hours. Accordingly, the Plaintiff claims that DaVita violated the FLSA by failing to properly compensate employees for overtime hours worked. He asserts a single claim, alleging a violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 207 for failure to pay proper overtime wages, on behalf of current and former DaVita nurses and technicians who, at any time during the three years before the filing of his lawsuit, did not receive the overtime pay they were entitled to under the FLSA due to DaVita's practice of deducting 30 minutes from each six-hour shift worked. On April 15, 2022, the Honorable Kristen L. Mix entered a Scheduling Order, which contemplates three phases of discovery. In the first phase, the Parties focused on the Named Plaintiff and opt-in plaintiffs and the discovery necessary for conditional certification of the FLSA collective action. The first phase of discovery closed on Sept. 22, 2022. If the Court grants conditional certification, the case will proceed to the second phase, which will focus on (1) the claims of those individuals, who file consents to join the action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), and (2) whether de-certification is warranted. The Plaintiff filed the instant Motion on Oct. 28, 2022. He seeks a Court order (1) conditionally certifying the proposed collective; (2) ordering DaVita to produce to his counsel a list of potential opt-in plaintiffs; (3) approving notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs; (4) permitting a 90-day notice period; and (5) authorizing his counsel or a third-party administrator to issue notice to the collective. The Defendant opposes the Motion, arguing that the Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that all of the nurses and technicians he seeks to act on behalf of are similarly situated and subject to a companywide policy or practice. The Plaintiff has since filed a Reply, and the Defendant filed a Surreply with leave of Court. Mr. Bowling asks the Court to conditionally certify the following collective "for the three years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and forward:" All current and former hourly-paid nurses and technicians employed at any DaVita location to provide direct patient care who did not receive fully relieved meal breaks who may be owed overtime pay under the FLSA for workweeks in which they worked more than forty (40) hours per week including any deducted meal breaks. DaVita offers several arguments in opposition to conditional certification, citing Oldershaw v. DaVita HealthCare Partners, Inc., No. 15-cv-01964-MSK-NYW, 2019 WL 427650 (D. Colo. Feb. 4, 2019), and Harris v. DaVita Healthcare Partners, Inc., No. 17-cv-02741-MSK-NYW, 2019 WL 422318 (D. Colo. Feb. 4, 2019). DaVita contends that these cases are dispositive of the pending Motion because the court, in both decisions, determined that the evidence showed that DaVita's policymaking occurred at the facility level, such that the plaintiff had not established that there was a companywide policy or practice that applied to all putative plaintiffs. Neither of these cases necessitates denial of the Motion for Conditional Certification, Judge Wang holds. Critically, Judge Wang opines, DaVita has directed the Court to no legal authority suggesting that it would be appropriate for the Court to consider another judge's decisions, based on a different set of facts, a different set of allegations, and a different evidentiary record, in determining whether the Plaintiff in this case has put forth substantial allegations that the Proposed Collective members are subject to a single policy or practice. The Court is unpersuaded that these cases--decided four years ago, based on different circumstances, facts, and evidence than those present here--necessitate a premature factual conclusion that there is no single, companywide policy that applies to all of the potential opt-in plaintiffs. The Court, thus, concludes that the cited authorities do not justify the denial of the Motion for Conditional Certification. On that same note, the Court declines to consider DaVita's argument that, based on its submitted evidence (which amounts to over 400 pages of material), facility managers at the facility level are responsible for overseeing meal breaks, work allocation, and time recording practices, such that there is no single decision, policy, or plan to which all potential opt-in plaintiffs are subject. In sum, the Court's analysis is limited to whether Mr. Bowling has met his burden at the initial stage--that is, whether he has made substantial allegations that the Proposed Collective members were subject to a single decision, policy, or plan. In support of his allegations, Mr. Bowling has submitted DaVita's workplace policy governing meal breaks. Based on this evidence, coupled with the allegations in the Amended Complaint, the Court concludes that Mr. Bowling has raised substantial allegations that the Opt-In Plaintiffs were subject to the same decision, policy, or plan and has met the lenient conditional-certification standard, with important limitations discussed here. With that said, the Court concludes that conditional certification must be limited to the nine states in which the DaVita facilities specifically identified in the Plaintiff's Motion and supporting evidence are located. While the Court finds generally that DaVita's arguments challenging the scope of the Proposed Collective improperly ask the Court to weigh evidence in this case, the Court nevertheless agrees with DaVita's underlying conclusion that the Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating that conditional certification of a nationwide class is appropriate. Without any evidence or allegations based on personal knowledge demonstrating the practices or policies employed by DaVita in other states, Judge Wang points out that Mr. Bowling has not shown that conditional certification of a nationwide collective is appropriate. For these reasons, the Motion for Conditional Certification is granted in part. The Court will permit conditional certification, but only with respect to nurses and technicians, who worked at DaVita during the relevant time period in these nine states: Arkansas; Florida; Georgia; Louisiana; Oklahoma; New York; Tennessee; Texas; and Virginia. Unlike Rule 23 class actions, collective actions under the FLSA bind only those plaintiffs, who opt in. The Plaintiff requests that the Court approve his proposed notice, which is attached to his Motion as Exhibit N, and his proposed method of notice. He seeks a 90-day notice period for Proposed Collective members to decide whether to join the lawsuit, and also requests authorization for his counsel to issue notice to the potential opt-in plaintiffs by mail, email, and text message at the beginning of the notice period, with a reminder 45 days thereafter. He also requests leave to notify the potential opt-in plaintiffs via social media and posting at the Defendant's break rooms. DaVita objects to certain components of the Plaintiff's proposed notice. The Court finds that the Plaintiff's proposed notice requires modifications before the Court may approve it. Among other things, the proposed notice contemplates a nationwide class and does not consistently set forth the applicable notice period. Judge Wang holds that the proposed notice must be modified to account for this Court's narrowing of the Proposed Collective to the nine states in which the Opt-In Plaintiffs worked and must also accurately and consistently inform putative opt-in plaintiffs of the timeframe in which they may join this lawsuit. Additionally, while the Plaintiff's proposed notice describes the nature of the FLSA collective action, the Court finds that the notice is, in part, substantively inaccurate, contemplating claims that are not pending in this action. Due to these substantive deficiencies, the Court cannot approve the proposed notice as-is. Judge Wang also finds that Mr. Bowling has not adequately explained why the use of five separate methods of notice is necessary in this case. Finally, the Plaintiff asks the Court to permit a reminder notification 45 days after the first notification is sent. However, Judge Wang says the Plaintiff offers no substantive argument in support of this request, and his request does not contemplate whether a reminder notice would be sent only to those individuals, who have yet to respond, or to the entire collective--i.e., to individuals, who have already responded to the original notice. Accordingly, insofar as the Motion seeks approval of the Plaintiff's proposed notice, the Motion is denied. Judge Wang ordered that the Parties meet and confer, by July 20, 2023, about amendments to Plaintiff's proposed notice in compliance with the guidance stated herein. On or before that date, the Plaintiff will file a renewed motion seeking approval of the notice and consent form. The Parties will use their best efforts to mutually agree on a proposed notice and consent form, consistent with the rulings herein, and the Parties are expressly advised that the Court will not entertain arguments already raised by the Parties and addressed by the Court in this Order. In the event that the Parties cannot arrive at a mutually acceptable draft, they will submit a single proposed notice and/or consent form, indicating the language in the notice on which they agree and the language on which they cannot agree, as well as the content they each propose. Only after the Court approves the amended notice will the Court permit counsel to send notice to Proposed Collective members. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 6, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2728zmkc from Leagle.com. DISH NETWORK: Fulmore Files Suit in D. Colorado ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DISH Network, LLC. The case is styled as Ritha Fulmore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DISH Network, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01556-RMR (D. Colo., June 20, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. DISH Network Corporation -- http://www.dish.com/-- is an American television provider and the owner of the direct-broadcast satellite provider Dish, commonly known as Dish Network, and the over-the-top IPTV service, Sling TV. Additionally, Dish offers mobile wireless service, Dish Wireless.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ian W. Sloss, Esq. Silver Golub & Teitell LLP One Landmark Square, 15th Floor Stamford, CT 06901 Phone: (203) 325-4491 Email: isloss@sgtlaw.com - and - Rusty Evan Glenn, Esq. SHUMAN GLENN & STECKER 600 17th Street, Suite 2800 South Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 861-3003 Fax: (303) 536-7849 Email: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Clifford E. Yin, Esq. Richard Ralph Patch, Esq. Scott C. Hall, Esq. COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94104-5500 Phone: (415) 391-4800 Fax: (415) 989-1663 Email: ef-cey@cpdb.com ef-rrp@cpdb.com ef-sch@cpdb.com - and - Sabrina A. Larson, Esq. COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94104-5500 Phone: (415) 391-4800 Fax: (415) 989-1663 Email: ef-szl@coblentzlaw.com DMB MESA PROVING: Miller Files Suit in D. Arizona ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DMB Mesa Proving Grounds LLC, et al. The case is styled as Monica Miller, Travis Miller, Rachel Archibald, Dirk Shupe, Breanna Brinton-Rodriguez, Osvaldo Rodriguez, on behalf of themselves and a class of persons similarly situated v. DMB Mesa Proving Grounds LLC, DMB Associates Incorporated, DMB/Brookfield Eastmark LLC, Brookfield Eastmark LLC, Brookfield Residential (Arizona) LLC, Brookfield Residential Properties ULC, Christina Christian, Holly Crea, Paul Lillis, Tom Bongiorno, Eric Tune, Case No. 2:23-cv-01402-DJH (D. Ariz., July 17, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. DMB Associates -- https://dmbinc.com/ -- is a real estate development company with residential and commercial projects throughout Arizona, California, and more.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel Mogin, Esq. Tim LaComb, Esq. MOGIN RUBIN LLP 600 W Broadway, Ste. 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 798-5333 Email: dmogin@moginrubin.com tlacomb@moginrubin.com - and - Gary A Gotto, Esq. Ron Kilgard, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK LLP - PHOENIX, AZ 3101 N Central Ave., Ste. 1400 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2600 Phone: (602) 230-6322 Fax: (602) 248-2822 Email: ggotto@kellerrohrback.com rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com EILEEN GRAYS: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eileen Grays LLC. The case is styled as Shivan Bassaw, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Eileen Grays LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06069 (S.D.N.Y., July 14, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Eileen Gray -- https://www.eileengrays.com/ -- is a new leader in the global ceiling fan field.[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 ELECTRIC BIKE: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Electric Bike Technologies, Inc. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Electric Bike Technologies, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06017-KPF (S.D.N.Y., July 13, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Electric Bike Technologies Inc. -- https://electricbiketechnologies.com/ -- is the driving force behind some of the most trusted and innovative electric bike brands in the industry.[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 ERIE INSURANCE: Grzymkowski Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Christine Grzymkowski, Steven Grzymkowski, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Erie Insurance Exchange, was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 26, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02428-KSM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract. Erie Insurance Exchange -- https://www.erieinsurance.com/ -- sells auto, home, business and life insurance through independent agents.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Joseph Diulio, Esq. WHEELER, DIULIO & BARNABEI, P.C. 1617 JFK Blvd., Ste. 1270 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 971-1000 Fax: (215) 568-2901 Email: adiulio@wdblegal.com - and - ERIK D PETERSON, Esq. Erik Peterson Law Offices 110 West Vine Street, Suite 300 Lexington, KY 40507 Phone: (800) 614-1957 Email: erik@eplo.law - and - James Brandon McWherter, Esq. McWherter Scott Bobbitt PLC 341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230 Franklin, TN 37067 Phone: (615) 354-1144 Fax: (731) 664-1540 Email: brandon@msb.law - and - T. Joseph Snodgrass SNODGRASS LAW, LLC 100 S. Fifth St., Suite 800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 448-2600 Email: jsondgrass@snodgrass-law.com The Defendant is represented by: Robert T. Horst, Esq. Matthew Malamud, Esq. HORST, KREKSTEIN & RUNYON 610 West Germantown Pike, Suite 350 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 Phone: (484) 243-6878 Email: rhorst@hkr.law mmalamud@hkr.law EXICURE INC: Faces Colwell Securities Suit Over Stock Losses ------------------------------------------------------------ Exicure, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 14, 2023, that on December 13, 2021, Mark Colwell filed a putative securities class action lawsuit against the company, David A. Giljohann and Brian C. Bock in the United States District court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned "Colwell v. Exicure, Inc. et al.," Case No. 1:21-cv-0663. On February 4, 2021, the plaintiff filed an amended putative securities class action complaint. On March 20, 2023, the court entered an order appointing James Mathew as lead plaintiff and Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP as lead counsel in the action pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On May 26, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint against the company, Dr. Giljohann, Mr. Bock, and Grant Corbett. The second amended complaint alleges that Dr. Giljohann, Mr. Bock, and Dr. Corbett made materially false and/or misleading statements related to the company's clinical programs purportedly causing losses to investors who acquired company securities between January 7, 2021, and December 10, 2021. The second amended complaint does not quantify any alleged damages but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, the lead plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and others who acquired the company's stock during the putative class period at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result. Exicure, Inc. is an early-stage biotechnology company based in Illinois. FESTIVAL TOWER: Settles Class Suit Over Balcony Closures -------------------------------------------------------- CNW Group of Yahoo! Finance reports that the class action arising out of balcony closures due to falling glass at the Festival Tower Condominiums has settled. If you owned or occupied a unit in the Festival Tower between May 1, 2011 and November 30, 2012 you may be entitled to compensation. For more information, please go to www.festivalsettlement.ca. The settlement approval hearing will take place virtually before a judge of the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto on September 5, 2023. Further details of the hearing will be posted at the website listed above. Class counsel are Charney Lawyers PC; www.charneylawyers.com and Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP; www.strosbergco.com. [GN] GAUGHAN SOUTH: Williams Sues Over Antitrust Act Violation --------------------------------------------------------- Lavangaline Williams, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. GAUGHAN SOUTH, LLC D/B/A SOUTH POINT HOTEL AND CASINO, Case No. 3:23-cv-00409 (E.D. Va., June 26, 2023), is brought for Violation of The Sherman Antitrust Act as a result of South Point unlawfully tying the purchase of their hotel rooms to the purchase of the hotel's resort package. On August 3, 2022, Williams agreed to purchase the rental of a hotel room from the South Point. This transaction occurred while Williams as at her home in King George, Virginia by utilizing the internet. Williams agreed to the purchase price for the rental of the hotel room from South Point for the price advertised by South Point on the internet. Upon arrival at South Point, Williams was informed by hotel staff that she would have to purchase an additional product in order to stay at the hotel. Specifically, Williams was told that she would have to pay a "resort fee" for use of the hotel amenities such as the pool and the fitness center. Williams objected to having to purchase the "resort package" as she was only in Las Vegas, Nevada for a bowling tournament and would not be using the aforementioned hotel amenities. Williams was again informed by hotel staff that purchase of the resort package was a condition of her being able to purchase the rental of the hotel room for the price advertised on the internet. Ultimately, Williams agreed to purchase the resort package. South Point unlawfully tied the purchase of their hotel rooms to the purchase of the hotel's resort package. South point refused to sell a hotel room rental to guests unless those guests also agreed to purchase the hotel 's resort package. The Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits businesses from conditioning the sale of one product on the consumer agreeing to purchase a different product. In the present case, South Point agreed the rental of its hotel room to Williams but only on the condition that she also purchase the resort package (the tied product), says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a paying guest at the hotel owned and operated by South Point. South Point is a hotel and casino registered as a limited liability Company in Las Vegas, Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Horace F. Hunter, Esq. HUNTER & EVERAGE, PLLC 5206 Markel Road, Suite 200 Richmond, VA 23230 Phone: (804)780-1235 Fax: (804)780-2355 Email: hfh@hunter-everage.com GEICO INDEMNITY: Settles Class Suit Over Total Loss Underpayments ----------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Tzul of Bloomberg Tax reports that GEICO Indemnity Co. agreed to settle a class action for allegedly violating Georgia tax policy that resulted in underpaying its policyholders for damaged vehicles that cost more to repair than replace. Details of the pending settlement, awaiting approval from the US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, have not been publicly released. Jacob Phillips of Normand PLLC, a representative for the plaintiffs, cited "confidentiality provisions" in the settlement agreement and declined to comment on July 20, 2023. "The parties reached a class settlement at the mediation, but settlement documents must be drafted and finalized," according July 18, 2023 filing.[GN] GENWORTH FINANCIAL: King Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ----------------------------------------------------------- Delilah King, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GENWORTH FINANCIAL, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00426-RCY (E.D. Va., June 30, 2023), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information ("PII") including, but not limited to, Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and medical records (collectively, "Private Information" or "PII"). Defendant's severe failures have affected--and continue to affect--a class of over 2.5 million people. During the course of its business operations, Defendant acquired, collected, utilized, and derived a benefit from Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. Therefore, Defendant owed and otherwise assumed statutory, regulatory, and common law duties and obligations, including to keep Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected from the type of unauthorized access, disclosure, and theft that occurred in the Data Breach. On May 29, 2023, Defendant was notified "that specific Genworth files containing policyholder and agent information were compromised due to a security event that took advantage of a vulnerability identified in the widely-used MOVEit file transfer software that PBI uses." An investigation determined that there was a cybersecurity incident between May 29, 2023 and May 30, 2023, in which unauthorized third parties accessed Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information stored on Defendant's network (the "Data Breach"). The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a negligent manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on computer systems and networks that were in a condition vulnerable to cyberattack. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the Data Breach and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to Defendant; and, thus, Defendant was on notice that failing to take appropriate protective measures would expose and increase the risk that the Private Information could be compromised and stolen. As a result of this data breach, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information has been compromised, and they are, 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, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a policyholder of long term care insurance with Genworth Financial, Inc. Genworth Financial provides "long term care insurance, life insurance, annuity retirement solutions and more."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph M. Kirchgessner, Esq. WOEHRLE DALBERG YAO, PLLC 2016 Lafayette Blvd., Suite 101 Fredericksburg, VA 22401 Phone: (540) 898-8881 Email: jkirchgessner@lawfirmvirginia.com - and - Brandon M. Wise, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Phone: (314) 833-4825 Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com - and - Andrew R. Tate, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP 235 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (404) 282-4806 Email: atate@peifferwolf.com GLL ORTEGA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Melendez Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------- ERICA MELENDEZ, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLL ORTEGA CORP. d/b/a GUSTO LATINO BAR & RESTAURANT and RAMON ORTEGA, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-05033 (E.D.N.Y., July 3, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a cook from on or about May 25, 2022, to on or about May 30, 2023. The Plaintiff performed non-exempt duties for the Defendants including washing dishes, cleaning the kitchen and bathroom, as well as preparing and cooking food. Throughout her employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was required to work, and did in fact work, six days per week, from 4:00 p.m. until 2:00 a.m. the following morning. Thus, Plaintiff regularly worked approximately 60 hours per week, and thus, regularly worked in excess of forty hours per week. However, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at the statutorily required overtime rate of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay, or one and one-half the minimum wage rate, whichever is greater, for hours worked in excess of forty hours in violation of the FLSA and NYLL, says the suit. Gusto Restaurant was and still is a domestic corporation that operates a restaurant located at 387 Fulton Avenue, Hempstead, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq. Peter A. Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 E-mail: mfarnworth@romerolawny.com GLOBAL E-TRADING: Sihler Files RICO Suit in M.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global e-Trading, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Janet Sihler, Charlene Bavencoff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Global e-Trading, LLC doing business as: Chargebacks911, Gary Cardone, Case No. 8:23-cv-01450-VMC-JSS (M.D. Fla., June 28, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization for the Racketeering (RICO) Act. Global E-Traders -- http://www.globaletraders.com/-- is a Netinnovation service for owners of FMCG quality brands who want to sell their quality products efficiently and attractively in selected markets and channels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Cyclone Covey, Esq. KNEUPPER & COVEY 4475 Peachtree Lakes Dr Berkeley Lake, GA 30096 Phone: (678) 596-6008 Email: cyclone@kneuppercovey.com - and - Kevin M. Kneupper, Esq. KNEUPPER & COVEY PC 17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Phone: (512) 420-8407 Email: kevin@kneuppercovey.com - and - Jordan Reid Wagner, Esq. KIBBEY WAGNER, PLLC 73 SW Flagler Avenue Stuart, FL 34990 Phone: (772) 444-7000 Fax: (772) 872-5185 Email: jwagner@kibbeylaw.com GOODRX HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs' Bid for Interim Co-Lead Counsel OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE, et al., v. GOODRX HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00501-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for interim co-lead Counsel. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion and appoints: (i) Lowey Dannenberg, P.C., and Bursor & Fisher, P.A., as interim co-lead class counsel; (ii) Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP, as interim liaison counsel; and (iii) Shub & Johns LLC, Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C., and Israel David LLC to an interim executive committee. Additionally, the Court grants Lowey Dannenberg's and Bursor & Fisher's request to have the responsibility for, and authority over, the following matters for this action and any subsequently related cases: a. The initiation, response, scheduling, briefing, and argument related to all pleadings or motions; b. The scope, order, and conduct of all discovery proceedings; c. Communicating with the Court, the Defendants' counsel, and all the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs' counsel; d. Ensuring all work by the Plaintiffs' counsel is in the best interest of the Plaintiffs and the proposed class and are based on the qualifications and expertise of the persons assigned particular tasks or responsibilities, counsel’s knowledge of the law, facts and issues, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness; e. Directing, supervising and monitoring the activities of additional the Plaintiffs’ counsel, if any, and implementing procedures to ensure that schedules are met and unnecessary expenditures of time and funds by counsel are avoided; f. Employing and consulting with experts; g. Conducting settlement discussions with the Defendants on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the proposed class to resolve this litigation as interim co-lead class counsel deem appropriate, subject to approval of this Court where required; h. Assessing litigation costs, as appropriate, and to collect such assessments; i. Reviewing time, lodestar, and expense reports from each the Plaintiffs' counsel, including paralegals and other staff members, at monthly intervals; j. Allocating attorneys' fees and costs among the Plaintiffs' counsel; and k. Overseeing the conduct of the litigation so that it proceeds smoothly and efficiently and performing such other duties as necessary or as authorized by further order of the Court. The Court concludes that Lowey Dannenberg and Bursor & Fisher can effectively delegate the workstreams between the other firms. Goodrx Holdings is a provider of price comparison platforms that tracks prescription drug prices and offers drug coupons. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43NC7zP at no extra charge.[CC] GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Balles Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Josue Ruben Balles, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. GRAPHIC PACKAGING INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 30-2023-01330869-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 17, 2023, and assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-01280. The Complaint asserts the following causes of action on behalf of a purported class for: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime compensation; failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit rest breaks; failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; failure to timely pay final wages at termination; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and unfair business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Danielle Hultenius Moore, Esq. Benjamin P. Carney, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92121 Phone: (858) 597-9600 Facsimile: (858) 597-9601 Email: dmoore@fisherphillips.com bcarney@fisherphillips.com GREYSTAR CALIFORNIA: Court Stays Class Cert. Briefing in Zeff Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZACHARY ZEFF, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. GREYSTAR CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-07122-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward M. Chen entered an order granting joint stipulation to stay class certification briefing and related hearing pending conclusion of mediation: -- The remaining class certification briefing deadlines (i.e., the Opposition and Reply) shall be stayed pending conclusion of mediation; -- Greystar's Opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be due no later than four weeks from the date that both Parties agree that they are at an impasse and mediation was unsuccessful and notify the Court of the same; and -- The Plaintiff's Reply shall be due no later than two weeks after the filing of Greystar’s Opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. On October 4, 2022, the Court entered an order encouraged the Parties to discuss settlement in advance of class certification briefing. On February 15, 2023, the Parties agreed and stipulated to continue the briefing schedule on class certification; and to pursue mediation prior to the Plaintiff filing his Motion for Class Certification. Having considered the Parties' Briefing Stipulation, the Court set the following briefing schedule: 1. Motion for Class Certification due by: June 22, 2023 2. Opposition to Motion for Class Aug. 3, 2023 Certification due by: 3. Reply in support of Motion for Aug. 17, 2023 Class Certification due by: A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3K0YzOv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Alex Tomasevic, Esq. Jordan Belcastro, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org jbelcastro@nicholaslaw.org The Defendant is represented by: Mark G. Rackers, Esq. Melissa A. Freeling, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 501 West Broadway, 18th Floor San Diego, CA 92101-3598 Telephone: (619) 338-6500 Facsimile: (619) 234-3815 E-mail: mrackers@sheppardmullin.com mfreeling@sheppardmullin.com GROCERY OUTLET: Smith Sues Over Failure to Provide Minimum Wage --------------------------------------------------------------- Maurshae Smith, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. GROCERY OUTLET INC., a California corporation, doing business as Grocery Outlet, and DOES 1-10, Case No. 3:23-cv-03221-TSH (N.D. Cal., June 29, 2023), is brought alleging that the Defendants systematically violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to provide Plaintiff and other class members minimum wage for all hours worked. The Defendants violated the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act, California’s Labor Code, and California Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order no. 4-2001, as amended (“Wage Order no. 4”) which include: failing to pay its employees premium wages for missed meal periods; failing to pay its employees premium wages for missed rest periods; failing to pay its employees minimum wage as required by California law for every hour worked; failing to maintain accurate employment records for its employees in California; and failing to pay its employees amounts owed at the end of employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former cashier for “Grocery Outlet” in Rancho Cordova, California. GROCERY OUTLET INC., owns, operates, and does business as “Grocery Outlet.”[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Nunes, Esq. NUNES LAW GROUP, APC 15260 Ventura Blvd, Suite 1200 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Phone: (855) 422-5529 Email: tony@nuneslawgroup.com GSI OUTDOORS: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GSI Outdoors, LLC. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GSI Outdoors, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06012-KPF (S.D.N.Y., July 13, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. GSI Outdoors -- https://gsioutdoors.com/ -- makes hydration, cookware and dining products that bring the comfort of home cooking practices to the great outdoors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com GWG HOLDINGS INC: Faces Bayati Shareholder Suit in Texas Court -------------------------------------------------------------- A Nevada company, Beneficient, disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 13, 2023, that on February 18, 2022, Shirin Bayati and Mojan Kamalvand, on behalf of themselves and of all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District court for Northern District of Texas against GWG Holdings Inc., a significant equity holder of Beneficient, its former President and Chief Executive Officer, Murray Holland, its former Chief Financial Officer, Timothy Evans, and certain past and present members of the board of directors of GWG and The Beneficient Company Group, L.P. (Roy Bailey, Peter Cangany, Jr., David Chavenson, Brad Heppner, Thomas Hicks, Dennis Lockhart, Bruce Schnitzer, and David DeWeese). The suit alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act by issuing materially misleading statements in a June 3, 2020 registration statement. On April 20, 2022, GWG filed for bankruptcy protection in the Southern District of Texas. On April 21, 2022, the district court ordered all parties to submit statements by May 5, 2022, on whether the automatic stay in bankruptcy extends to the non-debtor defendants. On April 25, 2022, Movants Thomas Horton and Frank Moore filed a Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiffs and Approval of Their Selection of Lead Counsel. On May 2, 2022, a notice of dismissal was filed, dismissing defendants Peter T. Cangany, Jr., Brad K. Heppner, Thomas O. Hicks, Dennis P. Lockhart, and Bruce W. Schnitzer. On May 12, 2022, the district court extended the bankruptcy stay to all non-debtor defendants, although it permitted a limited modification of lifting of the stay to allow the court to consider the pending lead plaintiff motion. on August 5, 2022, the district court entered an order appointing Thomas Horton and Frank Moore as lead plaintiffs for the putative class. Beneficient is a technology-enabled financial services holding company based in Texas. HALAL GUYS: Compelled to Produce Unredacted Records --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AHMED HEGAZY, et al., v. THE HALAL GUYS, INC., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01880-JHR-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer H. Rearden entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs letter-motion to compel the production of unredacted records. The Defendants shall produce the requested information in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. Accordingly, insofar as the unredacted records requested by the Plaintiffs include putative class members' names or any other identifying information, the Plaintiffs' request is denied without prejudice to renewal should they demonstrate that such information is relevant to class certification. Contrary to the Defendants' contentions, the Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated that the compensation (including wage) and hour-related materials they seek "would likely support findings of commonality, typicality, numerosity, that the class is identifiable and ascertainable, and that common questions predominate over any individual issues," and therefore are relevant to their anticipated motion for class certification. On March 27, 2023, the Plaintiffs Ahmed Hegazy, Shrief Sror, Ramiz Shehatta, Walid Soltan, Ahmed Abouelkhair, Ahmed Abdelmoneim, Khaled Hassan, Hossam Ahmed, Islam Soliman, Naser Dakhly, and Mohamed Ahmdein filed a letter-motion to compel the Defendants. The Plaintiffs assert collective and class action claims against the Defendants -- food service business entities and their alleged individual owners, managers, and operators -- for purported violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). Halal Guys is a halal fast casual restaurant franchise. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OnYzel at no extra charge.[CC] HAMPDEN-WILBRAHAM REGIONAL: Landers Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hampden-Wilbraham Regional School District. The case is styled as Kevin Landers, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Hampden-Wilbraham Regional School District, Case No. 2379CV00338 (Mass. Super. Ct., Hampden Cty., July 13, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hampden-Wilbraham Regional School District -- https://www.hwrsd.org/ -- serves students and is located in Wilbraham, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chelsea Kim Choi, Esq. John Connor, Esq. Jeffrey Morneau, Esq. LLP 273 State St 2nd Floor Springfield, MA 01103 HANCOCK REGIONAL HOSPITAL: Fleece Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jennifer Fleece, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE HANCOCK REGIONAL HOSPITAL, Case No. 49D01-2305-PL-020713 was removed from the Indiana Commercial Court, Marion County, Indiana, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on July 14, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-01235-MPB-TAB. The Plaintiff alleges that Hancock engaged in unlawful wiretapping and invaded her privacy by allegedly using the Meta Pixel on Hancock's public website.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Tyler Moorhead, Esq. Philip R. Zimmerly, Esq. BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS LLP 111 Monument Circle, Suite 2700 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 684-5000 Fax: (317) 684-5173 Email: TMoorhead@boselaw.com PZimmerly@boselaw.com - and - Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq. Michelle R. Gomez, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1801 California Street, Ste. 4400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 861-0600 Fax: (303) 861-7805 Email: MGomez@bakerlaw.com PKarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com HANOVER INSURANCE: MSP Recovery Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, a Delaware series limited liability company, MSPA Claims 1, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and Series PMPI, a designated series of MAO-MSO Recovery II LLC, a Delaware series limited liability company v. THE HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY and THE HANOVER AMERICAN INSURANCE : COMPANY, Case No. 19-CV-20665 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 20, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-22285-CMA. On April 25, 2019, Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing, failure to state a claim, and lack of personal jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs did not respond to the motion, which remained pending for over five months. Rather than respond to Defendants' motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, Amended Complaint for Pure Bill of Discovery ("FAC") on October 8, 2019. The FAC contained a reduced number of categories of documents sought and requested use of a "data matching" process where a third party would receive data from the parties to "confirm whether Defendants are the proper parties to subsequently sue for relief".[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Kendall B. Coffey, Esq. Scott A. Hiaasen, Esq. COFFEY BURLINGTON, P.L. 2601 South Bayshore Drive, Penthouse One Miami, fl 33133 phone: (305) 858-2900 Facsimile: (305) 858-5261 Email: kcoffey@coffeyburlington.com shiaasen@coffeyburlington.com lperez@coffeyburlington.com service@coffeyburlington.com HARVARD COLLEGE: Weiss Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against President & Fellows Of Harvard College A/K/A Harvard College, et al. The case is styled as Anne Weiss, on behalf of others similarly situated v. President & Fellows Of Harvard College A/K/A Harvard College, Carl J. Shapiro Institute For Education And Research At Harvard Medical School And Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Inc. A/K/A Harvard Medical Center, Case No. 2384CV01602 (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., July 13, 2023). The case type is stated as "Torts." The President and Fellows of Harvard College is the smaller and more powerful of Harvard University's two governing boards, and the oldest corporation in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Alvin Bopp, Esq. MONAHAN AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 113 Union Wharf East Boston, MA 02109 HAWAIIAN HOST: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hawaiian Host LLC. The case is styled as Shivan Bassaw, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hawaiian Host LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06070-LGS (S.D.N.Y., July 14, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hawaiian Host LLC -- https://hawaiianhost.com/ -- offers the world's favorite Chocolate Covered Macadamia Nuts since 1927.[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 HCA HEALTHCARE INC: Aragon Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HCA Healthcare, Inc. The case is styled as Marissa Aragon, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HCA Healthcare, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00696 (M.D. Tenn., July 14, 2023). The nature if suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract. HCA Healthcare -- http://www.hcahealthcare.com/-- is an American for-profit operator of health care facilities that was founded in 1968.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (865) 247-0080 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: ahoneycutt@milberg.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: dlietz@milberg.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG GROSSMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com HEALTH RECOVERY: Court Cancels Oral argument on Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIANA FRECHETTE, et al., v. HEALTH RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-04453-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon L. Marbley entered an order canceling oral argument on motion for class certification. Oral argument on the Plaintiffs' Motion is presently scheduled for Friday, July 14, 2023, at 2:00 p.m.. Having found the parties' briefs sufficient alone to assist the Court in resolving the Motion, however, this Court finds oral argument unnecessary. The July 14, 2023 Oral Argument is therefore CANCELED. The Court will decide the Motion for Class Certification based on the parties' briefs. Health Recovery is a drug addiction treatment center that provides education, prevention, treatment and other supportive services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pShkgv at no extra charge.[CC] HENRY FORD: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Dec. 15 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUTH HUNDLEY, CAROL BUJAK, LITA BROOKS and CAROL REMBOR, individually and on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the Henry Ford Health System Retirement Savings Plan and the Henry Ford Health System Heritage 403(b) Plan, v. HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM, the BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM, the INVESTMENT SUBCOMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-40, Case No. 2:21-cv-11023-SFC-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Sean F. Cox entered an order: a. Fact Discovery cutoff shall be extended Sept. 29, 2023 from June 28, 2023, to: b. Expert disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2) shall be extended: By the Plaintiffs -- from Oct. 16, 2023 August 14, 2023, to: By the Defendants -- from Nov. 30, 2023 September 28, 2023, to: c. The Plaintiffs' class certification Dec. 15, 2023 motion shall be extended from November 10, 2023, to: d. Expert discovery cutoff shall be Feb. 2. 2024 extended from December 1, 2023, to: e. Dispositive motion cut-off shall be March 28, 2024 extended from February 29, 2024, to: On May 5, 2021, the Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing their initial Class Action Complaint alleging violations of ERISA. On August 5, 2021, the Defendants moved this Court for a stay of all proceedings pending the United States Supreme Court's decision in Hughes v. Northwestern Univ. Henry Ford is an integrated, not-for-profit health care organization in Metro Detroit. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/477P36q at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marc Edelson, Esq. Eric Lechtzin, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Ste. N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com elechtzin@edelson-law.com - and - Nathan J. Fink, Esq. David H. Fink, Esq. FINK BRESSACK PLLC 38500 Woodward Avenue, Ste 350 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 971-2500 E-mail: nfink@finkbressack.com dfink@finkbressack.com The Defendants are represented by: Rene E. Thorne, Esq. Phillip C. Thompson, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 601 Poydras St., Suite 1400 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 208-1755 E-mail: Rene.Thorne@jacksonlewis.com Phillip.Thompson@jacksonlewis.com - and - Robert A. Farr, Jr., Esq. HENRY FORD HEALTH SERVICES OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL One Ford Place Detroit, MI 48202 Telephone: (248) 703-0662 E-mail: RFarr1@hfhs.org HERITAGE VALLEY: Fails to Secure Private Info, Redd Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Erika Redd, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Heritage Valley Health System, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01212-CB (W.D. Pa., July 3, 2023) arises from the Defendant's unlawful practice of disclosing Plaintiff's and Class Members' confidential personally identifiable information and protected health information to third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta, without consent. The Plaintiff and other Class Members who used Defendant's Website understandably thought they were communicating only with their trusted healthcare provider. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class Members, however, Defendant had embedded analytics tools on its website to transmit users' private information to the said third parties, says the Plaintiff. Headquartered in Beaver Pennsylvania, Heritage Valley is a $535 million not-for-profit healthcare organization that provides comprehensive health care for residents of Allegheny, Beaver, Butler and Lawrence counties, in Pennsylvania; eastern Ohio; and the panhandle of West Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randi Kassan, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 741-5600 E-mail: rkassan@milberg.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Glen L. Abramson, Esq. Alex M. Honeycutt, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 South Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gabramson@milberg.com ahoneycutt@milberg.com - and - Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Facsimile: (612) 336-2940 E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Terence R. Coates, Esq. Dylan J. Gould, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 E. Court St., Ste. 530 Cincinnati, OH 4502 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.com - and - Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. The Lyon Law Firm 2754 Erie Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 Facsimile: (513) 766-9011 E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com HOME DEPOT: Dalton Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Home Depot U.S.A. The case is styled as Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Home Depot U.S.A. doing business as: Home Depot, Case No. 0:23-cv-02126-DWF-DLM (D. Minn., July 13, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Home Depot -- https://www.homedepot.com/ -- is an American multinational home improvement retail corporation that sells tools, construction products, appliances, and services, including fuel and transportation rentals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad Throndset, Esq. Jason D. Gustafson, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC One Central Avenue West, Suite 203 St. Michael, MN 55376 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com HOMEAGLOW INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Homeaglow Inc. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Homeaglow Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06079-ALC (S.D.N.Y., July 14, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Homeaglow -- https://www.homeaglow.com/ -- is a platform for customers to find service providers for their home, starting with home cleaning.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com HSBC BANK: Ji Dong Cheng Suit Seeks to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JI DONG CHENG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. HSBC BANK USA, N.A., Case No. 1:20-cv-01551-BMC (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification. HSBC Bank provides banking services. The Bank offers personal banking, wealth management, loans, and savings accounts. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Omd81N at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beth E. Terrell, Esq. Amanda M. Steiner, Esq. Benjamin M. Drachler, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com asteiner@terrellmarshall.com bdrachler@terrellmarshall.com - and - Daniel A. Schlanger, Esq. SCHLANGER LAW GROUP LLP 80 Broad Street, Suite 1301 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 500-6114 Facsimile: (646) 612-7996 E-mail: dschlanger@consumerprotection.net The Defendant is represented by: Mark S. Melodia, Esq. Qian (Sheila) Shen, Esq. Joshua Prever, Esq. Andrew J. Soven, Esq. Eugene Chikowski, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 31 West 52nd Street, 12th Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 513-3583 E-mail: mark.melodia@hklaw.com qian.shen@hklaw.com joshua.prever@hklaw.com andrew.soven@hklaw.com eugene.chikowski@hklaw.com HV GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss 3rd Amended Ramirez Suit Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit titled NELSON RAMIREZ, Plaintiff v. HV GLOBAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-09955-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss and/or strike third amended complaint. Plaintiff Nelson Ramirez brings this case against Defendant HV Global Management Corporation alleging violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business & Professions Code. Now before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss and/or strike the Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"). The Plaintiff opposes the motion. The Court held a hearing on the motion on June 22, 2023, and grants in part without leave to amend and denies in part the motion. As alleged in the Third Amended Complaint, the Defendants employed Ramirez as a non-exempt employee from September 2010 to September 2019 and during that time failed to compensate him for hours he worked and missed meal periods and rest breaks. Ramirez alleges that he was paid $10 per hour as a server. He seeks to represent a class of all current and former hourly-paid and non-exempt employees, who worked for the Defendant in California since Nov. 3, 2017. He brings six claims under the California Labor Code and one claim under California's Unfair Competition Law. The Defendant moves to dismiss and/or strike class allegations as to all of Ramirez's claims. Mr. Ramirez's first claim is for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of California Labor Code Sections 510 and 1198; and his fourth claim is for failure to pay minimum wages in violation of California Labor Code Sections 1194, 1197, 1197.1. The Defendant argues that these claims should be dismissed because the Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts as to himself or as to a class. The Court determines that the Plaintiff has sufficient allegations, including the allegations as to activities that are not challenged by the Defendant, for the first and fourth claims to move forward. The Court will not, at this juncture, determine which activities are or are not compensable. As the case moves forward, Judge Freeman says the Plaintiff must prove that the Defendant exercised the requisite degree of control over the employees' activities for the identified activities to constitute compensable hours worked. The Defendant also argues that a claim for reporting time pay cannot be brought as part of a claim for unpaid minimum wages. The Court agrees with the Defendant. Judge Freeman explains that the California Court of Appeal has recognized that claims for reporting time violations cannot be brought pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1194, citing Aleman v. AirTouch Cellular, 209 Cal.App.4th 556, 582-83 (2012). The Plaintiff asks the Court to instead rely on Kamar v. RadioShack Corp., No. CV 07-2252 AHM (AJWx), 2008 WL 2229166 (C.D. Cal. May 15, 2008). The Court declines to adopt the reasoning in Kamar. Judge Freeman opines that the Plaintiff cannot base his claim for minimum wage violations on reporting time violations. Therefore, the allegations of reporting time violations are stricken. Finally, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed or, in the alternative, stricken, as to the class. Judge Freeman finds that the allegations are sufficient to bring the claims on a classwide basis. Hence, Judge Freeman rules that the Defendant's motion to dismiss and/or strike the first and fourth claims is denied. The allegations of reporting time violations are stricken from Claim 4. Mr. Ramirez's second and third claims are for failure to provide meal and rest breaks in violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7, 512(a). The Defendant argues that these claims should be dismissed or, in the alternative, stricken as to the class because the Plaintiff's allegations are specific to his role as a server. The Plaintiff argues that he has alleged a uniform policy of denying meal and rest periods. Judge Freeman finds that the allegations of a uniform policy are sufficient to bring the claims on behalf of a class. Hence, the Defendant's motion to dismiss and/or strike the second and third claims as to the class is denied. Mr. Ramirez's sixth claim is for failure to reimburse business expenses in violation of California Labor Code Sections 2800, 2802. The Defendant argues that this claim must be dismissed because Ramirez has failed to allege that any cell phone use was reimbursable or that his clothing purchases amounted to a special "uniform" for which he should have been reimbursed. To state a claim for failure to reimburse business expenses, a plaintiff must allege a specific instance in which he was not reimbursed for expenses that were within his job duties. Judge Freeman finds that the Plaintiff has done so here. He has alleged sufficient facts to bring a reimbursement claim based on his personal cell phone use. The Defendant also argues that the sixth claim should be dismissed or, in the alternative, stricken as to the class. Judge Freeman finds that the Plaintiff has adequately alleged this claim on a classwide basis. Hence, the Defendant's motion to dismiss and/or strike the sixth claim is denied. Mr. Ramirez's fifth claim is for failure to pay wages for terminated or resigned employees in violation of California Labor Code Sections 201, 202. As the Defendant asserts, this claim is derivative of the wage, meal period, and rest break claims. The Defendant argues that the claim should be dismissed because the underlying claims should be dismissed. Because the Court has determined that the predicate claims are adequately pled, Judge Freeman holds that this claim is also adequately pled. Judge Freeman, thus, denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss and/or strike the fifth claim. The allegations of reporting time violations are stricken from the fifth claim. Mr. Ramirez's final claim is for violation of the unlawful prong of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq. The Defendants argue that this claim should be dismissed because the Plaintiff has failed to allege an adequate remedy at law. The Plaintiff argues that his remedy at law is inadequate because the relevant California Labor Code provisions have a three year statute of limitations, and the UCL has a four year statute of limitations. But, as Defendant notes, several courts have rejected this argument, Judge Freeman says. The Court agrees with those other courts, and therefore, the Plaintiff cannot bring the UCL claim. The Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's seventh claim is, therefore, granted. As the Plaintiff has already had several opportunities to amend and this deficiency is not capable of being remedied, the dismissal is without leave to amend, Judge Freeman points out. For these reasons, Judge Freeman rules that the Defendant's motion to dismiss and/or strike: 1. Claim 1 is denied; 2. Claim 2 is denied; 3. Claim 3 is denied; 4. Claim 4 is denied; 5. Claim 5 is denied; 6. Claim 6 is denied; and 7. Claim 7 is granted without leave to amend. The Defendant's motion to strike the reporting time allegations in Claims 4 and 5 is granted. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 6, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/54rmc6r4 from Leagle.com. HWS LLC: Class Certification Briefing Sched Modified in Hall Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hall v. HWS, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:22-cv-00996 (D. Md., Filed April 22, 2022), the Hon. Judge Peter J. Messitte entered an order granting consent motion to modify the Current Schedule for Briefing of Class Certification, as Approved by Paperless Order. HWS provides individualized treatment to individuals who have diagnoses such as depression, and anxiety. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property Damage.[CC] HYUNDAI AMERICA: McCrory et al. Sue Over Defective Inflators ------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES MCCRORY; TRACY MILES;BRENDA SMITH-WATSON; PATRICIA TAYLOR; SHONA THOMAS; TYLER BAKER; DENEEN BROWN; JONATHAN CARANO; LATRICIA FORD; BRAD HOSCHAR MARIE HUDSON; HANNAH JONES; CARA TAYLOR LONG; RICHARD TOPA; JORDAN TRIBBLE; ANITA VICTORY; THERESA WOLLE, Plaintiffs, v. HYUNDAI AMERICA, INC.; HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY; HYUNDAI MOTOR GROUP; KIA AMERICA, INC.; KIA CORPORATION; and HYUNDAI-MOBIS CO., LTD., Defendants, Case No. 8:23-cv-01196 (C.D. Cal., July 3, 2023) arises from the Defendants' concealment of the alleged defective inflators that are manufactured by ARC Automotive, Inc. and contained in the driver and passenger frontal airbag modules of vehicles produced between 2001 to 2018. Moreover, the Defendants allegedly breached their express and implied warranties for the Class vehicles and defective inflators. They were also unjustly enriched by receiving Plaintiffs' and the Class Member's money for the Class Vehicles, says the suit. Headquartered in California, Hyundai America Inc. manufactures, designs, and distributes new vehicles under the Hyundai brand. It also markets, leases, warrants, and oversees regulatory compliance and warranty servicing of Hyundai brand vehicles throughout the US. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Niall P. McCarthy, Esq. Elizabeth T. Castillo, Esq. Kevin J. Boutin, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 E-mail: nmccarthy@cpmlegal.com ecastillo@cpmlegal.com kboutin@cpmlegal.com - and – Hannah K. Brown, Esq. Theresa E. Vitale, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 2716 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 3088 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (310) 392-2008 E-mail: hbrown@cpmlegal.com tvitale@cpmlegal.com INEOS PIGMENTS: Decker Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Decker and Glenn Painter, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. INEOS PIGMENTS USA INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-01272-PAG (N.D. Ohio, June 27, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid wages arising from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act and common law. Due to the hazardous nature of the chemicals and materials contained in Defendant's facilities, Defendant requires Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class wear company-issued protective clothing and safety gear during their work shifts in order to protect them from inhaling or contacting materials in the Defendant's facilities in the air or on surfaces, and to comply with federal and state governmental safety and health regulations and mandates. The company-issued protective clothing and safety gear includes uniforms (which consist of long pants and long sleeve button-up shirts), steel-toed boots, escape respirators, helmets, CO monitors, safety glasses and goggles, and gloves (hereinafter referred to as "personal protective equipment" or "PPE"). The Defendant requires Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees to change into ("don") and change out of ("doff") the PPE before and after their work shifts in designated locations at Defendant's facilities. The process of donning and doffing the PPE is compensable because Defendant and governmental regulations require Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees to wear the PPE during their work shifts and to don and doff the PPE at the worksite. Additionally, the PPE is an integral and indispensable part of the Plaintiffs' and similarly situated employees' principal work activities, as employees cannot safely or lawfully perform their work requirements without wearing the PPE. Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees spend substantial amounts of time each day donning and doffing PPE, showering, and walking to and from the locker rooms to the plant floors before and after their work shifts. The Defendant requires Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees to engage in face-to-face relief meetings with the outgoing workers prior to beginning their shift to discuss any issues or problems that are expected for the upcoming shift. The Defendant, however, does not pay Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees for all of this time. Instead, Defendant pays Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees based on their scheduled shift start times and end times (e.g. 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., with no paid breaks during the 12-hour shifts, and/or 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.*, with a 30 minute lunch break for those working 8-hour shifts), not the time that Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class perform their first and last principal activities of the workday. Consequently, Defendant does not pay Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees for all compensable time, including overtime, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are and were employed in Defendant's two plants located in Ashtabula Ohio: Plant 1, and Plaint 2 North and Plant 2 South. INEOS Pigments USA Inc. is one of the largest producers of titanium dioxide in North America, and the leading producer of titanium chemicals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Dubyak, Esq. Christina C. Spallina, Esq. DUBYAK NELSON, LLC 6105 Parkland Blvd, Suite 230 Mayfield Heights, OH 44124 Phone: 216-364-0500 Fax: 216-364-0505 Email: rdubyak@dubyaknelson.com cspallina@dubyaknelson.com INTEGRO PROFESSIONAL: Noel Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tyrell Noel, and all others similarly Situated v. INTEGRO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. CV035665 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on July 17, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-22658-XXXX. This matter arises out of Plaintiff's former employment with Integro Professional Services, LLC (hereinafter "Integro"). Plaintiff has alleged four counts against Defendant unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act "(FLSA"), retaliatory discharge under the FLSA, unpaid wages under Florida Statute Section 448.08, and unjust enrichment.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Nicole Wall, Esq. Pamela Nagel, Esq. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. Esperante Corporate Center 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 120 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone (561) 612-3464 Primary Email: nicole.wall@csk.legal.com Secondary Email: pamela.nagel@csk.legal.com INTERNATIONAL CLAIMS: Nichols Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against International Claims Adjusters, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jenniffer Nichols, individually on behalf of others similarly situated v. International Claims Adjusters, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-22353-BB (S.D. Fla., June 26, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Acts. International Claims Adjusters, Inc. doing business as Interclaims -- https://interclaims.com/ -- specializes in claim administration for worldwide claim.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark J. Beutler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARK J. BEUTLER, P.A. 9400 So. Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 600 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 487-0942 Fax: (786) 513-4651 Email: mjb@mjbpa.com - and - Richard David Tuschman, Esq. RICHARD D. TUSCHMAN, P.A. 12555 Orange Drive, 2nd Floor Davie, FL 33330 Phone: (954) 369-1050 Email: rtuschman@gtemploymentlawyers.com INTERNATIONAL CLAIMS: Nichols Sues Over Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Jenniffer Nichols, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. INTERNATIONAL CLAIMS ADJUSTERS, INC., a Florida corporation, and NANDOR PETLYSANSZKI, Case No. 1:23-cv-22353-BB (S.D. Fla., July 6, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (hereinafter "FLSA"). The Plaintiff in that they were employed by Defendants as claims adjusters and were denied premium overtime pay for hours worked beyond 40 in any given workweek, as well as the federal minimum wage in certain workweeks. The Collective Action Members are further similarly situated in that Defendants had a policy and practice of knowingly and willfully refusing to pay them overtime and failing to guarantee them payment of at least the federal minimum wage, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a claims adjuster from November 11, 2020 to approximately March 9, 2023. ICA is covered by the FLSA because it is an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard D. Tuschman, Esq. RICHARD D. TUSCHMAN, P.A. 12555 Orange Drive, 2nd Floor Davie, FL 33330 Phone: (954) 369-1050 Facsimile: (954) 380-8938 Email: rtuschman@gtemploymentlawyers.com assistant@gtemploymentlawyers.com - and - Mark J. Beutler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARK J. BEUTLER, P.A. 9400 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 600 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: 305-487-0942 Fax: 786-513-4651 Email: jmm@mjbpa.com mjb@mjbpa.com INTOUCH CREDIT UNION: Baines-Thomas Files Suit in E.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Intouch Credit Union. The case is styled as Miranda Baines-Thomas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Intouch Credit Union, Case No. 4:23-cv-00591-ALM-KPJ (E.D. Tex., June 23, 2023). The nature if suit is stated as Other Contract. InTouch Credit Union -- https://www.itcu.org/ -- offers loans, lendings, checking and savings accounts for individuals and businesses.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan Hugh Anderson, Esq. Ryan Ladd Thompson, Esq. THOMPSON LAW LLP 3300 Oak Lawn Avenue, Ste. 3rd Floor Dallas, TX 75219 Phone: (214) 755-7777 Fax: (214) 483-5389 Email: randerson@triallawyers.com rthompson@triallawyers.com IPSWITCH INC: Reese Files Suit in D. Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ipswitch, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Nakia Reese, Stephanie Pool, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ipswitch, Inc., Progress Software Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-11610-IT (D. Mass., July 17, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Ipswitch -- http://www.ipswitch.com/-- is an IT management software developer for small and medium sized businesses.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raymond E. Dinsmore, III, Esq. HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC One Monarch Place, Suite 1340 Springfield, MA 01144 Phone: (413) 785-1400 Fax: (860) 218-9555 Email: rdinsmore@hayberlawfirm.com JNL PRODUCTIONS: Yu Sues Over Unpaid Compensations -------------------------------------------------- Lan Yu, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JNL PRODUCTIONS, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.: 23STCV15225 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 29, 2023), is brought under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, for Plaintiff and all other aggrieved current and former employees of Defendants during the Civil Penalty Period as a result of the Defendants failure to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff. The Defendants have, at times, failed to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of them, in violation of California state wage and hour laws as a result of, without limitation, Plaintiff and Class Members working over 8 hours per day, 40 hours per week, and seven consecutive work days in a work week without being properly compensated for hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day in a work day, 40 hours per week in a work week, and/or hours worked on the seventh consecutive work day in a work week by, among other things, failing to accurately track and/or pay for all minutes actually worked at the proper overtime rate of pay, engaging, suffering, or permitting employees to work off the clock, including, without limitation, by requiring Plaintiff and Class Members: to come early to work and leave late work without being able to clock in for all that time, to suffer under Defendants' control due to long lines for clocking in, to complete pre-shift tasks before clocking in and post-shift tasks after clocking out, to clock out for meal periods and continue working, to clock out for rest periods, to attend company meetings off the clock, failing to include all forms of remuneration, including non-discretionary bonuses, incentive pay, meal allowances, mask allowances, gift cards and other forms of remuneration into the regular rate of pay for the pay periods where overtime was worked and the additional compensation was earned for the purpose of calculating the overtime rate of pay; detrimental rounding of employee time entries, editing and/or manipulation of time entries to the detriment of Plaintiff and Class Members, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee, with duties that included, but were not limited to, working as a background actor for television and/or theater productions. JNL is a stock corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. Henry Glitz, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 438-5555 Fax: (310) 300-1705 Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com jeff@tomorrowlaw.com henry@tomorrowlaw.com JOHNSON C. SMITH UNIVERSITY: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Johnson C. Smith University, Incorporatedc. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Johnson C. Smith University, Incorporated, Case No. 1:23-cv-06054 (S.D.N.Y., July 14, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Johnson C. Smith University -- https://www.jcsu.edu/ -- is a private historically black university in Charlotte, North 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 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal JOLYN CLOTHING: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jolyn Clothing Company, LLC. The case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Jolyn Clothing Company, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-05642-LGS (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Jolyn Clothing Company, LLC -- https://jolyn.com/ -- designs and distributes women's apparel products. The Company offers shirts, leggings, shorts, and pants, as well as keychains, socks, hats, patches, phone cases, bags, towels, and swim caps.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ara Vahe Naljian, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 584-5575 Email: analjian@steinsakslegal.com JORNS & ASSOCIATES: SC&RCI Files Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SWETLIC CHIROPRACTIC & REHABILITATION CENTER, INC., an Ohio corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, v. JORNS & ASSOCIATES LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, Case No. 2:23-cv-02200-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff files a "placeholder" motion for class certification to protect against any potential attempt by the Defendant, to moot its claims through the tendering of individual relief. The Plaintiff files this motion to prevent a "pick-off" of its claims. The Plaintiff also submits its accompanying brief in support. Whether the Court should allow the Plaintiff to keep a motion for class certification on file to protect against any attempt by Jorns & Associates to "pick-off" its individual claims to "moot" the case before the Court can decide the issue of class certification. In Wilson v. Gordon, 822 F.3d 934, 941 (6th Cir. 2016), the named plaintiffs filed a class action complaint and a "contemporaneous" motion for class certification on the same day. The defendants subsequently provided the relief sought by the plaintiffs in their complaint and, on appeal, argued that the plaintiffs' claims were moot. The Plaintiff proposes the following class definition: "All persons who on or after four years prior to the filing of this action were successfully sent telephone facsimile messages." The Plaintiff requests the Court allow this "placeholder" motion for class certification to remain pending to protect against any alternative pick-off attempt following the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald. The proposed class meets the requirements of Rules 23(a), (b)(3), and (g). The Plaintiff requests that following discovery and further briefing, the Court certify the class, appoint the Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint the Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel. Jorns & Associates was created to assist businesses in helping to navigate the complex rules and regulations surrounding economic stimulus programs. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 10, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43DqFqn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy C. Ammer, Esq. MONTGOMERY JONSON LLP 600 Vine Street, Suite 2650 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 241-4722 Facsimile: (513) 786-9227 E-mail: tammer@mojolaw.com - and - Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com JPAY LLC: Faces Oliver Class Suit Over Sell and Confiscate Tablets ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jessy Edwards of Top Class Actions reports that two Georgia inmates are suing JPay, alleging the company, which offers services to correctional facilities, operated a scheme to sell tablets to inmates and then take them back without reimbursement. Plaintiffs Anthony Oliver and Reginald Priddy filed the class action lawsuit against JPay Inc. on July 9 in a Georgia federal court, alleging violations of the U.S. Constitution and breach of contract. The company received a summons July 10. According to the lawsuit, JPay touts itself as "the most trusted name in corrections" and offers a myriad of services to the correctional industry in more than 46 states. Sometime in 2014, JPay entered into contracts with over 31 Departments of Corrections throughout the United States, including the Georgia Department of Corrections (GDC), to provide incarcerated inmates with tablets similar to an Apple iPad that allow them to send JPay-approved emails to family, friends and lawyers, the lawsuit states. However, in 2020, JPay sought to "put in place the biggest money making scheme to take advantage of the most vulnerable people: GDC inmates and their families," the class action alleges. It allegedly did this by advertising new tablets to inmates and prisoners they could purchase directly from inmate trust accounts. However, months after purchasing and receiving the tablets, the plaintiffs say they were told to return them and faced disciplinary action if they did not, the lawsuit claims. Inmates threatened with discipline if they didn't return tablets, class action states Plaintiff Oliver says he purchased a new JP5 tablet from JPay in May 2021. He alleges the tablet did not sync at the kiosk as promised, and, four months later, GDC issued a memorandum and order that JPay wanted all of its new tablets back. Inmates were told if they did not return them, GDC would issue a disciplinary report, the lawsuit states. In the memorandum, JPay told GDC and its inmates it would issue them new JPay tablets. "However it may be, this was false as JPay never had any intention of installing new kiosk machines, or issuing GDC inmates like the Plaintiffs, a new JPay tablet," the class action alleges. "Rather, JPay engineered this scheme to ensure it would get back all of its sold merchandise to resell to other inmates throughout the United States." The lawsuit seeks to represent all inmates who purchased a new JPay tablet after Jan. 1, 2019, which was then taken away. The plaintiffs are suing for alleged breach of the Fifth Amendment and breach of contract. They seek certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs, a jury trial and an injunction forcing JPay to stop its alleged illegal behavior. In other correctional news, in May, Inmate Services agreed to a $625,000 class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it subjected inmates to brutal conditions during transportation. The plaintiffs are represented by McNeill Stokes. The JPay inmate class action lawsuit is Anthony Oliver, et al. v. Jpay LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03031-SEG-CMS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. [GN] JUST REAL FOOD: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Just Real Food, Inc. The case is styled as Yordaliza Taveras, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Just Real Food, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06072 (S.D.N.Y., July 14, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Just Real Food, Inc. doing business as Real Food Bar -- https://realfoodbar.com/ -- makes the best vegan protein bars - high quality, gluten free, low sugar & non-GMO.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ian Piasecki, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (347) 745-0445 Email: ipiasecki@mizrahikroub.com KANE AND MCHENRY: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kane and McHenry Enterprises, LLC. The case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Kane and McHenry Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-05639-JPC (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Kane and McHenry Enterprises, LLC doing business as Cellhelmet -- http://www.cellhelmet.com/-- is a mobile accessories' manufacturer/distributor, headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania with a satellite office in Shenzhen, founded in 2012.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ara Vahe Naljian, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 584-5575 Email: analjian@steinsakslegal.com KIRKLAND LAKE: Oral Argument Hearing Set for Sept. 7 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: KIRKLAND LAKE GOLD LTD. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-04953 (S.D.N.Y., Filed June 29, 2020), the Hon. Judge Paul Oetken entered an order setting oral argument hearing on the amended motion for class certification and the motion to strike the expert testimony of James Griffin on September 7, 2023 at 11:00 am. The nature of suit states Securities / Commodities / Exchange. Kirkland was a Canadian gold mining company, based in Toronto, that owned and operated several gold mines in Canada and Australia.[CC] KLS LOGISTICS: Parks Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Ace Parks, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. KLS LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 230502707 was removed from the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 13, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02678. This action is a civil action over which this Court has original jurisdiction on the existence of a federal question because the claims of Plaintiff substantially depend upon the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement and are preempted under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. Deirdre Aaron, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Email: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com daaron@winebrakelaw.com - and - Sarah R. Schulman-Bergen, Esq. Krysten Connon, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Steet, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Email: ssb@llrlaw.com kconnon@llrlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Todd Alan Ewan, Esq. Patrick M. Dalin, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP Two Logan Square 100 N. 18th Street, 12th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (610) 230-2140 Email: tewan@fisherphillips.com pdalin@fisherphillips.com KONICA MINOLTA: Cezus Must File Class Certification Bid by Oct. 6 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES CEZUS, and other similarly situated employees, v. KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS U.S.A., INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00792-JXN-LDW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Leda Dunn Wettre entered an order on the parties' June 20, 2023, scheduling proposal: 1. The Plaintiff shall file a motion for class Oct. 6, 2023 certification on or before: 2. The Defendant shall file its opposition to Nov. 6, 2023 class certification and any motion challenging the Plaintiff's expert on or before: 3. The Plaintiff shall file the reply Dec. 4, 2023 brief on the motion for class certification, to any motion challenging the expert, and any motion challenging the Defendant's expert on orbefore: 4. The Defendant shall file its reply in Dec. 11, 2023 support of any motion challenging the Plaintiff's expert and its opposition to any motion challenging the Defendant's expert on or before: 5. The Plaintiff shall file the reply brief Dec. 18, 2023 in support of any motion challenging the Defendant's expert on or before: 6. The parties shall appear for a telephonic Oct. 12, 2023 status conference before the undersigned on: Konica Minolta sells photographic materials. The company specializes in digital, optical, and electronic technologies. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ojv7WM at no extra charge.[CC] KUIU LLC: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kuiu, LLC. The case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Kuiu, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-05215-JPC (S.D.N.Y., June 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Kuiu -- https://www.kuiu.com/ -- is an American hunting gear and apparel brand using direct-to-consumer method.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ara Vahe Naljian, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 584-5575 Email: analjian@steinsakslegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Nicholas James Pappas, Esq. Krista Elizabeth Bolles, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 415-9200 Email: pappas.nicholas@dorsey.com bolles.krista@dorsey.com L.A. T-SHIRT & PRINT: Bullock Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against L.A. T Shirt & Print, Inc. The case is styled as Justin Bullock, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. L.A. T Shirt & Print, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06015 (S.D.N.Y., July 13, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. L.A. T Shirt & Print, Inc. -- https://www.lashirtprinting.com/ -- are based in Sun Valley (Los Angeles area), equipped with In-house Screen printing, Embroidery, DTG and Large format printers and provide the best quality printing and service with the quickest turnaround.[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 LAKES AREA: Class Settlement in Collins Suit Gets Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Katherine Menendez of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota grants the Plaintiffs' Consent Motion for Final Approval of a Class Action Settlement and Approval of Individual Settlements in the lawsuit titled ROBERT COLLINS, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. LAKES AREA PIZZA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-1457 (KMM/DTS) (D. Minn.). The Court preliminarily approved the settlement on Nov. 14, 2022; certified a Minnesota class action for purposes of settlement; granted preliminary approval of the class settlement; certified a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action for purposes of settlement; granted preliminary approval of the FLSA settlement; approved the form and content of the parties' proposed notice; ordered the notice to be disseminated; and scheduled a final fairness hearing. The Court held the final fairness hearing on April 11, 2023. Neither the Court nor the parties' counsel received notice of any objection to the settlement prior to the final fairness hearing, and no objectors appeared at the final fairness hearing. Accordingly, the Court ordered that: 1. The Consent Motion is granted; 2. The parties' settlement, as set forth in the parties' Settlement Agreement and Release, is approved as a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of bona fide disputes between the parties; 3. The individual settlements of Brandon Gageby, Kevin Gageby, Noah Jones, Austin Kadlec, and David Shindley are approved as fair, reasonable and adequate resolutions of their respective wage and hour claims; 4. A $5,000 service award to Named Plaintiff Robert Collins is approved; 5. The attorney fee rates sought by the Plaintiff's counsel are reasonable and an award of fees and costs equal one-third of the gross settlement value is approved; 6. Plaintiff's counsel is awarded $3,987.80 for litigation costs; 7. The settlement administrator is awarded $9,500 for fees and costs; 8. The parties must effectuate the settlement terms; and 9. This matter and all claims asserted in this matter are dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 6, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr42r9nr from Leagle.com. LANSING COMMUNITY COLLEGE: Sued Over Failure to Safeguard PII ------------------------------------------------------------- Ana Whitby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LANSING COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Case No. 1:23-cv-00743 (W.D. Mich., July 12, 2023), is brought against LCC for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including, but not limited to: full names and Social Security numbers (collectively, "personally identifiable information" or "PII"). Former and current students, employees, and applicants for admission or employment are required to entrust Defendant with an extensive amount of their PII, used for Defendant's business, in order to enroll at LCC or be eligible for employment. Defendant retains this information for at least many years and even after the relationship has ended. The Defendant's investigation concluded that the PII compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's and approximately 757,000 other individuals' information. 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. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members PII––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect students' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to implement and maintain adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required, and appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Ivory Whitby is a natural person, resident, and a citizen of Lansing, Michigan. The Defendant is "one of the largest community colleges 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 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Nick Suciu, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Phone: (313) 303-3472 Email: nsuciu@milberg.com LE SPORTSAC INC: $45K in Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Murphy Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned ANTHONY HAMMOND MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. LE SPORTSAC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00058 (W.D. Pa.), Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania awards $45,000 to the Plaintiff's counsel. Before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Incentive Award. On July 6, 2023, the Court certified the following Settlement Class: [A]ll Blind or Visually Disabled individuals who use screen reader auxiliary aids to navigate digital content and who have accessed, attempted to access, or been deterred from attempting to access, or who will access, attempt to access, or be deterred from attempting to access, the Website from the United States. The Court also granted final approval to the proposed class action settlement set forth in the Agreement. The Court grants the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Incentive Award as follows. The hourly rate of $600 for work performed in 2022 and 2023, by attorneys Kevin Tucker, Lawrence Fisher, and Kevin Abramowicz is approved as fair and reasonable. The hourly rate of $400 for work performed in 2022, and the hourly rate of $425 for work performed in 2023, by attorneys Stephanie Moore and Chandler Steiger is approved as fair and reasonable. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the Court awards Class Counsel for the Settlement Class attorneys' fees in the amount of $45,000, payable pursuant to the teens of the Agreement. The Court finds the award of fees is reasonable as: (a) Class Counsel achieved a favorable result for the Settlement Class; (b) Class Counsel devoted substantial effort to the investigation of Plaintiff's claims, legal analysis, and litigation; (c) Class Counsel prosecuted the Settlement Class's claims with no guarantee Class Counsel would receive compensation for their services or recover their expenses; (d) Class Counsel employed their knowledge of and experience with class action litigation in achieving a valuable settlement for the Settlement Class, in spite of Defendant's possible legal defenses and its experienced and capable counsel; and (e) the notice informed Settlement Class Members of the amount and nature of Class Counsel's fee request. The Court further approves an incentive award in the amount of $1,000 to the Plaintiff, payable pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 6, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3uj5psbu from Leagle.com. LE SPORTSAC INC: Class Settlement in Murphy Suit Has Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania grants final approval to the class action settlement in the lawsuit titled ANTHONY HAMMOND MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LE SPORTSAC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00058 (W.D. Pa.). On Jan. 24, 2023, the Court preliminarily certified the following Settlement Class: "[A] national class including all Blind or Visually Disabled individuals who use screen reader auxiliary aids to navigate digital content and who have accessed, attempted to access, or been deterred from attempting to access, or who may access, attempt to access, or be deterred from attempting to access, the Website from the United States." The Court granted preliminary approval to the proposed class action settlement set forth in the Class Settlement Agreement. The Court held a final fairness hearing on July 6, 2023, to consider: (1) whether the terms and conditions of the Agreement are fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the Parties' Agreement should be given final approval; and (3) whether and in what amount to award attorneys' The Agreement is finally approved in all respects as fair, reasonable, and adequate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). The terms and provisions of the Agreement have been entered into in good faith and are fully and finally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate as to, and in the best interests of, each of the Parties. The proposed Settlement Class is certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2) for purposes of settlement. The Settlement Class is defined as: [A]ll Blind or Visually Disabled individuals who use screen reader auxiliary aids to navigate digital content and who have accessed, attempted to access, or been deterred from attempting to access, or who will access, attempt to access, or be deterred from attempting to access, the Website from the United States. The Court appoints and designates Plaintiff Anthony Hammond Murphy as representative of the Settlement Class. The Court finds Kevin Tucker, Kevin Abramowicz, Chandler Steiger, and Stephanie Moore of East End Trial Group LLC, and Lawrence H. Fisher are experienced and competent class action counsel, who fairly and adequately protected the interests of the putative class throughout this litigation, and appoints them as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. Upon entry of this Final Approval Order, the Injunctive Releasing Parties will, by operation of this Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, fully and finally release, acquit, and discharge the Defendant from the Released Injunctive Claims as set forth in the Agreement. The Parties will move to dismiss the Lawsuit with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no later than forty-five (45) days following the date of Final Approval and the Defendant's payment of fees pursuant to the Agreement, whichever occurs later. Pursuant to Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994), the Parties' joint motion will request that the Court's dismissal order expressly retain the Court's jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement against all Parties. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 6, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mtejfd8n from Leagle.com. LEADPOINT INC: Wins Barton Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Brown of Bloomberg Law reports that a lower court properly dismissed a lawsuit alleging Leadpoint Inc. and Reliance First Capital LLC sent unsolicited text messages to a consumer after he had asked them not to contact him, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The number that received the messages at issue in the lawsuit was not a residential phone number within the meaning of the TCPA, a threshold requirement for stating a claim under the act, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said on July 20, 2023 in an unsigned opinion. The court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the case, but reversed its award of attorneys' fees to the defendants. Plaintiff Nathen Barton said he used the phone number at issue in the lawsuit for court filings only Its purpose was to shield his residential phone from telemarketers Reasonable observers wouldn't think he had legitimate privacy concerns for a number used for that purpose, the court said The lower court's award of attorneys' fees wasn't reasonable because Barton's arguments weren't frivolous, the court said Judges Susan P. Graber, Ronald M. Gould, and Michelle T. Friedland sat on the panel. Chung, Malhas & Mantel PLLC represents Barton. Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo PC and Goldfarb & Huck Roth Riojas PLLC represent Leadpoint and Reliance First Capital LLC. The case is Barton v. Leadpoint Inc., 9th Cir., Nos. 22-35130, 22-35691, unpublished 7/20/23. (Corrects July 20 story in headline and first paragraph to reflect that the lawsuit was by an individual plaintiff.) To contact the reporter on this story: Christopher Brown in St. Louis at ChrisBrown@bloombergindustry.com To contact the editors responsible for this story: Rob Tricchinelli at rtricchinelli@bloombergindustry.com; Maya Earls at mearls@bloomberglaw.com [GN] LEE KUM KEE: Arroyo Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation --------------------------------------------------------- Jose Antonio Arroyo, on behalf of himself and current and former aggrieved employees v. LEE KUM KEE USA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV16328 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 13, 2023), is brought against the Defendants’ violation of the Labor Code by failing to pay proper compensations. The Defendants' failed to pay wages for all hours worked at the employees' minimum wage rate or overtime rate, failed to provide all legally required and legally compliant meal and rest periods, failed to pay wages for accrued paid sick time at the regular rate of pay, failed to timely pay earned wages during employment, failed to produce requested employment records failed to provide complete and accurate wage statements, and failed to timely pay all unpaid wages following separation of employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and was domiciled and a resident and citizen of California and was employed by Defendants in an hourly position at Defendants’ location in City of Industry from April 21, 2021, until on or about May 9, 2022. LEE KUM KEE USA, INC. is authorized to do business within the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. N. Nick Ebrahimian, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Alan A. Wilcox, Esq. Melanie S. Rodriguez, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com nebrahimian@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com awilcox@lelawfirm.com mrodriguez@lelawfirm.com LIVWELL PRODUCTS: Court Narrows Claims in Scheibe Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB SCHEIBE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LIVWELL PRODUCTS, LLC d/b/a Adapted Nutrition, a Maryland limited liability company, Case No. 3:23-cv-00216-MMA-BLM (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michael M. Anello entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss: The Court grants in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. In particular, the Court dismisses the Plaintiff's first cause of action, for violation of the MCPA, and seventh cause of action, for unjust enrichment.1 The Court dismisses all of the Plaintiff’s claims to the extent they are premised upon the malic acid naming convention theory. The Court further dismisses the Plaintiff's request for injunctive and equitable relief. Dismissal is with leave to amend to the extent the Plaintiff can cure the above-noted deficiencies consistent with this Order. The Court denies the remainder of the Defendan'’s motion. If the Plaintiff wishes to file a First Amended Complaint, he must do so on or before July 28, 2023. The Defendant must then respond within the time prescribed by Rule 15. The Plaintiff's claim of unjust enrichment clearly cannot proceed as a putative nationwide class claim, and the Plaintiff must properly identify the applicable state law. The Plaintiff purchased the Products in October 2022 from Amazon.com while domiciled in San Diego, California. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's "labelling claims are false" because the front labels state that the Products contain "nothing artificial" or that they contain "clean ingredients" while they actually contain "DL malic acid, a synthetic substance derived from petrochemicals." The Defendant sells and manufactures a dietary supplement called Keto K1000 powder, which comes in a variety of flavors (the “Products”). A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Y0spZt at no extra charge.[CC] LOWE'S HOME CENTERS: Jackson Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kareem Jackson, Nasir Sampson, and Youlanda Bolder, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Case No. 230600755 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 12, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02668. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that they worked as hourly employees at Lowe's stores in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania at various times from late 2019 until December 2022. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs assert five separate causes of action under the Philadelphia Fair Workweek Law ("FWL").[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jacob Oslick, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 218-5500 Facsimile: (212) 218-5526 Email: joslick@seyfarth.com M&T BANK: Plaintiffs Allowed Leave to File Supplemental Declaration ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jaroslawicz v. M&T Bank Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00897 (D. Del., Filed Oct. 7, 2015), the Hon. Judge Evan J Wallach entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file supplemental declarations and memorandum. The Court will consider the Plaintiffs' included Supplemental Declarations and Memorandum in its consideration of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act. M&T Bank is an American bank holding company headquartered in Buffalo, New York.[CC] MAGELLAN HEALTH: Court Explains $75K Fee Award for Anderson's Atty. ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled BRYAN ANDERSON, Plaintiff v. MAGELLAN HEALTH, INC., STEVEN J. SHULMAN, SWATI ABBOTT, CHRISTOPHER J. CHEN, KENNETH J. FASOLA, PETER A. FELD, MURAL R. JOSEPHSON, G. SCOTT MacKENZIE, LESLIE V. NORWAL, and GUY P. SANSONE, Defendants, Case No. 2021-0202-KSJM (Del. Ch.), Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick of the Court of Chancery of Delaware issued an opinion explaining the $75,000 total amount for fees and expenses awarded to the Plaintiff's counsel. The Plaintiff filed this stockholder class action challenging the merger agreement dated Jan. 4, 2021, by which Centene Corporation agreed to acquire Magellan Health, Inc. Magellan had conducted a sale process in 2019 separate from the negotiations that led to the Centene deal. As part of the 2019 process, 24 prospective bidders entered confidentiality agreements containing "don't ask, don't waive" provisions. In this lawsuit, the Plaintiff claimed that the don't-ask-don't-waive provisions impeded the process that led to the Centene deal and, because the provisions were not fully described in the proxy, rendered stockholder disclosures materially deficient. Shortly after the Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, Magellan issued supplemental disclosures providing further detail on the don't-ask-don't-waive provisions. Magellan also waived its rights under three of the four confidentiality agreements in effect at the time of the supplemental disclosures. The Plaintiff agreed that these actions mooted his claims and stipulated to dismissal. On the theory that the supplemental disclosures and waivers were corporate benefits, the Plaintiff's counsel ("Movants") petitioned the Court for an award of $1,100,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses. Magellan argued in opposition that the benefits achieved were nominal, warranting fees in the range of $75,000 to $125,000. Through a short bench ruling delivered on June 6, 2023, the Court awarded $75,000 in fees and expenses. Chancellor McCormick notes that the eye-popping request for $1.1 million caught the attention of the academic community, and two professors -- Sean J. Griffith and Minor Myers -- well known to this Court served as amici curiae to advocate for reform in this Court's approach to mootness fee petitions. The professors urged that this Court issue a written decision to warn other courts applying Delaware law of these policy dangers, and they made good points. Hence, Chancellor McCormick says, this decision sets out the reasoning behind the bench ruling. The decision explains that outcome in three parts, addressing: the fee dispute; the request for a declaratory judgment; and the Professors' policy arguments. To assess the reasonableness of a fee award, this court follows the factors under Sugarland Indus. v. Thomas, 420 A.2d 142 (Del. 1980). Those factors are: (i) the amount of time and effort applied to the case by counsel for the plaintiffs; (ii) the relative complexities of the litigation; (iii) the standing and ability of petitioning counsel; (iv) the contingent nature of the litigation; (v) the stage at which the litigation ended; (vi) whether the plaintiff can rightly receive all the credit for the benefit conferred or only a portion thereof; and (vii) the size of the benefit conferred. Of these seven factors, Chancellor McCormick points out that the primary consideration is the benefit achieved. As the Court has held, in determining the size of an award of attorneys' fees, courts assign the greatest weight to the benefit achieved in light of the nature of the claims and the likelihood of success on the merits. Secondary factors include the complexity of the litigation, the standing and skill of counsel, and the contingent nature of the fee arrangement together with the level of contingency risk actually involved in the case. The Movants touted two categories of corporate benefits warranting attorneys' fees -- the Waivers and the Supplemental Disclosures, relying chiefly on the supposed benefits created by the Waivers to justify their fee request. The Court has recognized a corporate benefit when stockholder representatives loosen deal protections, such as don't-ask-don't-waive provisions. The Movants base their fee request on In re Compellent Techs., Inc. S'holder Litig., 2011 WL 6382523, at *21-24 (Del. Ch. Dec. 9, 2011) and four precedent decisions awarding sizeable fees for a challenge to don't-ask-don't-waive standstill restrictions. But neither Compellent nor the other four decisions support the Movants' requested fee, Chancellor McCormick opines. This body of precedent is more probative than the cases cited by the Movants, and the Waivers pale in comparison to the loosened deal protections achieved in these cases. The stark comparison to relevant case law confirms that the Waivers had little-to-no value, Chancellor McCormick adds. Because the Waivers do not justify a fee award, the amount of the Movants' fee depends on the value of the Supplemental Disclosures. The Court has recognized that supplemental disclosures can provide a compensable corporate benefit, but the standard for pricing that benefit for the purpose of awarding mootness fees warrants reexamination in view of developments in deal litigation since In re Trulia, Inc. S'holder Litig., 129 A.3d 884 (Del. Ch. 2016). Putting it all together, and with the disclaimer that this judgment call is more art than science, the Court holds under the standard of In re Xoom Corp. S'holder Litig., 2016 WL 4146425 (Del. Ch. Aug. 4, 2016) that the value of the Supplemental Disclosures is $75,000. Chancellor McCormick holds that the secondary Sugarland factors confirm the propriety of the fee award. Starting with the positives, the Movants did take this action on a contingent basis, which weighs in favor of a fee. And the Movants are experienced in practice before the Court. The other Sugarland factors are either neutral or negative, Chancellor McCormick says. This case was not terribly complex, as disclosures surrounding don't-ask-don't-waive standstills are no longer a groundbreaking topic. The litigation ended at an exceptionally early stage. Chancellor McCormick points out that a fee award of $75,000 represents a multiplier of approximately 0.52x, which is reasonable under the circumstances. Magellan requested a declaration that the fee award fully compensates all of the Plaintiff's counsel in this matter, which the Court granted in the June 6 bench ruling. The Professors raise policy concerns and proposals based on empirical research into nationwide litigation trends. In the wake of Trulia, Chancellor McCormick notes that the Plaintiffs' lawyers left the Court of Chancery for other venues so they could continue to file the types of litigation that the Professors refer to as a "merger tax." To counter this trend in non-Delaware fora, the Professors urge three reforms. First, the Professors ask the Court to provide further guidance on how to value don't-ask-don't-waive standstills for non-Delaware courts evaluating mootness fee petitions and stockholder class settlements. They worry that the Plaintiffs in non-Delaware courts can employ the Court's jurisprudence to evade Trulia's purpose and justify any settlement or fee by offering the formula from Compellent to judges unfamiliar with the doctrine. Implicitly, the Professors ask the Court to scrap Compellent as bad law, but doing so would be ill-advised, Chancellor McCormick holds. The reasoned approach of Compellent can serve as a helpful method for assessing the value of a corporate benefit and the attendant fee award for loosened deal protections. By establishing a method for valuing certain types of benefits, Compellent offers the potential of making fee awards more consistent across the Court's docket. Chancellor McCormick points out that there is no reason to eliminate this useful tool from the toolbox. The Professors' second proposal starts from the principle that mootness fees introduce a new peril in merger litigation. In pre-Trulia deal litigation, parties would structure disclosure resolutions as settlements subject to both judicial review and notice to stockholders. By contrast, mootness fees require judicial review only when the parties do not agree to the fee amount. In federal lawsuits, the plaintiffs are generally not required to disclose mootness fee agreements. Consequently, Chancellor McCormick says, disclosure resolutions structured as mootness fee awards run the risk of avoiding both judicial and stockholder oversight, giving rise to accountability and transparency problems. To solve these problems, the Professors recommend that the Court reduce fee awards in cases where a stockholder plaintiff seeks fees without having sought class certification, an order establishing a leadership structure, or input from class members. Because Plaintiff Anderson did not do anything of these things, the Professors suggest that the Court award fees as a percentage of Anderson's pro rata share of the benefit. Although one can agree with the starting point of the Professors' second proposal -- that mootness proceedings introduce new problems in merger litigation -- the proposal seems unlikely to solve the problems, Chancellor McCormick holds. If the plaintiffs' lawyers must certify the class to get a fee (which would most certainly be granted in the context of a merger case), then they will move for class certification. The Court will resolve it. Perhaps more importantly, Chancellor McCormick points out, the Professors' second proposal could inject procedural inefficiencies where the incentives set by mootness fees operate as intended to generate valuable benefits. The Court, thus, declines to impose such prerequisites to mootness fee applications. As a third and overarching solution, the Professors advocate denying or dramatically reducing the Movants' fee request to avoid inadvertently signaling to other jurisdictions that its post-Trulia concern over merger litigation has dissipated. The Professors' points on this front are highly persuasive, and the Court took them into consideration when setting the fee amount intended to, in Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock's words, "encourage wholesome levels of litigation." Where lawsuits are not worth much, the plaintiffs' counsel should not be paid much, Chancellor McCormick notes. In this case, the award represents less than the Movants' lodestar, which should send a signal that these sorts of cases are not worth the attorneys' time. Moreover, had the Movants been required to meet the materiality standard, it seems unlikely that there would have been any award at all, Chancellor McCormick points out. As the Court previously held, the Movants are awarded $75,000 in attorneys' fees. Magellan is entitled to the declaratory judgment that this figure represents the total award for the Movants in this case. The Movants will prepare a revised form of order implementing this decision within ten days, providing Magellan at least five days to review the form. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated July 6, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc2z9847 from Leagle.com. Ryan M. Ernst -- tbielli@bk-legal.com -- BIELLI & KLAUDER, LLC, in Wilmington, Delaware; Michael A. Rogovin -- mrogovin@weisslawllp.com -- WEISS LAW, in Atlanta, Georgia; Counsel for Plaintiff Bryan Anderson. Paul J. Lockwood -- paul.lockwood@skadden.com -- Arthur R. Bookout -- art.bookout@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware; Counsel for Defendants Magellan Health, Inc., Steven J. Shulman, Swati Abbott, Christopher J. Chen, Kenneth J. Fasola, Peter A. Feld, Mural R. Josephson, G. Scott MacKenzie, Leslie V. Norwal, and Guy P. Sansone. Anthony A. Rickey -- arickey@margravelaw.com -- MARGRAVE LAW LLC, in Wilmington, Delaware; Counsel for Amici Curiae Law Professors Sean J. Griffith and Minor Myers. MAKE-UP ART COSMETICS: Herrera Suit Removed to S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Carlos Herrera, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Make-Up Art Cosmetics Inc., Case No. 652467/2023 was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 21, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-05245-PAE-RWL to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Make-up Art Cosmetics Inc. doing business as MAC Cosmetics, stylized as MAC -- https://www.maccosmetics.com. -- is a Canadian cosmetics manufacturer founded in Toronto in 1984 by Frank Toskan and Frank Angelo.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Zemel, Esq. ZEMEL LAW LLC 660 Broadway Paterson, NJ 07514 Phone: (862) 227-3106 Fax: (973) 525-2552 Email: dz@zemellawllc.com The Defendant is represented by: Sarah Gabrielle Hartman, Esq. JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER AND MITCHELL LLP 3 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92614-2592 Phone: (949) 623-7243 Fax: (949) 623-7202 Email: sghartman@jmbm.com - and - Matthew S. Kenefick, Esq. JEFFER, MANGELS, BUTLER & MARMARO LLP (SF) Two Embarcadero Center, 5th Floor San Fransico, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 984-9677 Fax: (415) 398-5584 Email: msk@jmbm.com MANAGED CARE OF NORTH AMERICA: Gonzalez Files Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Managed Care of North America, Inc. The case is styled as Shelli Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Managed Care of North America, Inc. doing business as: MCNA Dental, Case No. 0:23-cv-61186-AHS (S.D. Fla., June 21, 2023). The nature if suit is stated as Other Fraud. Managed Care of North America, Inc., doing business as MCNA Dental -- https://www.mcna.net/ -- provides dental plans. The Company offers medicare, long term, and commercial plans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq. Gary I. Ishimoto, Esq. Mark S. Reich, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 55 Broadway, 4th Floor, Suite 427 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Email: cmaccarone@zlk.com mreich@zlk.com - and - Jonathan Matthew Stein, Esq. STEINLAW FLORIDA, PLLC 1825 NW Corporate Blvd., Suite 110 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: (561) 715-0997 Email: jstein@saxenawhite.com MANAGED CARE OF NORTH AMERICA: Jernigan Files Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Managed Care of North America, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Michael Jernigan, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Managed Care of North America, Inc. doing business as: MCNA DENTAL, Case No. 0:23-cv-61250-AHS (S.D. Fla., June 30, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Managed Care of North America, Inc. doing business as MCNA Dental -- https://www.mcna.net/ -- is the largest dental insurer in the nation for government sponsored Medicaid and CHIP programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10036 Phone: (917) 438-9189 Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com - and - Michael Elliot Criden Lindsey Caryn Grossman CRIDEN & LOVE PA 7301 SW 57th Court, Suite 515 South Miami, FL 33143 Phone: (305) 357-9000 Fax: 357-9050 Email: mcriden@cridenlove.com lgrossman@cridenlove.com MANAGED CARE OF NORTH AMERICA: Williams Files Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Managed Care of North America, Inc. The case is styled as Vanessa Williams, Georgie Watts, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated v. Managed Care of North America, Inc. doing business as: MCNA Dental, Case No. 0:23-cv-61193-AHS (S.D. Fla., June 22, 2023). The nature if suit is stated as Other Contract for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Managed Care of North America, Inc., doing business as MCNA Dental -- https://www.mcna.net/ -- provides dental plans. The Company offers medicare, long term, and commercial plans.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. Rachel K. Tack, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 S. 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 341-0400 Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com rachel.tack@zimmreed.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. Laura Edmondson, Esq. Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq. THE JOHNSON FIRM 610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 372-1300 Email: chris@yourattorney.com ledmondson@yourattorney.com tyler@yourattorney.com - and - Winston Spencer Hudson, Esq. JOHNSON FIRM 27296 Bonterra Loop Wesley Chapel, FL 33544 Phone: (501) 372-1300 Email: winston@yourattorney.com MARCHESE & CO: Gomez-Velazquez Files Renewed Class Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alfredo Gomez-Velazquez On behalf of Himself and all others similarly situated, v. Marchese & Co. Cut Fresh, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01802-PP (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to certify him as the representative, and the Previant Law Firm S.C. as class counsel, for the following opt-out class: "All hourly employees employed by the Defendant Cut Fresh, LLC who during the time period between November 6, 2018, and the present either (a) worked as a production or maintenance employee for Cut Fresh; or (b) punched in after a meal break less than 30 minutes after punching out for the break." A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 7, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rFFBGR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yingtao Ho, Esq. THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C. 310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW Milwaukee, WI 53203 Telephone: (414) 271-4500 Facsimile: (414) 271-6308 E-mail: yh@previant.com MARS INC: Prescott Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Steven Prescott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mars, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-01352 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on June 20, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04915-JMA-SIL to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending. Mars -- https://www.mars.com/ -- is the world's leading manufacturer of chocolate, chewing gum, mints and fruity confections.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alan Gudino, Esq. Ryan Ardi, Esq. Ryan Clarkson, Esq. Bahar Sodaify, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Phone: (213) 788-4050 Email: agudino@clarksonlawfirm.com rardi@clarksonlawfirm.com rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Adam James Hunt, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 250 West 55th Street New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 468-8000 Fax: (212) 468-7900 Email: adamhunt@mofo.com - and - William Francis Tarantino, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 268-7000 Email: wtarantino@mofo.com MERCYFIRST INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Martin Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- Kristen Martin, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. Mercyfirst, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-05025 (E.D.N.Y., July 3, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and of Articles 6 and 19 of the New York State Labor Law and their supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations. Plaintiff Martin was employed as a case manager at MercyFirst from on or around November 2017 to, through and including the present date. At MercyFirst, Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. However, the Defendant allegedly failed to pay Plaintiff the overtime wages to which he is entitled under the FLSA and the NYLL. In addition, the Defendant also failed to provide accurate wage notices and accurate wage statements denied Plaintiff her statutory right to receive true and accurate information about the nature of her employment and related compensation policies, says the suit. Defendant Mercyfirst, Inc. is a domestic not-for-profit corporation that provides social services in New York. [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 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com META PLATFORMS: Northwestern Joins Class Suit Over SocMed Platforms ------------------------------------------------------------------- Spencer Durham of Kokomo Tribune reports that Northwestern School Corporation is adding its name to a class action lawsuit that alleges social media platforms are detrimental to children's mental health and cause self-destructive behaviors. Social media users and families claim excessive exposure to apps like Facebook lead to suicide and other actual and attempted self harm. Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, is a defendant in the lawsuit, as are Google, Snapchat and TikTok. United States Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy issued an advisory in May calling for action by legislators, technology companies, families and children to better understand the harms of social media and create safer online environments for children. "There is growing evidence that social media use is associated with harm to young people's mental health," Murthy said in a prepared statement. "Children are exposed to harmful content on social media, ranging from violent and sexual content, to bullying and harassment." The Northwestern School Board approved joining the lawsuit on July 17, 2023. "Social media . . . has such a negative effect on our students," said Superintendent Kristen Bilkey. The case is in the early stages, but if the court finds for the plaintiffs or a settlement is reached, Northwestern will be entitled to compensation. How much is unknown. Bilkey said any funds will likely be put toward educating students about the dangers of social media. Joining the lawsuit will not cost the school district any money, regardless of outcome. This is the second class action lawsuit the Northwestern has joined in the past year. Northwestern entered a lawsuit against electronic cigarette manufacturer Juul in 2022. The lawsuit alleged Juul purposefully marketed its products, which contain nicotine, to minors. Juul settled the lawsuit late last year, resulting in payouts for schools that joined onto the lawsuit. Kokomo, Northwestern and Western all received settlement payments. The lawsuit against social media companies will test if the websites and their algorithms -- how social media posts are filtered on one's feed -- are products, according to an Axios report. If they can be considered products, there's the question of if companies can be held liable for contributing harm. Previn Warren, an attorney at the law firm representing the plaintiffs, told Axios the lawsuit aims to put pressure on social media companies to make changes, given inadequate legislation on the issue. Bilkey said the case is expected to take longer than the one with Juul. The legal filings against tech companies follows allegations by Frances Haugen, former Facebook employee and whistleblower, who disclosed thousands of internal documents. These documents have led to numerous allegations, including Facebook knew of its impact on children's mental health. It remains to be seen if other area school districts will also join the suit. [GN] META PLATFORMS: Santoro Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Patrick Santoro and Jessica Landis, individually and for all others similarly situated v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-04580 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 13, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-03483-JCS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Meta Platforms, Inc., doing business as Meta, and formerly named Facebook, Inc., and TheFacebook, Inc., is an American multinational technology conglomerate based in Menlo Park, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Cohen, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 604 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 873-4836 Email: dcohen@stephanzouras.com - and - Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Teresa M. Becvar, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312.233.1550 Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com The Defendant is represented by: Lauren Rosenblum Goldman, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1221 Avenue of Americas New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 506-2647 Email: lrgoldman@mayerbrown.com - and - Karl Gunderson, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 300 North Lasalle Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 862-2379 Email: karl.gunderson@kirkland.com META PLATFORMS: Settles Instagram Privacy Class Suit for $68.5M --------------------------------------------------------------- Alexandra Svokos of Yahoo! Finance reports that a class action complaint was filed against Meta over privacy on Instagram in the state of Illinois. People who used Instagram in the state of Illinois over the last few years may be owed money in a class action settlement, if the settlement is approved. A class action complaint was filed against Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, saying the company violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, CBS News reported. The complaint claims Meta was "allegedly collecting and storing biometric identifiers and/or biometric information (collectively, 'biometric data') via Instagram without complying with BIPA's requirements," according to a website set up for the case. The website further says that a settlement was reached and that if it's approved, a $68.5 million fund will be created. People who used Instagram in Illinois between Aug. 10, 2015 and Aug. 16, 2023 may be eligible for payment from the settlement. If that applies to you, you can submit a claim form at the settlement website. Claims must be submitted by Sept. 27, 2023. The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act says that "biometric identifiers" include "a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face geometry," but not items like writing samples, photographs, or physical descriptions. The act says that private entities that have biometric identifiers must have a public, written policy around how long the identifiers are kept and guidelines to destroy them "when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining such identifiers or information has been satisfied or within 3 years of the individual's last interaction with the private entity." This isn't Meta's first brush with a class action lawsuit. Earlier this year, a settlement was tentatively approved over privacy on Facebook. Meanwhile, Google agreed to pay $23 million in a class action lawsuit also over privacy. Google also specifically faced a lawsuit from Illinois over the biometric privacy law. Given the popularity of Facebook, Instagram and Google, there's a good many people likely eligible for these payments. Unfortunately, that also means the settlement fund pie will get sliced into increasingly thinner pieces. That said, while it won't make you rich, it's still your right to participate. [GN] METROPOLITAN OPERA: Viti Suit Removed to S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Anthony Viti, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Metropolitan Opera Association, Inc., Case No. 652457/2023 was removed from the Supreme Court, County of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 23, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-05343-KPF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. The Metropolitan Opera -- http://www.metopera.org/-- is an American opera company based in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Israel David, Esq. Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 17 State Street, Suite 4010 New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 739-0622 Email: israel@israeldavidllc.com blake.yagman@davidllc.com The Defendant is represented by: Daniel Marc Braude, Esq. MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC 411 Theodore Fremd Avenue, Suite 206s Rye, NY 10580 Phone: (267) 930-1316 Email: dbraude@mullen.law MUNRO & COMPANY: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Munro & Company, Inc. The case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Munro & Company, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-05166-MKV (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Munro Shoes -- https://munroshoes.com/ -- manufactures finer quality women's shoes, from casual to dress, sandals & boots.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ara Vahe Naljian, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 584-5575 Email: analjian@steinsakslegal.com MY PERFECT PET: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against My Perfect Pet, Inc. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. My Perfect Pet, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06019 (S.D.N.Y., July 13, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. My Perfect Pet -- http://www.myperfectpetfood.com/-- is a supplier of pet foods.[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 NATIONAL GENERAL: King Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Policyholders ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDD KING, DIEDRE KING, ELMO SHEEN, and SHEILA LEE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, NATIONAL GENERAL ASSURANCE COMPANY, INTEGON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INTEGON PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, MIC GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, PERSONAL EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, SEQUOIA INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 200, inclusive, Case No. 4:15-cv-00313-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. -- The Class consists of National General Insurance policyholders who purchased California Good Driver private passenger automobile policies (including any purchased renewals) and did not receive the lowest available GD rate during the Class Period set forth below for each the Defendant: National General Insurance Company (NGIC), Integon National Insurance Company (INIC) Integon Preferred Insurance Company (IPIC) and MIC General Insurance Corporation (MICG) from January 22, 2011, to date; Personal Express Insurance Company (PEIC): April 19, 2013, to July 18, 2014. Excluded from the Class are: (1) current and former policyholders who obtained their automobile insurance policies during the Class Period, including renewals, through the services of an insurance broker as defined in Cal. Ins. Code section 33 and section 1623(a) as reflected in the NG the Defendants' records, (2) all directors, officers, and management employees of the Defendants, (3) any policyholders who filed a lawsuit involving any of the asserted claims, (4) Class Counsel and their employees and their immediate families, any judge assigned to this case and their staff, the Defendants’ counsel of record, and their immediate families, and (5) all persons who make a timely and proper election to be excluded from the Class. The proposed class representatives are Diedre King, Edd King and Sheila Lee. This consumer protection case concerns the National General Insurance Defendants' uniform, unlawful failure to cross-offer the lowest available California Good Driver premiums from within their AmTrust/NGH Control Group Number 2538 of companies to policyholders who purchased California Good Driver private passenger automobile policies and did not receive the lowest available GD rate during the Class Period in clear violation of California law. NG has allegedly engaged in a uniform, systematic, class-wide violation of section 1816.16(b) of the California Insurance Code. National General is a property and casualty insurance company. A copy of Plaintiffs' motion dated July 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OkW9Np at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael F. Ram, Esq. Marie N. Appel, Esq. Shelby Serig, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 358-6913 Facsimile: (415) 358-6923 E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com mappel@forthepeople.com sserig@forthepeople.com - and - Jeffrey B. Cereghino, Esq. CEREGHINO LAW GROUP LLP 649 Mission Street, Floor 5 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 433-4949 E-mail: jbc@cereghinolaw.com - and - W. Craig Bashein, Esq. John P. Hurst, Esq. BASHEIN & BASHEIN CO., L.P.A. Terminal Tower 35th Floor, 50 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 771-3239 NATIONSBENEFITS: A.T. Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as A. T., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NationsBenefits Holdings, LLC, NationsBenefits LLC, Aetna Resources LLC, AETNA Corporate Services LLC, Aetna Health Inc., Aetna Health Management, Inc., Aetna Inc., AETNA International LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-01112 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on July 12, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:23-cv-61325-DMM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. NationsBenefits -- https://www.nationsbenefits.com/ -- is a supplemental benefits company that provides managed care organizations.[BN] NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Woodward Files Suit in D. Nebraska ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Navient Solutions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Kenneth Joseph Woodward, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Navient Solutions, LLC, Navient Credit Finance Corporation, Defendants; U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Interested Party; Case No. 8:23-cv-00301-RFR (D. Neb., July 13, 2023). The case type is stated as "Bankruptcy Withdrawl." Navient Solutions, LLC -- https://navient.com/ -- provides financial services. The Company offers consumer loans, asset management, repayment plans, and business processing solutions to education, healthcare, and government clients at the federal, state, and local levels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam R. Shaw, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER LAW FIRM 30 South Pearl Street, 11th Floor Albany, NY 12207 Phone: (518) 434-0600 Email: ashaw@bsfllp.com - and - David M. Marco, Esq. SMITH, MARCO LAW FIRM 5250 Old Orchard Road, Suite 300 Skokie, IL 60077 Phone: (312) 546-6539 Fax: (312) 602-3911 Email: dmarco@smithmarco.com - and - Erika A. Heath, Esq. FRANCIS, MAILMAN LAW FIRM - SAN FRANCISCO 369 Pine Street, Suite 410 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (628) 246-1352 Email: eheath@consumerlawfirm.com - and - James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. Jordan M. Sartell, Esq. Lauren KW Brennan, Esq. FRANCIS, MAILMAN LAW FIRM 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 735-8600 Fax: (215) 940-8000 Email: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com - and - James A. Michel, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES MICHEL 2912 Diamond Street, Suite 373 San Francisco, CA 94131-3208 Phone: (415) 239-4949 Email: attyjmichel@gmail.com - and - Jason W. Burge, Esq. Kaja S. Elmer, Esq. Lara K. Richards, Esq. FISHMAN, HAYGOOD LAW FIRM 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 4600 New Orleans, LA 70170 Phone: (504) 586-5241 Email: jburge@fishmanhaygood.com kelmer@fishmanhaygood.com lrichards@fishmanhaygood.com - and - Lynn E. Swanson, Esq. JONES, SWANSON LAW FIRM 601 Poydras Street, Suite 2655 New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: (504) 523-2500 Fax: (504) 523-2508 Email: lswanson@jonesswanson.com The Defendant is represented by: Craig A. Knickrehm, Esq. WALENTINE, O'TOOLE LAW FIRM 11240 Davenport Street Omaha, NE 68154 Phone: (402) 330-6300 Fax: (402) 330-6303 Email: cknickrehm@womglaw.com NEPTUNE WELLNESS: Settles Gong Securities Suit in NY Court ---------------------------------------------------------- Neptune Wellness Solutions Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 17, 2023, that on March 16, 2021, a purported class action, captioned "Marvin Gong v. Neptune Wellness Solutions, et al.," was filed in the United States District court for the Eastern District of New York against the company and certain of its current and former officers. In October 21, 2022, the company announced that it had agreed to settle and resolve the lawsuit for a gross payment to the class of between $4 and $4.25 million, with the exact amount being within the company's control and dependent on the type of consideration used. The settlement was subject to court approval and certification by the court of the class. On March 16, 2023, the settlement offer was accepted and the first payment in the amount of $500,000 was paid on March 22, 2023. Two additional payments of $500,000 each were subsequently made. The court has set a final approval hearing on July 28, 2023. Neptune Wellness Solutions Inc. is a modern consumer packaged goods company based in Canada. NESTLE USA: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Falcone Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Cole in Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP of JD Supra reports that late last week, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging that Nestle had falsely advertised, in part, that its cocoa as "sustainably" harvested. Falcone v. Nestle USA, Inc., No. 3:19-cv-00723-L-KSC (S.D. Cal. July 14, 2023). This is the latest decision interpreting the term "sustainable" to include both environmental and social meaning, and it represents a troubling development for advertisers. The plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint had alleged that Nestle, which prominently touted its "Cocoa Plan," a sweeping effort to address the use of child labor on African cocoa farms, amounted to greenwashing as, she alleged, the problem of child labor on cocoa farms was worsening. Nestle's motion to dismiss argued that it had never represented what the plaintiff had alleged, that all child labor concerns in its cocoa supply chain had been eradicated. It argued that a fair reading of its website and other materials referred to in the complaint makes clear that, although Nestle's Cocoa Plan has made considerable progress, child labor concerns persist. Indeed, an excerpted quote from Nestle's lengthy online report regarding the Cocoa Plan candidly admits that not all of its efforts succeed. "Tackling Child Labor. 2019 Report" at p. 54 ("Things don't always work out. It shows how complex the remediation is."). The exhibits reviewed by the court also included a chart showing how the number of children being monitored in the Nestle cocoa program had doubled between 2017 and 2019. The court interpreted this wrongly to mean that the child labor problem had worsened, not improved. Instead, what it meant was that the number of children being monitored had increased, resulting in more child laborers being identified, not that the overall number of child laborers had increased. These interpretative disputes, reasoned the court, were best left to trial. In denying the motion to dismiss, the court held in relevant part, "Defendant's exhibit does not support dismissal of the complaint. First, in addition to depicting Defendant's chart, the Complaint includes specific allegations regarding child labor, including child slavery and hazardous child work, and cites third-party sources in support of the contention that the incidence of child labor increased since 2009. These specific allegations alone are sufficient to support Plaintiff's claim that Defendant's advertising message of sustainable cocoa production and support for cocoa farmers was misleading." Presumably, the case will now proceed to discovery. What does this mean for advertisers? The Nestle Cocoa Plan is impressive in sweep and candor. However, in a motion-to-dismiss setting, nuance is lost. Consumer class action lawyers will cite even outdated activist reports regarding a problem and then seize on defendants' admissions and press barely plausible misinterpretations of data. A deciding judge must determine whether disputes regarding interpretation can be resolved at the motion to dismiss stage, where all inferences are to be resolved in favor of the plaintiff. Some courts consider that these disputes can only be resolved by a jury. Others are more critical of complaint allegations and will decide them on the pleadings. The decision signals increasing risk for "sustainability" and supply chain claims, especially those built on aspirations or programs commenced, but not yet completed. It is important to allow advertisers some breathing room to communicate about ongoing sustainability efforts, but advertisers should recognize that doing so will increase the risk of litigation and, if they wish to bolster any potential defense, should include prominent qualifications in any consumer-facing materials. The decision signals increasing risk for 'sustainability' and supply chain claims, especially those built on aspirations or programs commenced, but not yet completed. [GN] NEW JERSEY: C.P. Class Suit Seeks to Clarify Court's Order ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.P., individually and on behalf of F.P., a minor child; D.O. individually and on behalf of M.O., a minor child; S.B.C., individually and on behalf of C.C., a minor child; A.S., individually and on behalf of A.A.S., a minor child; M.S., individually and on behalf of her minor child, H.S.; Y.H.S. and H.Y., individually and on behalf of their minor child, C.H.S.; E.M. on behalf of her minor child, C.M.; M.M., individually and on behalf of K.M.; L.G., individually and on behalf of her minor child, T.M.; E.P., individually and on behalf of her minor child, Ea.P.; and on behalf of ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; ANGELICA ALLEN-MCMILLAN, Acting Commissioner of Education, in her official capacity, Case No. 1:19-cv-12807-NLH-MJS (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs seek to clarify Courts Order and leave to amend the Notice in the Settlement Agreement and Consent Order. New Jersey Department of Education administers state and federal aid programs affecting more than 1.4 million public and non-public elementary and secondary school children in the state of New Jersey. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 10, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Y2iO4e at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert C. Thurston, Esq. THURSTON LAW OFFICES LLC 433 River Road, Suite 1315 Highland Park, NJ 08904-1951 Telephone: (856) 335-5291 - and - Catherine Merino Reisman, Esq. Judith A. Gran, Esq. REISMAN CAROLLA GRAN & ZUBA LLP 19 Chestnut Street Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Telephone: (856) 354-0021 - and - Denise Lanchantin Dwyer, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DENISE LANCHANTIN DWYER LLC 5 Duxbury Court Princeton Junction, NJ 08550 Telephone: (609) 632-0475 - and - David R. Giles, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DAVID R. GILES 34 Rynda Road South Orange, NJ 07079 Telephone: (973) 763-1500 NG LABS INC: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NG Labs, Inc. The case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NG Labs, Inc. doing business as: Headsweats, Case No. 1:23-cv-05162-ER (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. NG Labs, Inc. doing business as Headsweats -- https://www.headsweats.com/ -- is the world leader in ultra-light, supremely wicking high-performance headwear and apparel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ara Vahe Naljian, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 584-5575 Email: analjian@steinsakslegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Douglas T. Schwarz Michael Friel Fleming MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP (NY) 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 Phone: (212) 309-6000 Fax: (212) 309-6001 Email: douglas.schwarz@morganlewis.com michael.fleming@morganlewis.com NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Court Adjourns Scheduling Order in Canava ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cannava, et al., v. Northrop Grumman Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01429 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Feb. 23, 2023), the Hon. Judge Lee G. Dunst entered an order on motion to Adjourn Conference 1 -- Terminate Deadlines and Hearings. The Court accordingly: (1) Adjourns the initial conference and related joint Proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order deadline sine die; and (2) Stays all discovery pending adjudication of the Romano class certification motion. The parties shall file a joint status report by the earlier of (a) 30 days after adjudication of the Romano class certification motion or (b) Nov. 1, 2023. The nature of suit states Real Property -- Tort Product Liability. The parties requested to adjourn the initial conference "until after resolution of the motion for class certification in the related action, Romano v. Northrop Grumman, Case No. 2:16-cv-5760-GRB-ST. The parties also stated that "no initial conferences have been held in any of the related cases and no discovery has taken place in any case except Romano, consistent with Judge Brown's prior Orders."[CC] Northrop is an American multinational aerospace and defense technology company.[CC] NUT HOUSE: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Nut House, LLC. The case is styled as Anglea Wahab, Angela Wahab, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The Nut House, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-05540-JGLC (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Nut House, LLC -- https://www.thenuthouseusa.com/ -- are family owned and operated Nut, Seed and Sweets Stores, set up to cater our local and far away communities looking for authentic Nuts, Sweets and more of our locally owned high quality roasted products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ara Vahe Naljian, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 584-5575 Email: analjian@steinsakslegal.com OAK GROVE ASSISTED: Kluender Suit Transferred to W.D. Wisconsin --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Michelle Kluender, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. OAK GROVE ASSISTED CARE, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00530 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin on July 13, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00473 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Acts. Oak Grove Assisted Care offers assisted living services for older adults.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Phone: (262) 780-1953 Fax: (262) 565-6469 Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com OFFICE DEPOT: Brown Suit Removed to N.D. Oklahoma ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Teresa Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OFFICE DEPOT, INC., Case No. CJ-2023-01841 was removed from the District Court of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma on July 12, 2023, and assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-00287-TCK-JFJ. The Plaintiff generally alleges that Office Depot violated the Oklahoma Telephone Solicitation Act by sending automated commercial telephonic sales calls, in the form of text messages, to Plaintiff's cellular telephone without her prior express written consent, and that Office Depot similarly did so with respect to numerous other individuals across Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary Quinn Cooper, Esq. Kathy R. Neal, Esq. MCAFEE & TAFT, P.C. Williams Center Tower II Two W. Second Street, Suite 1100 Tulsa, OK 74103 Email: maryquinn.cooper@mcafeetaft.com kathy.neal@mcafeetaft.com - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. Arun G. Ravindran, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, Florida 33131 Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com aravindran@hedinhall.com - and - E. Powell Miller, Esq. Gregory A. Mitchell THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Email: epm@millerlawpc.com gam@millerlawpc.com The Defendant is represented by: Justin A. Lollman, Esq. GABLE GOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Avenue, Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120 Phone: 918-595-4800 Facsimile: 918-595-4990 Email: jlollman@gablelaw.com - and - Michael A. Swartzendruber, Esq. Kira Latham, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: 214-855-8000 Facsimile: 214-855-8200 Email: michael.swartzendruber@nortonrosefulbright.com kira.latham@nortonrosefulbright.com OPEN DOOR: Fails to Pay Timely Wages, Chambers Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA CHAMBERS, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OPEN DOOR NY HOME CARE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 519179/2023 (N.Y., July 3, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's alleged violations of the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Chambers worked for Defendant as a home health aide from approximately December 2018 to November 2019 in Brooklyn and/or Queens. However, the Defendant violated the rights of Plaintiffs, and New York's state policy, by failing to pay promptly their wages due and owing for work performed in violation of NYLL. Allegedly, the Defendant maintained a policy and practice of paying its personal care aides, home attendants, home health aides and cleaners on a bi-weekly basis and nine days after the end of the second week in the respective pay period. Headquartered in New York, Open Door NY Home Care Services, Inc. provides nursing and home health aide services at the residences of their clients. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. Wims, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DAVID WIMS 1430 Pitkin Ave., 2nd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11233 Telephone: (646) 393-9550 ORANGE UNIFIED SCHOOL: Lackland Files Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Orange Unified School District. The case is styled as T.L., a minor by and through his parent and guardian William Lozano individually and on behalf of all others Similarly Situated v. Orange Unified School District by and through Ernest Ernie Gonzalez Acting Superintendent; Ernest Gonzalez; Craig Abercrombie, Acting Assistant Superintendent; Greg Smith, Former Assistant Principal; Nora Alvarez, Assistant Principal; Heriberto Angel, OUSD Executive Director; David Rivera, Deputy Superintendent; Does 1-3 Members of the OUSD Student Success Panel; Does 4-50 inclusive; Case No. 8:23-cv-01078-FWS-KES (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2023). The nature of suit is stated Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights Act. Orange Unified School District -- https://www.orangeusd.org/ -- is a public school district headquartered in Orange, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Je Yon Jung, Esq. Jessica H. Meeder, Esq. MAY JUNG LLP 333 City Boulevard West No 327 Orange, CA 92868 Phone: (202) 297-5638 Fax: (202) 618-8282 Email: jeyon@mayjung.com jessica@mayjung.com - and - Benjamin L. Crump, Esq. BEN CRUMP LAW PLLC 122 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Phone: (850) 224-2021 Fax: (800) 770-3444 Email: court@bencrump.com PG&E CORPORATION: Wheeler Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PG&E Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Lara Wheeler, Julie Peterson, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals v. PG&E Corporation, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Does 1 to 200, inclusive, Case No. CGC23607657 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., July 13, 2023). The case type is stated as "Toxic Tort/Environment." Pacific Gas and Electric Company -- https://www.pge.com/ -- provides natural gas and electric service.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gerald singleton, Esq. SINGLETON SCHREIBER, LLP 591 Camino De La Reina, Ste. 1025 San Diego, CA 92108-3112 Phone: 619-771-3473 Fax: 619-255-1515 Email: gsingleton@singletonschreiber.com PINNACLE PROPANE: Fitton Files Suit in N.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pinnacle Propane LLC. The case is styled as Amanda Fitton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Pinnacle Propane LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-01559-B (N.D. Tex., July 13, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Pinnacle Propane -- https://www.pinnaclepropane.com/ -- supplies Propane gas and services including tank installation, tank exchange, and refill options to homes and businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC - DALLAS 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450 Dallas, TX 75219 Phone: (214) 744-3000 Fax: (214) 744-3015 Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com POTOMAC RIVER RUNNING: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Potomac River Running, Inc. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Potomac River Running, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06007-JPC (S.D.N.Y., July 13, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Potomac River Running -- https://potomacriverrunning.com/ -- is a locally based running and walking specialty store and provides footwear, apparel, and clearance essentials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com PRIME HEALTHCARE: 401(k) Plan ERISA Suit Seek to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Prime Healthcare ERISA Litigation, Case No. 8:20-cv-01529-JLS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and certifying the following proposed class: "All participants and beneficiaries in the Prime Healthcare Services, Inc. 401(k) Plan at any time on or after August 18, 2014 to the present, including any beneficiary of a deceased person who was a participant in the Plan at any time during the Class Period." The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to enter an order: a. appointing them as representatives of the Class; and b. appointing their counsel Miller Shah and Capozzi Adler as counsel for the Class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). In this Action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. section 1001, et seq., the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants1 breached fiduciary duties owed to the Plan by failing to appropriately monitor the Plan's investments and service arrangements. The Plaintiffs are former employees of Prime Healthcare and participants in the Plan under 29 U.S.C. section 1002(7). A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 7, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3K6GHlD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kolin C. Tang, Esq. James E. Miller, Esq. Laurie Rubinow, Esq. James C. Shah, Esq. Alec J. Berin, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 19712 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 222 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: kctang@millershah.com jemiller@millershah.com lrubinow@millershah.com jcshah@millershah.com ajberin@millershah.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. Gabrielle Kelerchian, Esq. Donald R. Reavey, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: gabriellek@capozziadler.com markg@capozziadler.com donr@capozziadler.com PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Kroeger Seeks to File Documents Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMY KROEGER, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:22-cv-00104-SHL-HCA (S.D. Iowa), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order directing the Clerk to file under seal parts of the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification designated as confidential by the Defendant, Progressive Universal Insurance Company. -- The Motion references and discusses information that the Defendant has designated as "Confidential, " as well as material that third parties Mitchell International, Inc. and J.D. Power and Associates have designated as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential—Outside Counsel's Eyes Only. " -- Specifically, Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 10, and the portions of the Motion that quote or reference those exhibits, include confidential information of the Defendant and third parties. -- The Plaintiff takes no position on whether these documents satisfy the applicable standard for remaining under seal and are filing them under seal out of respect for the Defendant's and third parties' designations. Progressive Universal operates as an insurance firm. The Company provides property and casualty insurance services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 7, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Y0G8iJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy L. Judkins, Esq. NORMAND PLLC 3165 McCrory Place, Ste. 175 Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: (407) 603-6031 Facsimile: (888) 974-2175 E-mail: amy.judkins@normandpllc.com ean@normandpllc.com - and - J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. Brian O. Marty, Esq. SHINDLER ANDERSON GOPLERUD & WEESE PC 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Ste. 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265-5749 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 Facsimile: (515) 223-8887 E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com marty@sagwlaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III, Esq. Edwin Lee Lowther, III CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 519 W. 7th Street Little Rock, AK 72201 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael W. Thrall, Esq. NYEMASTER GOODE, P.C. 700 Walnut Street, Suite 1600 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Telephone: (515) 283-3189 E-mail: mwt@nyemaster.com - and - Julia C. Barrett, Esq. Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq. Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq. J. Matthew Brigman, Esq. Allison Hill White, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 500 W. 2nd Street Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 457-2000 Facsimile: (512) 457-2100 E-mail: jbarrett@kslaw.com jcashdan@kslaw.com zmcentyre@kslaw.com mbrigman@kslaw.com awhite@kslaw.com PRYSMIAN CABLES: Montana Files Renewed Bid for Collective Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL MONTANA and KENNETH HENDRIX, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. PRYSMIAN CABLES AND SYSTEMS USA, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00143-DLB-EBA (E.D. Ky.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their renewed motion for collective action certification, and approving distribution of judicially supervised notice, and disclosure of contact information: The Plaintiffs brought this suit on behalf of certain former and current employees of the Defendant Prysmian Cables and Systems USA, LLC, to recover unpaid wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiffs bring this action as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The Plaintiffs ask this Court to certify the following collective: "All Hourly Employees since November 22, 2019." The Plaintiffs and the members of the collective are similarly situated, and certification of the proposed collective is therefore appropriate. Prysmian Cables manufactures telecommunication equipment. The Company offers a wide range of optic fibers, optical and copper cables. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 7, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Y0tro7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michele Henry, Esq. CRAIG HENRY PLC 401 West Main Street, Suite 1900 Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 614-5962 E-mail: mhenry@craighenrylaw.com - and - Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com PUPFORD LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pupford, LLC. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Pupford, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06022 (S.D.N.Y., July 13, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Pupford -- https://pupford.com/ -- provides pup owners with training and products to overcome their dog's problem behaviors and raise a healthy and well-behaved pup.[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 R&B CORPORATION: Lackland Files Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against R&B Corporation of Virginia. The case is styled as Shiree Lackland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. R&B Corporation of Virginia doing business as: Credit Control Corporation, Case No. 4:23-cv-00081-EWH-LRL (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. R&B Corporation of Virginia doing business as Credit Control -- https://creditcontrol.net/ -- is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Yanchunis, Sr., Esq. Marcio William Valladares, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street, 6th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 221-6583 Fax: (813) 222-4733 Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com mvalladares@forthepeople.com - and - Ra O. Amen, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN MASS TORT DEPT. 201 N. Franklin St., 7th floor Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 424-5613 Email: ramen@forthepeople.com - and - Steven T. Webster, Esq. WEBSTER BOOK LLP 300 N Washington Street, Suite 404 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone: (888) 987-9991 Fax: (888) 987-9991 Email: swebster@websterbook.com RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Medina Suit Removed to S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Arael Medina, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Radiology Associates of South Florida, LLC, Case No. 2023-017569-CA-01 was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on July 13, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-22615-CMA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit. Radiology Associates of South Florida -- https://rasf.net/ -- is the 10th largest private practice radiology group in the nation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Gomes Simil, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 S.E. 6TH Street, Suite 1700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 628-5793 Fax: (954) 507-9974 Email: jen@jibraellaw.com - and - Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 907-1136 Fax: (855) 529-9540 Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com - and - Shannon Elaine Gilvey, Esq. 4730 S.W. 62nd Way Apt 302 Davie, FL 33314 Phone: (786) 769-1958 Email: shannon@jibraellaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Alvin David Lodish, Esq. Kassia Fialkoff, Esq. DUANE MORRIS, LLP 201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3400 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 960-2200 Fax: (305) 960-2201 Email: alodish@duanemorris.com kfialkoff@duanemorris.com RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Powers Suit Seek to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stephanie Powers, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Receivables Performance Management LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-12125-MRG (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class defined as: "All persons residing in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts who, within four years prior to the filing of this action, the Defendant initiated in-excess of two telephone communications within a seven- day period regarding a debt which was more than thirty-days past due to their residence, cellular telephone, or other provided telephone number." The Plaintiff further moves the Court to (1) appoint her as class representative and (2) appoint Lemberg Law as class counsel. Receivables Performance offers third party debt collection services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44xlDg2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. Stephen Taylor, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 RELIANCE FIRST: Wins Barton Class Suit Over Unsolicited Texts ------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Brown of Bloomberg Law reports that a lower court properly dismissed a lawsuit alleging Leadpoint Inc. and Reliance First Capital LLC sent unsolicited text messages to a consumer after he had asked them not to contact him, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The number that received the messages at issue in the lawsuit was not a residential phone number within the meaning of the TCPA, a threshold requirement for stating a claim under the act, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said on July 20, 2023 in an unsigned opinion. The court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the case, but reversed its award of attorneys' fees to the defendants. Plaintiff Nathen Barton said he used the phone number at issue in the lawsuit for court filings only Its purpose was to shield his residential phone from telemarketers Reasonable observers wouldn't think he had legitimate privacy concerns for a number used for that purpose, the court said The lower court's award of attorneys' fees wasn't reasonable because Barton's arguments weren't frivolous, the court said Judges Susan P. Graber, Ronald M. Gould, and Michelle T. Friedland sat on the panel. Chung, Malhas & Mantel PLLC represents Barton. Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo PC and Goldfarb & Huck Roth Riojas PLLC represent Leadpoint and Reliance First Capital LLC. The case is Barton v. Leadpoint Inc., 9th Cir., Nos. 22-35130, 22-35691, unpublished 7/20/23. (Corrects July 20 story in headline and first paragraph to reflect that the lawsuit was by an individual plaintiff.) To contact the reporter on this story: Christopher Brown in St. Louis at ChrisBrown@bloombergindustry.com To contact the editors responsible for this story: Rob Tricchinelli at rtricchinelli@bloombergindustry.com; Maya Earls at mearls@bloomberglaw.com [GN] RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN: Weigel Files Suit in D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Renewal by Andersen LLC. The case is styled as Casey Weigel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Renewal by Andersen LLC, Case No. 0:23-cv-01878-KMM-DJF (D. Minn., June 21, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Renewal By Andersen -- https://www.renewalbyandersen.com/ -- manufactures windows and doors. The Company offers metal doors, sash, and trim products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Fax: (612) 336-2940 Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com - and - David Lietz, Esq. MILBERG 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: dlietz@milberg.com ROHR INC: Court Grants Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Morgan Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHANIEL MORGAN, an individual; MICHAEL BEVAN, an individual; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ROHR, INC., a corporation; HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND, d/b/a COLLINS AEROSPACE; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Case No. 3:20-cv-00574-GPC-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the Defendants' motion for judgment on the Pleadings and vacating hearing: -- The Court grants the Defendants' motion for judgment on the Pleadings and dismisses the Plaintiffs' eighth cause of action without prejudice. -- Because the UCL allows a four-year statute of limitations and the California Labor Code has a shorter, three-year statute of imitations, this ruling will necessarily affect the class definition by reducing the class period accordingly. In sum, the Court finds this multi-year delay constitutes a lack of diligence on behalf of the Plaintiffs and does not support a finding of good cause under Rule 16. The Plaintiffs provide no new facts that would allow the Court to find their delay in seeking amendment was justified. On March 31, 2022, the Court granted in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. In their Motion, the Plaintiffs sought to certify the following classes and subclasses: 1. Minimum Wage Class: "all persons employed by the Defendants as nonexempt employees at the Defendants’ facilities during the Class Period." a. Shaved Time Subclass: all persons employed by the Defendants as unionized, non-exempt employees at the Defendants’ facilities in Riverside and Chula Vista from March 27, 2015 through October 13, 2019 who were not paid by the Defendants for all time recorded as worked on at least one shift. b. Automatic Deduction Subclass: all persons employed by the Defendants as unionized, non-exempt employees at the Defendants' facilities in Riverside and Chula Vista from March 27, 2015 through October 13, 2019 who worked at least one shift over five hours long in which there was no recorded meal break of at least 30 minutes. c. Rounded Meal Break Subclass: all persons employed by the Defendants as unionized, non-exempt employees at the Defendants' facilities in Riverside and Chula Vista from October 13, 2019 through the date of class certification who worked at least one shift over five hours in which the employee's rounded meal time was greater than the employee's recorded meal break time. d. Off-the-clock Subclass: all persons employed by the Defendants as unionized, non-exempt employees at the Defendants' facilities in Riverside and Chula Vista during the Class Period. 2. Overtime Class: "all persons employed by the Defendants as non-exempt employees at the Defendants’ facilities in Riverside and Chula Vista during the Class Period who worked at least one shift over eight hours long." a. Shaved Time Subclass: all persons employed by the Defendants as non- exempt, unionized employees at the Defendants’ facilities in Riverside and Chula Vista from March 27, 2015 through October 13, 2019 who were not paid by the Defendants for all time recorded as worked on at least one shift which was over eight hours long. b. Automatic Deduction Subclass: all persons employed by the Defendants as unionized, non-exempt employees at the Defendants' facilities in Riverside and Chula Vista from March 27, 2015, through October 13, 2019, who worked at least one shift over eight hours long in which there was no recorded meal break of at least 30 minutes. c. Rounded Meal Break Subclass: all persons employed as unionized, non-exempt employees at the Defendants' facilities in Riverside and Chula Vista from October 14, 2019, through the date of class certification who worked at least one shift over eight hours long in which the employee's rounded meal time was greater than the employee’s recorded meal break time. d. Regular Rate Subclass: all persons employed by the Defendants as non-exempt employees at the Defendants’ Riverside and Chula Vista facilities during the Class Period who worked at least one shift over eight hours long and also earned at least one other form of non-discretionary remuneration (such as shift differentials, shift premiums, special awards, and other bonuses) during the same pay period. e. Off-the-clock Subclass: all persons employed by the Defendants as non-exempt employees at the Defendants' Riverside and Chula Vista facilities during the Class Period who worked at least one shift over eight hours long. 3. Rest Break Class: "all persons employed by the Defendants as nonexempt employees at the Defendants' facilities in Riverside and Chula Vista during the Class Period who worked at least one shift over five hours long. 4. Meal Period Class: "all persons employed by the Defendants as nonexempt employees at their facilities in Riverside and Chula Vista during the Class Period who worked at least one shift over five hours long." a. First Meal Break Subclass (Union Employees): all persons employed by the Defendants as unionized, non-exempt employees at the Defendants' facilities in Riverside and Chula Vista during the Class Period who worked at least one shift over five hours long. b. First Meal Break Subclass (Non-Union Employees): all persons employed by the Defendants as non-unionized, non-exempt employees at the Defendants’ facilities in Riverside and Chula Vista during the Class Period who worked at least one shift over five hours long. c. Second Meal Period Subclass: all persons employed by the Defendants as nonexempt employees at the Defendants' facilities in Riverside and Chula Vista during the Class Period who worked at least one shift over ten hours long. 5. Wage Statement Class: "all persons employed by the Defendants at the Defendants' facilities in Riverside and Chula Vista as non-exempt employees during the Class Period, who received at least one wage statement from the Defendants. The Court granted class certification only for union employees and only for the following classes and subclasses: the Meal Period Class; the Overtime Class; and the Minimum Wage Class, as well as the related subclasses under the automatic deduction of meal break, rounded meal break, first meal break and second meal break, and wage statement claims. The Court further certified for union employees the derivative claims relating to the Defendant’s failure to provide accurate and itemized wage statements and unfair and unlawful business practices under California law. Rohr is an aerospace manufacturing company based in Chula Vista, California. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rynYJk at no extra charge.[CC] SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Rodriguez Sues Over Deceptive Marketing of TVs ------------------------------------------------------------------- SERGIO RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.; BEST BUY CO., INC.; AND DOES 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 8:23-cv-01194 (C.D. Cal., July 3,2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged illegal actions with respect to certain of their distribution, marketing, advertising and sale of Samsung televisions. Allegedly, the Defendants falsely represented that certain of Samsung QLED TVs have qualities, characteristics, and functionalities that they do not have, including Free Sync Premium, 120 Hz refresh rate, and High-Definition Multimedia Interface 2.1 ports for transmitting digital video and audio. These actions constitute violations of California Unfair Competition Law, California False Advertising Law, and California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, says the suit. Headquartered in New Jersey, Samsung Electronics America manufactures electronic products, including televisions, digital cameras, cell phones, storage devices, home appliances, security systems, smartwatches, and computer products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond Y. Kim, Esq. RAY KIM LAW, APC 112 E. Amerige Avenue, Suite 240 Fullerton, CA 92832 Telephone: (833) 729-5529 Facsimile: (833) 972-9546 E-mail: ray@raykimlaw.com SECURLY INC: Faces Bate Class Suit Over Data Privacy Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Kristal Kuykendall of The Journal reports that the parents of two California children are suing Securly, accusing the online-activity surveillance provider of violating California wiretapping and data privacy laws and of violating the federal Video Privacy Protection Act by collecting protected private information without consent and selling it to third-party advertisers. The class-action lawsuit, filed on July 17, 2023 by Sheri Bate and Azucena Mejia in U.S. District Court's Southern District of California, frames the collection of the students' geolocation data as a form of illegal wiretapping; California law -- updated in 1992 to include cellular devices -- bans "any unauthorized connection" but does not specifically list location data as protected. Securly "made an unauthorized connection with each plaintiff's mobile device when Defendant collected and stored geolocation data specific to each plaintiff's mobile device and then provided such information to its clients for targeted advertising and other purposes" without the knowledge and consent of the students or their parents, the complaint reads. "Defendant collected, sold, licensed, and transferred each plaintiff's precise geolocation data" -- data that was tied to "visits to sensitive locations" -- without the plaintiffs' knowledge or consent, causing "substantial injury" to each plaintiff, the complaint reads. The lawsuit also alleges that Securly "knowingly disclosed" other personally identifiable information including "a record of every video they view" to unrelated third parties, in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act, passed by Congress in 1988. CommonSense.org, which explains privacy and data policies for various software providers and scores each based on how safe user data is on each platform, issued a "Warning" rating and a 63% overall safety score for Securely in June 2021. "Securly is a cloud-based web filtering and parental control service that works across schools and homes," according to Common Sense's listing for Securly. "The terms state Securly may work with third parties such as network advertisers to display advertisements to users on third-party websites, but also state they do not collect a student's or a child's personal information for the purpose of sale, for building student or child profiles, or for commercial purposes not related to the provision of the services." Securly's polices clearly state "that the service will not sell any user's personal information to third parties," Common Sense said. "However, the policies are not clear about how the service may use personal information to display advertising. The terms state Securly may work with third parties such as network advertisers to display advertisements to users on third-party websites, but also state they do not collect a student's or a child's personal information for the purpose of sale, for building student or child profiles, o for commercial purposes not related to the provision of the services." The plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages of $2,500 for each violation of California wiretapping law, $5,000 for each violation of California's law banning recording of conversations without consent, and $5,000 for each violation of "unlawful interception." The proposed class numbers in the "tens of thousands," the complaint said, putting the total damages sought at well over $5 million. [GN] SHAUM'S CASABLANCA: Exotic Dancer Class Get Conditional Status -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sidney Jones and Crystal Williams, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals, v. Shaum’s Casablanca d/b/a Lady Godivas / Casablanca, Case No. 6:22-cv-02307-TMC (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Timothy M. Cain entered an order conditionally certifying the following class: "All individuals that worked or performed as exotic dancers at or in the Lady Godivas / Casablanca Gentlemen's Club during the period from August 1, 2019, through the date of this order." Accordingly, the Court finds no error in the magistrate Judge's reliance on the Plaintiffs’ complaint and sworn statements or his decision to disregard the Defendant's "happy camper" declarations. Further, the court agrees with the magistrate judges conclusion that the Plaintiffs have set forth sufficient allegations of a common plan by the Defendant to improperly classify all the exotic dancers in its employ as independent contractors to meet the lenient standard for conditional class certification. Therefore, the Defendant's objection is overruled. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44QZtW1 at no extra charge.[CC] SHIFTPIXY INC: Faces Splond Labor Suit in Nevada Court ------------------------------------------------------ Shiftpixy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 17, 2023, that on April 8, 2019, claimant, Corey Splond, filed a class action lawsuit, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals in the Eighth Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada, Clark County, naming the company and its client as defendants, and alleging violations of certain wage and hour laws. Shiftpixy, Inc. provides human resources, employment compliance, employment-related insurance, payroll, and operational employment services solutions based in Florida. SHOE CARNIVAL INC: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shoe Carnival, Inc. The case is styled as Angela Wahab, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Shoe Carnival, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-05618-KPF (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Shoe Carnival Inc. -- https://www.shoecarnival.com/ -- is an American retailer of family footwear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ara Vahe Naljian, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 584-5575 Email: analjian@steinsakslegal.com SHUN LEE: Bid to Dismiss Wang Class Suit Tossed ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cheng Xia Wang et al., v. SHUN LEE PALACE RESTAURANT, INC. D/B/A SHUN LEE PALACE, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00840-VSB (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vernon S. Broderick entered an order denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court said, "The Clerk is directed to close the open motion at Doc. 224. The allegations of the Twelve Unionized the Plaintiffs in the SAC do not allege that they did not receive payments they were entitled to under the CBA but rather that they were not paid. Therefore, the Defendants' argument of LMRA preemption is incorrect, or at least premature at this point where there is no dispute concerning the amount of payments to which the Plaintiffs were entitled to under the CBA." The same applies to the Twelve Unionized the Plaintiffs' minimum wage claims Therefore, I look to the FLSA, not CBA, to decide whether the payments under the CBA should have been included in the Plaintiffs' "total remuneration," and no interpretation of the CBA terms is required. Accordingly, the Twelve Unionized the Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims are not preempted by LMRA, the Court added. On April 5, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, asserting claims of the opt-in the Plaintiffs who were employed as servers. Shun Lee is a Chinese restaurant located at 155 East 55th Street, between Lexington Avenue and Third Avenue in Midtown Manhattan in New York City. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pOYeYG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq. Tiffany Troy, Esq. Jian Hang, Esq. John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC Flushing, NY - and - Jian Hang, Esq. Jiajing Fan, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC Flushing, New York The Defendants are represented by: A Michael Weber, Esq. Eli Zev Freedberg, Esq. Huan Xiong, Esq. Kevin K. Yam, Esq. Maayan Deker, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. New York, NY SIRIUS XM: Faces Mitchell Class Suit Over Labor Law Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Bucher of Top Class Actions reports that Sirius XM Radio Inc. violated federal labor laws by failing to pay certain non-exempt employees for the time they worked before and after their shifts, according to a class action lawsuit filed July 14 in New York federal court. Plaintiff Kellee Mitchell says she worked remotely for SiriusXM as a customer service representative from November 2020 to August 2021. Mitchell alleges she and other similarly situated customer service representatives "were instructed to be call ready the moment their scheduled shift started, yet [SiriusXM] prohibited them from clocking in before the start of their shift." According to the SiriusXM class action lawsuit, customer service representatives had to be logged in and have all of their work-related computer programs and applications loaded before their scheduled shift time. However, the SiriusXM employees allegedly frequently experienced technical difficulties during this process, increasing the amount of work they performed off the clock. SiriusXM employees deprived of about 25 minutes of pay each day, class action says Mitchell says the customer service representatives had to arrive at work about 15 minutes before their scheduled shifts to ensure they could go into a "ready" status at the moment their shift started. SiriusXM employees allegedly faced similar log-in times when returning from their lunch breaks and logging out of the programs and applications at the end of their shifts, according to the class action lawsuit. As a result, the employees were allegedly unlawfully deprived of about 25 minutes of compensation each day in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). SiriusXM routinely monitored its employees' schedules, including the time customer service representatives demonstrated a "ready" status for their scheduled shift, Mitchell says. At times, SiriusXM employees were reportedly disciplined by receiving predetermined point values, write-ups and final notices and termination if they were not in "ready" status at the start of their shift, according to the class action. Mitchell says the log-in time was critical to performing the job requirements and she should have been compensated for that time at an overtime pay rate for the weeks in which she worked more than 40 hours. SiriusXM is no stranger to lawsuits. In February, consumers filed a class action lawsuit alleging it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing unwanted telemarketing calls to consumers who never subscribed to the service. Mitchell is represented by Jason T Brown of Brown LLC and Kevin J. Stoops and Alana Karbal of Sommers Schwartz PC. The SiriusXM employees class action lawsuit is Kellee Mitchell v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06092, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN] SLT LENDING SPV: Petrulakis Files Suit in N.D. Indiana ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against SLT Lending SPV, Inc. The case is styled as Luann Petrulakis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SLT Lending SPV, Inc. doing business as: Sur La Table, Case No. 2:23-cv-00202-PPS-JPK (N.D. Ind., June 21, 2023). The nature if suit is stated as Other Personal Property. SLT Lending SPV, Inc. doing business as Sur La Table, Inc. -- https://www.surlatable.com/ -- is a privately held retail company based in Seattle, Washington, that sells kitchenware including cookware, cutlery, cooks' tools, small electrics, tabletop and linens, bakeware, glassware and bar, housewares, food, and outdoor products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kathleen A. DeLaney, Esq. DELANEY & DELANEY LLC 3646 N Washington Blvd Indianapolis, IN 46205 Phone: (317) 920-0400 Fax: (317) 920-0404 Email: kathleen@delaneylaw.net The Defendant is represented by: Bonnie Keane DelGobbo BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP - CHI/IL One North Wacker Drive Ste 4500 Chicago, IL 60606-1901 Phone: (312) 416-6200 Fax: (312) 416-6201 Email: bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com STABILITY AI: Court Dismisses AI Class Claims, New Complaint Ok'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- Blake Brittain of Reuters reports that U.S. District Judge William Orrick said during a hearing in San Francisco on July 19, 2023 that he was inclined to dismiss most of a lawsuit brought by a group of artists against generative artificial intelligence companies, though he would allow them to file a new complaint. Orrick said that the artists should more clearly state and differentiate their claims against Stability AI, Midjourney and DeviantArt, and that they should be able to "provide more facts" about the alleged copyright infringement because they have access to Stability's relevant source code. "Otherwise, it seems implausible that their works are involved," Orrick said, noting that the systems have been trained on "five billion compressed images." The judge said that illustrator Sarah Andersen's claim that Stability directly infringed copyrights she had registered in several of her works was likely to survive the company's initial bid to dismiss the lawsuit. The hearing provided the first glimpse of how judges may treat a wave of lawsuits that accuse companies of misusing vast swaths of material to train their AI systems. The proposed class action is one of several recent lawsuits filed against companies including Microsoft, Meta and OpenAI over content used to train systems in the fast-growing generative AI field. Andersen, Kelly McKernan and Karla Ortiz said in their January complaint that Stability "scraped" billions of images from the internet to teach its Stable Diffusion text-to-image system to create its own images, including some in their styles. They accused the company of infringing their copyrights by using their work without permission. Midjourney and DeviantArt, whose generative AI systems incorporate Stable Diffusion technology, are also named as defendants. Orrick said it was unclear whether the artists were accusing the two companies of infringing copyrights through their use of Stability's model or training their own systems in an infringing way. The judge also said the artists were unlikely to succeed on their claim that images generated by the systems based on text prompts using their names violated their copyrights. "I don't think the claim regarding output images is plausible at the moment, because there's no substantial similarity" between images created by the artists and the AI systems, Orrick said. The case is Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 3:23-cv-00201. For the artists: Joseph Saveri of Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Matthew Butterick For Stability: Paul Schoenhard of Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson For Midjourney: Angela Dunning of Cooley For DeviantArt: Andy Gass of Latham & Watkins [GN] STASH INVESTMENTS: Santiago Files Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stash Investments LLC, et al. The case is styled as Javier Santiago, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Stash Investments LLC, Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-05087-DSF-JPR (C.D. Cal., June 27, 2023). The nature if suit is stated as Other Fraud. Stash -- https://www.stash.com/ -- offers retirement, banking, individual investment, and custodial accounts through a subscription model.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Jason Cole, Esq. KJC LAW GROUP APC 9701 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1000 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (310) 861-7797 Fax: (818) 994-9200 Email: kevin@kjclawgroup.com - and - Robert Tauler, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 510 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 927-9270 Fax: (310) 943-1455 Email: rtauler@taulersmith.com The Defendant is represented by: Amy P. Lally, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars 17th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 595-9662 Fax: (310) 595-9501 Email: alally@sidley.com - and - Marissa X. Mejia Hernandez, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Phone: (213) 896-6130 Fax: (213) 896-6600 Email: marissa.hernandez@sidley.com STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Bernard Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Status -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARIEL BERNARD, DEAN J. SCHEMANSKI, THOM M. GRAY, JALONNE RICE, MANUEL ACEVEDO, AHMED ADAM, MARK S. DELMEDICO, ROGER TADJBAKHSH, ROSA VALERY, IBRAHIM ELSALAMONI, JOHN M. FINK, JODIE HOLMES, DONALD NG, BARBARA SELIG, EKOVI AMENOUNVE, NADEEM WAQAR, and IPUOLE OGAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Strategic Delivery Solutions, LLC Case No. 1:22-cv-07396-CPO-MJS (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for conditional certification. The Plaintiff seeks leave to send the notice and consent form by First Class Mail, email and text message to: "all individuals who have worked as delivery drivers for SDS during the past three years (excluding New York and New Jersey drivers), and who were classified as independent contractors. Utilizing electronic means and USPS to notify potential opt-in plaintiffs allows the Court to provide more 'accurate and timely notice concerning the pendency of the collective action,' to which 'the court has a managerial responsibility to oversee the joinder of additional parties to assure that the task is accomplished in an efficient and proper way.'" To that end, the Plaintiff requests that the Court order the Defendant to produce the names, last known mailing and email addresses, and telephone numbers for all collective members. Courts granting conditional certification routinely order defendants to produce this information to facilitate notice to collective action members. The Plaintiffs bring this case as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), on behalf of themselves and all other pharmaceutical delivery drivers who were classified as independent contractors by the Defendant Strategic Delivery Solutions, LLC. Strategic Delivery is a transportation, truck transportation, and freight & logistics services company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Q4jm7F at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Zachary L. Rubin, Esq. Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Matthew W. Thomson, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: zrubin@llrlaw.com hlichten@llrlaw.com mthomson@llrlaw.com - and - W. Jeffrey Vollmer, Esq. GOODWIN & GOODWIN, LLP 300 Summers Street, Suite 1500 Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 346-7000 E-mail: wjv@goodwingoodwin.com TRACFONE WIRELESS: Esparza Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Miguel Esparza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tracfone Wireless, Inc. doing business as: www.straighttalk.com, Case No. 23STCV10908 was removed from the Superior Court - Los Angeles County, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 13, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04863-SSS-KK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. TracFone Wireless, Inc. -- https://www.tracfone.com/home -- is an American prepaid, no-contract mobile phone provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC 4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Sheri Bo Pan, Esq. ZWILLGEN PLLC 183 Madison Avenue Suite 1504 New York, NY 10016 Phone: (646) 362-5590 Email: sheri@zwillgen.com TRANS UNION: Stipulation on Class Discovery Approved in Johnson --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONALD JOHNSON, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00546-DJH-CHL (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge David J. Hale entered an order approving joint stipulation regarding discovery and remaining case deadlines: -- All discovery and remaining case deadlines are stayed pending ruling on class-certification in a ruling on a motion for class- certification in Jordan Coffey v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-00271 (E.D. KY). -- Further, the parties shall promptly notify the Court of any relevant ruling in the above-referenced case. Trans Union operates as global information and insights company. The Company offers various credit monitoring, and risk management. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NYIL06 at no extra charge.[CC] TUSIMPLE HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Suit over IPO in CA Court -------------------------------------------------------------- TuSimple Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 17, 2023, that on August 31, 2022, a securities class action complaint was filed, in the United States District court for the Southern District of California, against the company and certain of its current and former directors and officers (Xiaodi Hou, Mo Chen, Cheng Lu, Patrick Dillon, and James Mullen), and the underwriters who underwrote its IPO, on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who acquired its securities from April 15, 2021, through August 1, 2022. Case is captioned "Dicker v. TuSimple Holdings, Inc. et al.," 3:22-cv-01300-JES-MSB (S. D. Cal.). Said complaint alleges, among other things, that the company and certain of its current and former directors and officers violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making materially false or misleading statements or failing to disclose the information it was required to disclose, regarding the company's autonomous driving technology. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees. TuSimple Holdings Inc. is an autonomous technology company based in California. TUSIMPLE HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Links to CN Company ------------------------------------------------------------------ TuSimple Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 17, 2023, that on November 10, 2022, a securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District court for the Southern District of New York against the company and certain of its current and former directors, officers (Xiaodi Hou, Mo Chen, Cheng Lu, Eric Tapia, Patrick Dillon, and James Mullen), and the underwriters who underwrote its IPO, on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who acquired its securities from April 15, 2021 through October 31, 2022. The complaint in the November 2022 Action alleges, among other things, that the company and certain of its current and former directors and officers violated Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making false or misleading statements, or failing to disclose information it was required to disclose, regarding the company's related party transaction with China-backed Hydron Inc. and the company's sharing of confidential information and proprietary technology with Hydron without approval from the company's Board. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees. The November 2022 Action has since been transferred to the Southern District of California. Woldanski v. TuSimple Holdings, Inc., et al., 3:23-cv-00282-JES-MSB (S. D. Cal.). On May 3, 2023, the company made a motion to consolidate the August 2022 Action and the November 2022 Action. That motion remains pending. TuSimple Holdings Inc. is an autonomous technology company based in California. UNITED AIRLINES: Seeks to Extend Class Cert Deadlines in Sambrano ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID SAMBRANO, et al., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-01074-P (N.D. Tex.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its unopposed motion to extend the deadlines in the order regarding class certification and discovery. The Plaintiffs and United have conferred and agree on the following proposed discovery schedule. Both parties agree to abide by this schedule and to not request any further extensions on class certification discovery. -- Class certification discovery shall be Oct. 6, 2023 completed on or before: -- Both parties will issue their final Aug. 31, 2023 document productions no later than: -- Both parties will continue to make rolling productions throughout the discovery period to avoid a large dump of materials at the end of the process. Specifically, both parties will endeavor to release productions on, or about, Aug. 1, 2023, Aug. 15, 2023, and Aug. 31, 2023. -- All depositions will occur after: Aug. 31, 2023 -- The Plaintiffs opening brief in support Nov. 6, 2023 of class certification shall be filed on or before: -- United's brief in opposition to Dec. 4, 2023 class certification shall be filed on or before: -- The Plaintiffs' reply brief in support Dec. 18, 2023 of class certification shall be filed on or before: United Airlines provides commercial airline services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43CyWdU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Sullivan, Esq. Austin R. Nimocks, Esq. SL LAW, PLLC 610 Uptown Blvd., Ste. 2000 Cedar Hill, TX 75104 E-mail: john.sullivan@the-sl-lawfirm.com austin.nimocks@the-sl-lawfirm.com - and - Mark R. Paoletta, Esq. Gene C. Schaerr, Esq. Brian J. Field, Esq. Cristina Martinez Squiers, Esq. Kenneth A. Klukowski, Esq. Joshua J. Prince, Esq. Annika M. Barkdull, Esq. SCHAERR JAFFE, LLP 1717 K Street NW, Ste. 900 Washington, D.C. 20006 E-mail: mpaoletta@schaerr-jaffe.com gschaerr@schaerr-jaffe.com bfield@schaerr-jaffe.com csquiers@schaerr-jaffe.com kklukowski@schaerr-jaffe.com jprince@schaerr-jaffe.com abarkdull@schaerr-jaffe.com The Defendant is represented by: Russell D. Cawyer, Esq. Taylor J. Winn, Esq. KELLY HART & HALLMAN LLP 201 Main Street, Suite 2500 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 878-3562 Facsimile: (817) 335-2820 E-mail: russell.cawyer@kellyhart.com taylor.winn@kellyhart.com - and - Donald J. Munro, Esq. Jordan M. Matthews, Esq. JONES DAY 51 Louisiana Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20001 Telephone: (202) 879-3939 Facsimile: (202) 626-1700 E-mail: dmunro@jonesday.com jmatthews@jonesday.com UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Ruling on Bid to Seal Docs Entered in Desert --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DESERT COVE RECOVERY, LLC, et al., v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Case No. 4:19-cv-05721-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey S. White entered an order regarding the Plaintiffs' administrative motions to seal. The Court orders the parties to meet and confer and to e-file a joint proposed order covering all documents, or portions thereof, of the documents the Plaintiffs have filed that should be sealed. The parties also shall email a Microsoft word version of the Order to JSWPO@cand.uscourts.gov. For depositions that the Plaintiffs filed in their entirety, the Court will grant the motion to maintain the entire deposition under seal. However, the Court will require the Plaintiffs file as a supplemental submission only those excerpts of the depositions on which they have relied in their for class certification and their reply. If any of the excerpts on which the Plaintiffs have relied can be filed in the public record, the Plaintiffs shall file the excerpts publicly. Going forward, the parties shall not file complete deposition transcripts unless they rely on the entire deposition to support a motion. United Behavioral was founded in 1996. The Company's line of business includes providing management services on a contract and fee basis. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OlvHmI at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Settles Class Suit Over Bias Against Minorities -------------------------------------------------------------- Shweta Watwe of Bloomberg Law reports that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and two employees settled a lawsuit alleging the agency discriminated against female and minority workers. According to a joint status report filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on July 19, 2023, the parties have reached a settlement agreement. They asked the court to stay the case until Aug. 7, when they expect to submit a preliminary agreement for court approval. The proposed class action brought by Carzanna Jones, a Black Woman, and Heynard L. Paz-Chow, a Hispanic and Asian man, alleged the agency paid women and minorities less and gave them worse. [GN] UNITEDLEX CORPORATION: Behrendt Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Adam Behrendt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. UnitedLex Corporation, Case No. 2023-017569-CA-01 was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on July 13, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-22615-CMA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit. UnitedLex -- https://unitedlex.com/ -- is a global leader in providing technology powered legal and business solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryce B Bell, Esq. Jenilee V. Zentrich, Esq. BELL LAW, LLC 2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 580 Kansas City, MO 64108 Phone: (816) 886-8206 Fax: (816) 817-8500 Email: bryce@belllawkc.com jz@belllawkc.com The Defendant is represented by: Kathryn S. Rickley, Esq. Mitchell E. Wood, Esq. HALBROOK WOOD, PC 3500 W. 75th, Ste. 300 Prairie Village, KS 66208 Phone: (913) 667-9243 Email: krickley@halbrookwoodlaw.com mwood@halbrookwoodlaw.com VISTA OUTDOOR: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vista Outdoor, Inc. The case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Vista Outdoor, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-05213-AT (S.D.N.Y., June 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Vista Outdoor Inc. -- http://vistaoutdoor.com/-- is an American designer, manufacturer, and marketer of outdoor sports and recreation products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ara Vahe Naljian, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 584-5575 Email: analjian@steinsakslegal.com WALMART INC: Morales Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Stephanie Morales, Natalia La Rosa, Phoebe Caneda, Keya Johnigan, Brianna McKay, Emily Depol, Amie Adair, on behalf Prushti Dave, Nichelle White, Arlene Bergum, of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Walmart Inc., Abbott Laboratories, SPD Swiss Precision Diagnostics GmBH, Church & Dwight Co. Inc., Target Corporation, Walgreen Co., Alere, CVS Pharmacy Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00765 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on June 20, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-04917-NRM-JRC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability for Fraud. Walmart Inc. -- https://corporate.walmart.com/ -- is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores in the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Natalie S. Pang, Esq. Jonathan M. Rotter, Esq. Natalie Pang, Esq. Peter A. Binkow, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park E., Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 Fax: (310) 201-9160 Email: npang@glancylaw.com jrotter@glancylaw.com npang@glancylaw.com pbinkow@glancylaw.com - and - Brent S. Colasurdo, Esq. Mark A. Finkelstein, Esq. Molly Magnuson, Esq. UMBERG ZIPSER LLP 1920 Main Street, Ste. 750 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (949) 679-0052 Email: bcolasurdo@umbergzipser.com mfinkelstein@umbergzipser.com mmagnuson@umbergzipser.com - and - Daniella Quitt, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10151 Phone: (212) 935-7400 Email: dquitt@glancylaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Joshua A. Kipnees, Esq. William F. Cavanaugh, Esq. Rhick Bose, Esq. PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 336-2000 Fax: (212) 336-2222 Email: jkipnees@pbwt.com wfcavanaugh@pbwt.com rbose@pbwt.com - and - Eileen Miriam Patt, Esq. Norman Christopher Simon, Esq. Ryan Gander, Esq. KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL 1177 Avenue Of The Americas New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 715-9100 Fax: (212) 715-8000 Email: epatt@kramerlevin.com nsimon@kramerlevin.com rgander@kramerlevin.com - and - Baldassare Vinti, Esq. Jeffrey Hart Warshafsky, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 11 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 969-3249 Fax: (212) 969-2900 Email: bvinti@proskauer.com jwarshafsky@proskauer.com - and - Qian Jennifer Yang, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP Eleven Times Square New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 969-3394 Email: jyang@proskauer.com - and - Evan M. Mandel, Esq. Robert Allen Glunt, Esq. MANDEL BHANDARI LLP 80 Pine Street, 33rd Floor New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 269-5600 Fax: (212) 336-2222 Email: em@mandelbhandari.com glunt@mandelbhandari.com - and - Pamela Lauren Schoenberg, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 599 Lexington Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 521-5400 Fax: (212) 521-5450 Email: pschoenberg@reedsmith.com WALT DISNEY: Nielsen Seeks Leave to File Documents Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENALE NIELSEN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., Inc., a Florida Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 8:21-cv-02055-DOC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff applies for leave to file under seal an unredacted version of her Reply Memorandum In Support Of the Plaintiff's Motion For Class Certification. She also seeks to file under seal an unredacted version of the Supplemental Declaration of Nickolas J. Hagman In Support Of the Plaintiff’s Motion For Class Certification, along with certain exhibits. The Plaintiff makes this application because the certain of the materials which she seeks to file under seal were marked by the Defendant Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. as "confidential" and/or "highly confidential" pursuant to the protective order in this case. Walt Disney was founded in 1964. The Company's line of business includes the operating of amusement parks and kids parks. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OkchOb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel J. Muller, Esq. Anthony F. Ventura, Esq. VENTURA HERSEY & MULLER, LLP 1506 Hamilton Avenue San Jose, CA 95125 Telephone: (408) 512-3022 Facsimile: (408) 512-3023 - and - Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 S. LaSalle St., Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 Facsimile: (312) 782-4485 E-mail: nhagman@caffertyclobes.com WAYFAIR LLC: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wayfair LLC. The case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Wayfair LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-05149-PGG-JLC (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Wayfair Inc. -- http://www.wayfair.com/-- is an American e-commerce company based in Boston, Massachusetts that sells furniture and home goods online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com WHITESTONE HOME FURNISHINGS: Robertson Files Suit in W.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Whitestone Home Furnishings, LLC. The case is styled as Ginger Robertson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Whitestone Home Furnishings, LLC doing business as: Saatva, Case No. 6:23-cv-03184-MDH (W.D. Mo., June 21, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor. Whitestone Home Furnishings, LLC doing business as Saatva -- https://www.saatva.com/ -- is an American privately held e-commerce company that specializes in luxury mattresse .[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Ave New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7127 Fax: (212) 989-9163 Email: ykopel@bursor.com WILCO LIFE: Hearing on Summary Judgment Bid Continued to August 11 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE GRUNDSTROM, Individually, and as successor-in-interest to DR. RICHARD I. APPLETON and on Behalf of the Class, v. WILCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Indiana Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-03445-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maxine C. Chesney entered an order that: -- The hearing on the Defendant's motion for summary judgment is continued to August 11, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. -- The plaintiff's opposition to motion for summary judgment is due July 20, 2023. -- The defendants reply to motion for summary judgment is due August 3, 2023. The Court hereby defers ruling on plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, and the hearing on the motion, presently scheduled for July 28, 2023, will be reset, as appropriate, upon resolution of the Defendant's motion for Summary Judgment. Wilco Life operates as an insurance company. The Company provides life, accident, and health insurance services to individuals. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XXqWD8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack B. Winters, Esq. Sarah Ball, Esq. WINTERS & ASSOCIATES 8489 La Mesa Blvd. La Mesa, CA 91942 Telephone: (619) 234-9000 Facsimile: (619) 750-0413 E-mail: jackbwinters@earthlink.com sball@einsurelaw.com - and - Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Alex Tomasevic, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org The Defendant is represented by: Ophir Johna, Esq. Michael D. Mulvaney, Esq. Edward M. Holt, Esq. John A. Little, Jr., Esq. MAYNARD NEXSEN LLP 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 596-4500 E-mail: ojohna@maynardnexsen.com mmulvaney@maynardnexsen.com tholt@maynardnexsen.com jlittle@maynardnexsen.com YOSHIDA & GARCIA: Reneau FDCPA Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Sunfa Reneau, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Yoshida & Garcia, Inc., Long Beach Memorial Medical Center, Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV21762 was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 17, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-05762 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Yoshida & Garcia, Inc. -- https://yoshidalaw.com/ -- offers hospitals and healthcare providers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com The Defendant is represented by: Emma Eisman Soldon, Esq. FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP 555 California Street, Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 438-6432 Fax: (415) 434-4507 Email: esoldon@foley.com - and - Nicholas Martin Gross, Esq. FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP 555 South Flower Street Suite 33 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 972-4500 Fax: (213) 486-0065 Email: ngross@foley.com ZILLOW GROUP: Filing for Class Certification Bids Due May 9, 2024 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMY JAEGER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC., et al. Case No. 2:21-cv-01551-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the Court entered a class certification order as follows: Jury Trial Date: June 2, 2025 Length of Trial: 10 days Substantial Completion of Rolling Jan. 29, 2024 Production of Non-Privileged Documents: Final Privilege Log Production: Feb. 12, 2024 Discovery on class certification Mar. 11, 2024 issues completed by: Any motions related to class May 9, 2024 certification must be filed by: Any responses to motions for class May 31, 2024 certification filed by: Any replies in support of motions for June 14, 2024 class certification filed by: Initial Mediation Session on or before: May 31, 2024 Deadline for joining additional parties: May 9, 2024 Any motions for leave to amend pleadings July 5, 2024 filed by: Disclosure of expert testimony under July 23, 2024 FRCP 26(a)(2): All motions related to discovery must Sept. 26, 2024 be filed by: All remaining discovery completed by Oct. 24, 2024 Pretrial conference to be held at May 23, 2025 10:00 a.m. on: Zillow is a tech real-estate marketplace company. The Company provides information about homes, real estate listings, and mortgages. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3K7zSQB 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 ***