/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230802.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, August 2, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 154
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Martel Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Shepard Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Sherbert Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
3M COMPANY: Sowa Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Vaughn Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
AMAZON CANADA: Averts Delivery Drivers' Class Action
ARCHDIOCESE OF MONTREAL: Judge Inks Sex Abuse Suit Settlement
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Iced Tea's Lite Label "Deceptive," Miller Says
ARKANSAS: Jointer Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Police Officers
B E F RESTAURANTE: Fails to Properly Pay Cooks, Rojas Suit Claims
BRYAN COWDERY: Loses Bid to Decertify McElwee Collective Action
CALIFORNIA: Parties Seeks to File Chart Under Seal
CAMPBELL: Court Tosses Bid to Certify Harrison Class Action
CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Order on Class Status Bids Entered in Verdugo
CHANCELLOR SENIOR: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss Reuschel Class Suit
CLEVELAND-CLIFFS STEEL: Suit Seeks Extension for Class Cert Filing
CONTACTUS LLC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Nov. 6
COOKIE CREWS: Court Denies Cambron Bid for Class Certification
DANAHER CORPORATION: Hawkins Sues Over 8.79% Drop of Stock Price
DAVE'S KILER: Sued Over Mislabeling of Products' Protein Content
DIRECT LOGISTIC: Mendoza Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Drivers
DOLGEN MIDWEST: Husar Seeks Sept. 8 Extension to File Class Cert.
FORT BELVOIR: Seeks to Strike Plaintiffs' Declarations
FRANK STRADA: Court Tosses Hart Bid for Class Certification
FROEDTERT HOSPITAL: Settles Privacy Class Action for $2MM
GENERAL MOTORS: Parties File Class Cert Briefing Schedule
GEO GROUP: Gomez Class Suit Stayed Pending Nwauzor Proceedings
GETTY IMAGES: Remote Workers Sue Over Unreimbursed Expenses
GILEAD SCIENCES: Searcy Bid to File Docs Under Seal Initially OK'd
GREAT STAR: Gair Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply
HARVARD COLLEGE: Faces Johnson Suit Over Anatomical Gift Program
HARVARD PILGRIM: Lamonica Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Anglin Sues Over Hyundai Palisades' Steering Defects
ILLUSORY SYSTEMS: Seeks Dismissal of Hacking Class Action Suit
IMAGINE360 ADMINISTRATORS: Sued Over February 2023 Cyberattack
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Summary Judgment Hearing Set for Sept.7
JOHNS HOPKINS: Faces Class Action Over May Cyberattack
LITTLE SCHOLARS: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Villa
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
MASTEC SERVICES: Perez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MDL 2966: Court Partly OK's Sealing Bids Relating to Class Cert.
MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION: Duane Morris Attorneys Discuss Ruling
METLIFE INC: Averts Class Action Over $65MM Drug Rebates
MGM RESORTS: Gibson Bid to Appoint Interim Class Counsel Nixed
MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC: Loses Bid to Strike Confer Class Allegations
MY SWEET MUFFIN: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NAIVE MELODY: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Central American Files Suit in E.D. New York
NATIONAL RAILROAD: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Yates
NATIONSBENEFITS LLC: Lizotte Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Data
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Lemus Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
NATURE BACKS CLOTHING: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NCSPLUS INCORPORATED: Gentile Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
NESTLE USA: Must Face False Advertising Class Action
NEW SOUTH WALES: Liable for Financial Losses Over Light Rail Delays
NEW YORK, NY: Agreement in Students With Disabilities Suit Tackled
NEW YORK, NY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Charles Alleges
NEW YORK, NY: Settles Civil Rights Class Action for $13MM
NINA FOOTWEAR CORP: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NORTH PARK: Murphy Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
NUTRACEUTICAL WELLNESS: Malich Sues Over Nutrafol's Deceptive Ads
O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES: Perez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
O'REILLY AUTO: VVanti Bid for Class Status Partly OK'd
OPENAI INC: Frankfurt Kurnit Attorney Discusses BIPA Class Action
OSKA SHOP NEW YORK: Hussein Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois
OTO DEVELOPMENT: Lockett Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
PLURALSIGHT INC: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Deadlines
PORSCHE CARS: Abel Sues Over Overcharges for Cars
PROFESSIONAL FIDUCIARY: Parties Seek to Reset Class Cert Briefing
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Pulignani Sues Over Access of Personal Info
PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Kroeger Allowed to File Docs Under Seal
PYRAMID LQR: Chan Suit Removed to C.D. California
RAINBOW ROADSIDE: Fox FLSA Suit Transferred to E.D. North Carolina
ROB'S BACKSTAGE: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RUSSELL FEED INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RYANAIR HOLDINGS: Final Settlement Deal in Class Suit for Court OK
SAMSUNG DISPLAY: Heckerman Suit Challenges eMagin Merger Deal
SECURLY INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Bate Suit Claims
SELENE FINANCE: Diaz Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
SHARECARE HEALTH: Crosley Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
SIX FLAGS: Mack Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Court Modifies Amended Case Management Order
SMITHFIELD FOODS: Court OK'd Bid to FIle Sur-Reply
SOUTH UNIVERSITY SAVANNAH: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
STEPHENS INSTITUTE: Ibarra Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SUNSWEET GROWERS: Hinojosa Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
TDBBS LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TESLA INC: Class Suit Over Misrepresentation Ongoing in California
TESTIMONIAL COMMUNITY LOVE: Propps Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TEXAS HEALTH: Seeks More Time to File Response on Notice
THUNDER BAY: Must Face Class Action Over Water Pipe Pinhole Leaks
TMX FINANCE: Court Stays All Deadlines in Berry Suit Until August 8
TMX FINANCE: Court Stays All Deadlines in Carder Until August 8
TMX FINANCE: Court Stays Deadlines in Scheide Suit Until August 8
TMX FINANCE: Court Stays Deadlines in Trottier Suit Until August 8
TMX FINANCE: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert. Bid
UNION CARBIDE: Files Opposition on Bid to Certify Class
UNITED AIRLINES: Class Certification Discovery Due Oct. 6
UNITED SERVICES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 21, 2024
UNITED STATES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Charles Suit Alleges
UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC: Clemensen Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC: Faces Athletic Aid Discrimination Suit
UOI GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bobadilla Alleges
UPPER DARBY TOWNSHIP, PA: Plaintiff Opposes Suit Dismissal Bid
VAIL RESORTS: Court Tosses Quint Class Certification Bid
VI.GI GOURMET: Faces Lopez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
VISION SOLAR: Averts Class Action Over Telemarketing Calls
VOLTECH ELECTRIC: Da Silva Seeks Class Status
WAKE FOREST: Suit Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement Deal
WALMART INC: Court Approves Arrison Class Status Bid
WALMART INCORPORATED: Bid for Summary Judgment Partly OK'd
WASHINGTON, DC: Parties File Bid to Stay Class Cert Briefing
WICHITA, KS: Seeks August 11 Extension to File Class Cert Response
WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Hearing on Class Cert. Extended to Sept. 13
[*] Number of Securities Class Actions Filings Up in 1st Half 2023
*********
3M COMPANY: Martel Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
Chester Martel, 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-03367-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
3M COMPANY: Shepard Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Shepard, and Arthur Shepard by the Proposed Administrator
and Next-of-Kin, Steven Shepard, 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-03364-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
Decedent in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Decedent was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Decedent's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS
from Defendant's AFFF products caused Decedent to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein
including death.
Through this action, 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 Steven Shepard is the proposed personal
representative/administrator/executor of the Estate of Arthur
Shepard who regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
leukemia cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products. Decedent's diagnosis caused and/or contributed to his
death.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Sherbert Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Joseph M. Sherbert, et al. v. 3M Company, et
al., Case No. 01-CV-2023-901993.00 was removed from the Circuit
Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama, to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama on July 14, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00912-RDP.
The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other the Defendants
liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing,
and/or selling aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and/or
firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used
in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to the
Plaintiffs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
Email: gregc@elglaw.com
gary@elglaw.com
kmckie@elglaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
M. Christian King, Esq.
Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq.
W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq.
Wesley B. Gilchrist, Esq.
LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C.
The Clark Building
400 North 20th Street
Birmingham, AL 35203-3200
Phone: (205) 581-0700
Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com
hprater@lightfootlaw.com
lradney@lightfootlaw.com
wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com
3M COMPANY: Sowa Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Grant Sowa, 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-03394-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: Vaughn Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
-----------------------------------------------
The case captioned as James Felton Vaughn, et al. v. 3M Company, et
al., Case No. 01-CV-2023-902008.00 was removed from the Circuit
Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama, to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama on July 14, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00911-JHE.
The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other the Defendants
liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing,
and/or selling aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and/or
firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used
in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to the
Plaintiffs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
Email: gregc@elglaw.com
gary@elglaw.com
kmckie@elglaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
M. Christian King, Esq.
Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq.
W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq.
Wesley B. Gilchrist, Esq.
LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C.
The Clark Building
400 North 20th Street
Birmingham, AL 35203-3200
Phone: (205) 581-0700
Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com
hprater@lightfootlaw.com
lradney@lightfootlaw.com
wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com
AMAZON CANADA: Averts Delivery Drivers' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Haddon Murray, Esq. of Gowling WLG, in an article for Mondaq,
reports that in Davis v. Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services ULC,
2023 ONSC 3655, Justice Perell of the Ontario Superior Court put an
end to a proposed class action brought on behalf of over 70,000
delivery drivers who deliver packages for Amazon in Canada.
What you need to know
In a claim against three Amazon entities, the proposed class
encompassed all delivery drivers who used an Amazon app to deliver
packages. The proposed class included independent contractor
drivers that contracted directly with Amazon, and drivers that were
employed by or contracted with third-party delivery companies, who
in turn contracted with Amazon.
The court enforced all the arbitration agreements class members
entered into, rejecting the Plaintiff's argument that arbitration
agreements in contracts of adhesion are inherently unconscionable
for employees or independent contractors. This decision signals
that Canadian courts continue to follow the Supreme Court's general
favourability to arbitration as a form of dispute resolution.
For the class members without arbitration agreements -- who were
all drivers employed by or contracted with third-party delivery
companies -- the court dismissed the certification motion. These
class members alleged that Amazon was a "common employer" with the
third-party delivery companies. The court found Amazon could not be
a common employer with the delivery companies because they were not
engaged in a common enterprise.
Background
In a proposed class action brought on behalf of approximately
73,000 delivery drivers, Amazon was successful in convincing the
Ontario Superior Court to: (i) stay the claims of all class members
who had entered into an arbitration agreements and (ii) deny
certification for the remaining class members.
The Plaintiff sought to certify a class consisting of drivers who
worked for 126 different delivery companies that provide delivery
services to Amazon, and in some cases other clients, alleging that
Amazon was a "common employer" of the drivers with the delivery
company. The Plaintiff also sought to include in the class
independent contractor drivers who contract directly with Amazon,
alleging that that these individuals had been misclassified and
ought to be classified as Amazon employees.
Stay in favour of arbitration
Justice Perell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted
Amazon's motion to stay the action for all drivers who entered into
arbitration agreements with Amazon or with their delivery company
employers. In doing so, Justice Perell rejected the Plaintiff's
arguments that the arbitration agreements were unconscionable or
contrary to public policy for allegedly contracting out of the
employment law statutes and for including a class action waiver. As
a result, the action for these drivers was stayed in favour of
arbitration.
Certification motion dismissed
With respect to the drivers whose claims were not stayed, all of
whom were employed by or contracted with delivery companies,
Justice Perell held that the Plaintiff failed to satisfy the cause
of action, common issues, and preferable procedure criteria
required for class certification. On the cause of action criterion,
Justice Perell held that the Plaintiff's common employer claim was
"doomed to failure" because, based on the facts pled, Amazon and
the 126 delivery companies were not operating together as one
seamless business, nor could an intention be inferred for Amazon to
be a common employer with the 126 delivery companies, who had not
been joined to the action. Justice Perell likewise rejected the
Plaintiff's causes of action for unjust enrichment, negligence, and
breach of the duty of good faith.
While the failure of the cause of action criterion alone was fatal
to the Plaintiff's motion, Justice Perell also held that the
Plaintiff failed to meet the common issues and preferable procedure
requirements. Justice Perell accepted Amazon's argument that the
question of whether Amazon was a common employer could not be
decided uniformly for the drivers due to the significant
idiosyncrasies between the delivery companies. With respect to the
preferable procedure criterion, Justice Perell held that the action
on behalf of drivers is "unmanageable," with or without the 126
delivery companies being joined, that the proposed action was
really "126 discrete proposed class actions that have been joined
together," and that the resolution of one class members' claim
would not be determinative for class members employed by a
different company. Finally, even if the proposed class action were
certifiable, Justice Perell would not have certified aggregate
damages as a common issue, because liability could not be
determined in common, and there was no viable method to quantify
aggregate damages. [GN]
ARCHDIOCESE OF MONTREAL: Judge Inks Sex Abuse Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a Quebec Superior Court judge has
signed off on a sex abuse class-action settlement involving the
Montreal archdiocese.
The agreement, announced earlier this year, includes a minimum
$14.8 million in compensation for victims of sexual abuse committed
by diocesan priests and lay employees of the archdiocese since
1940.
The lead plaintiff in the class action was a victim of Brian
Boucher, a since-defrocked priest who was convicted of sexually
abusing two boys under his supervision and sentenced in 2019 to
eight years in prison.
Montreal law firm Arsenault Dufresne Wee said on July 19 nearly 80
victims are part of the class action it filed in April 2019, which
was authorized by the court in 2021.
A settlement was reached this year and Justice Donald Bisson signed
off on it earlier this month, describing the agreement as fair and
reasonable.
Each victim will be compensated between $96,000 and $160,000, and
receive an apology letter from Archbishop Christian Lépine.
The case marks the first time a diocese in Quebec has settled a
class action. The court says victims have until Oct. 22 to register
to be part of the settlement. The Montreal archdiocese has
jurisdiction over an area that includes the Island of Montreal,
Laval, Que., and Repentigny, Que. [GN]
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Iced Tea's Lite Label "Deceptive," Miller Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARIZONA BEVERAGES USA LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 4:23-cv-03540 (N.D. Cal., July 17, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, and
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and for unjust
enrichment and breaches of express warranty and implied warranty of
merchantability/fitness for a particular purpose.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of a combination of
iced tea and lemonade, known as an Arnold Palmer. The product's
front label statements include "Half & Half," "Iced Tea Lemonade"
"Arnold Palmer" and "Lite." The product's representation as "Lite"
is misleading because it does not conspicuously identify any other
food and it is not low in calories. As a result of the false and
misleading representations, the product is sold at a premium
price.
Arizona Beverages USA LLC is a beverage manufacturing company, with
a principal place of business in Woodbury, New York, Nassau County.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kyle Gurwell, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KYLE GURWELL
7755 Center Ave., Ste. 1100
Huntington Beach CA 92647
Telephone: (714) 372-2245
E-mail: kng@lawofficekg.com
- and -
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 412
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
ARKANSAS: Jointer Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Police Officers
----------------------------------------------------------------
DERRICK JOINTER and ADRIAN SMITH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RODNEY PERRY, individually
and in his official capacity as chief of police for Marianna Police
Department; ORA STEVENS, individually and in her official capacity
as mayor of the city of Marianna, Arkansas; the City of Marianna,
Arkansas, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00151-BSM (E.D. Ark., July
17, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed as police officers at the Marianna
Police Department in Arkansas.
The City of Marianna is a municipal government in Arkansas. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Russell A. Wood, Esq.
Paul A. Prater, Esq.
WOOD LAW FIRM, P.A.
501 East 4th Street, Suite 4
Russellville, AR 72801
Telephone: (479) 967-9663
Facsimile: (479) 967-9664
E-mail: RWood@WoodLawFirmPA.com
Paul@WoodLawFirmPA.com
B E F RESTAURANTE: Fails to Properly Pay Cooks, Rojas Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDUARDO ROJAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. B E F RESTAURANTE INC. d/b/a CASA D'ANGELO;
IYAD KHALED HAMSHO, FARHOD GADAYBEAU, and BRUNO BRANCELEONE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06160 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law including
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours
wages, failure to provide payroll notices, failure to provide wage
statements, and failure to timely pay wages.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a cook from September 5,
2022 until February 18, 2023.
B E F Restaurante Inc. is an owner and operator of an Italian
restaurant under the name Casa D'Angelo, with its principal place
of business located at 146 Mulberry Street, New York, New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Sackowitz, Esq.
KATZ MELINGER PLLC
370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 460-0047
Facsimile: (212) 428-6811
E-mail: ajsackowitz@katzmelinger.com
BRYAN COWDERY: Loses Bid to Decertify McElwee Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA MCELWEE, et al., v.
BRYAN COWDERY, INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01265-SDM-KAJ (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Sarah D. Morrison entered a Court ruling as
follows on the pending motions:
-- The Plaintiffs' motion to strike is granted as to the GPS
evidence submitted for the first time in the Defendants' reply
brief and is denied as to the Defendants' reply arguments
regarding their use of GPS data.
-- The Defendants' motion to strike the Plaintiffs' Summary
Judgment
Sample evidence is denied as moot.
-- Summary judgment is denied to both parties on Counts I and II
and
is granted in favor of the Defendants on Count III, IV, and
V.
-- The Plaintiffs' class allegations on Count II are struck.
-- The Defendants' motion to "decertify" the Plaintiffs'
collective
action is denied.
The Defendants argue that collective litigation is inefficient
because each plaintiff is subject to individualized defenses. But
here, the Defendants raise the same defense against everyone—that
all recorded time was changed to accurately reflect time actually
worked. This defense does not render collective litigation
inefficient.
Amanda McElwee, Kendall Harris, and Scott Edwards are former
employees of BCI, a parcel delivery company that contracts with
FedEx and FedEx affiliates to deliver packages throughout Ohio.
They brought this suit against BCI and Bryan Cowdery primarily as a
collective action seeking recovery of unpaid overtime compensation
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA).
The Plaintiffs' FLSA collective class was "conditionally certified"
as follows:
"All current and former Delivery Drivers who, at any time during
the previous three years, drove a vehicle weighing less than
10,000
pounds during any workweek."
Bryan Cowdery is a company that operates in the Information
Technology and Services industry.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3K8sAfn at no extra charge.[CC]
CALIFORNIA: Parties Seeks to File Chart Under Seal
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: California Gasoline Spot Market
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:20-cv-03131-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the
Parties submitted to the Court amended joint administrative motion
to file under seal Chart identifying third Parties.
The parties have submitted a revised version of the Appendix of
Confidential Class Certification Materials, which they have
previously sought to file portions of under seal.
The bases for filing the Designating Party column of the Appendix
under seal remain the same as in the Joint Administrative
Motion to File Under Seal Chart Identifying Third Parties and the
parties request that the amended version of the Appendix be filed
under seal as well.
The following materials accompany this motion:
-- An unredacted version of the Amended Appendix of Confidential
Class Certification Materials; and
-- A proposed order granting the Parties request to seal the
portion
of the Amended Appendix of Confidential Class Certification
Materials that identifies third parties.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 10, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46WDX42 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
Kyle G. Bates, Esq.
Tae Kim, Esq.
Samantha Derksen, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 633-1908
Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
clebsock@hausfeld.com
kbates@hausfeld.com
tkim@hausfeld.com
sderksen@hausfeld.com
- and -
Dena C. Sharp, Esq.
Scott M. Grzenczyk, Esq.
Kyle P. Quackenbush, Esq.
Mikaela M. Bock, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com
scottg@girardsharp.com
kquackenbush@girardsharp.com
mbock@girardsharp.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael E. Martinez, Esq.
Lauren Norris Donahue, Esq.
Clifford C. Histed, Esq.
Nicole C. Mueller, Esq.
Brian J. Smith, Esq.
John E. Susoreny, Esq.
K&L GATES LLP
70 W. Madison St., Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 372-1121
Facsimile: (312) 827-800
E-mail: michael.martinez@klgates.com
lauren.donahue@klgates.com
clifford.histed@klgates.com
Nicole.mueller@klgates.com
brian.j.smith@klgates.com
john.susoreny@klgates.com
- and -
Jeffrey M. Davidson, Esq.
Phillip Warren, Esq.
Amy S. Heath, Esq.
John S. Playforth, Esq.
Carol Szurkowski Weiland, Esq.
Jeffrey Cao, Esq.
Lori Parcel Taubman, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
Salesforce Tower
415 Mission Street, Suite 5400
San Francisco, CA 94105-2533
Telephone: (415) 591-6000
Facsimile: (415) 591-6091
E-mail: jdavidson@cov.com
pwarren@cov.com
jli@cov.com
jplayforth@cov.com
cweiland@cov.com
jcao@cov.com
- and -
Neal Manne, Esq.
Alex Kaplan, Esq.
Michael Craig Kelso, Esq.
Amanda K. Bonn, Esq.
Eliza Finley, Esq.
Genevieve Vose Wallace, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
1000 Louisiana, Suite 5100
Houston, TX 77002-5096
Telephone: (713) 651-9366
Facsimile: (713) 654-6666
E-mail: nmanne@susmangodfrey.com
akaplan@susmangodfrey.com
mkelso@susmangodfrey.com
abonn@susmangodfrey.com
efinley@susmangodfrey.co
gwallace@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
John B. Quinn, Esq.
Steven G. Madison, Esq.
Shon Morgan, Esq.
Justin Griffin, Esq.
Ben Odell, Esq.
John M. Potter, Esq.
Christine W. Chen, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (213) 443-3000
Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
E-mail: johnquinn@quinnemanuel.com
stevemadison@quinnemanuel.com
shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com
justingriffin@quinnemanuel.com
benodell@quinnemanuel.com
johnpotter@quinnemanuel.com
christinechen@quinnemanuel.com
CAMPBELL: Court Tosses Bid to Certify Harrison Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAUN R. HARRISON, v.
CAMPBELL, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00832-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe entered an order denying motion to
certify class action and appoint counsel without prejudice.
The Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section
1983. The Plaintiff filed a motion to certify as a class action and
appoint counsel on May 30, 2023.
The Plaintiff's request to certify this case as a class action is
also denied. In addition, the Plaintiff is not an attorney and, for
the reasons discussed above, is proceeding without counsel.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DpNovm at no extra charge.[CC]
CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Order on Class Status Bids Entered in Verdugo
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA OTANEZ VERDUGO, v.
CAPSTONE LOGISTICS, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-03141-FMO-E (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order
regarding: motions for class certification as follows:
1. Joint Brief:
The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single,
fully
integrated joint brief covering each party's position, in
which
each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a party is immediately
followed by the opposing party's/parties' response.
2. Citation to Evidence:
All citation to evidence in the joint brief shall be directly
to
the exhibit and page number(s) of the evidentiary appendix,
or
page and line number(s) of a deposition.
3. Unnecessary Sections: The parties need not include a
"procedural
history" section, since the court will be familiar with the
procedural history.
4. Page Limitation: Each separately-represented party shall be
limited to 25 pages, exclusive of tables of contents and
authorities.
5. Schedule for Preparation and Filing of Joint Brief: The
briefing
schedule for the joint brief shall be as follows:
Capstone offers transportation management, on-site warehouse,
distribution, supply chain, inspection, pallet sorting, and freight
hauling services.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 13, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/454u6HM at no extra charge.[CC]
CHANCELLOR SENIOR: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss Reuschel Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY REUSCHEL as
Executrix of the Estate of Louise McGraw, deceased, and LORETTA
HOLCOMB as Executrix of the Estate of Charlotte Rodgers, deceased,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CHANCELLOR
SENIOR MANAGEMENT, LTD., Case No. 5:22-cv-00279 (S.D.W. Va.), the
Hon. Judge Frank W. Volk entered an order denying CSM's motion to
dismiss and motion to revise and reconsider.
The Court said, "There is lacking at this point a clear error
amounting to a manifest injustice. Accordingly, CSM's Motion to
Revise and Reconsider Judge Dimlich's March 11, 2019, Order Denying
the Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is denied. As
noted, CSM's challenge to the Plaintiffs' early request for civil
penalties is now moot. But CSM persists in its claim the
Plaintiffs' request for both compensatory damages and restitution
are duplicative, thus necessitating dismissal of the Plaintiffs'
restitution request."
On October 25, 2016, the Plaintiffs, acting as executrices of their
decedent mothers' estates, instituted this action on behalf of
their decedents, Louise McGraw and Charlotte Rodgers, and others
similar situated in the Circuit Court of Raleigh County.
On July 7, 2022, following extensive litigation in state court, CSM
removed. It asserts the jurisdictional amount exceeds the $5
million threshold prescribed by the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005.
The Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint alleges CSM
owns, operates, controls, and manages four senior assisted living
facilities in West Virginia, namely, (1) the Greystone Senior
Living Community of Beckley, (2) the Wyngate Senior Living
Community of Parkersburg, (3) the Wyngate Senior Living Community
of Barboursville, and (4) the Wyngate Senior Living Community of
Weirton.
Chancellor Senior is a company that develops, owns, and operates
properties that provide seniors with housing and health care
options.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44Tardr at no extra charge.[CC]
CLEVELAND-CLIFFS STEEL: Suit Seeks Extension for Class Cert Filing
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOUIS CROCKER, DANIELLE
AND JASON CHARLES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. CLEVELAND-CLIFFS STEEL CORP. (d/b/a AK STEEL DEARBORN
WORKS), Case No. 4:21-cv-11937-SDK-CI (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time not
to exceed 7 days from the entry of an order granting this motion
for the Plaintiffs to file their Motion for Class Certification
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1)(b).
On April 3, 2023, the Parties submitted a Stipulated Order
Extending Discovery Deadlines designating June 30, 2023, as the
deadline for completing all discovery on class certification
issues.
In that stipulated order, the Parties stated that the extensions to
the class certification discovery deadlines would "not affect the
Plaintiffs' deadline to move for class certification (i.e. July 3,
2023)."
The Plaintiffs did not file their motion for class certification on
July 3 as required by the scheduling order due to inadvertent and
excusable error.
Cleveland-Cliffs is a flat-rolled steel producer and supplier of
iron ore pellets serving various industries, mainly automotive.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 10, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DkZS7v at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
D. Reed Solt, Esq.
Laura L. Sheets, Esq.
LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON, PC
975 E. Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48207-3101
Telephone: (313) 392-0015
Facsimile: (313) 392-0025
E-mail: lsheets@lsccounsel.com
rsolt@lsccounsel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
D. Lange, Esq.
Vincent Atriano, Esq.
Danelle M. Gagliardi, Esq.
SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
4900 Key Tower, 127 Public Square
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 479-0840
E-mail: erik.lange@squirepb.com
vincent.atriano@squirepb.com
Danelle.gagliardi@squirepb.com
CONTACTUS LLC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Nov. 6
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pyfrom v. ContactUS, LLC,
et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-04293 (S.D. Ohio, Filed Aug. 31, 2021),
the Hon. Judge Chelsey M. Vascura entered an order granting in part
motion to stay.
-- Class Certification Motion is due by: Nov. 6, 2023
-- Discovery due by: Nov. 6, 2023
-- Dispositive motions due by: Dec. 4, 2023.
The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC]
COOKIE CREWS: Court Denies Cambron Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH CAMBRON, v. COOKIE
CREWS, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00002-JHM (W.D. Ky.), the Hon.
Judge Joseph H. McKinley Jr. entered an order denying the motion
for class Certification.
The Court further entered an ordered that the motion for
appointment of counsel is denied. This ruling does not prevent the
Plaintiff from requesting the appointment of counsel at a future
point in this action should circumstances arise to warrant such a
request.
The Court finds that the complexity of the issues in this case does
not necessitate the appointment of counsel and a review of the
documents filed by the Plaintiff in this case reveals that he is
sufficiently articulate and able to present his case to the Court.
Moreover, the Plaintiff does not show how his circumstances are
different than other incarcerated plaintiffs.
The Court finds that the Plaintiff has not set forth any
exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel at this
time.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/451bLv7 at no extra charge.[CC]
DANAHER CORPORATION: Hawkins Sues Over 8.79% Drop of Stock Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRENDA HAWKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DANAHER CORPORATION, RAINER M. BLAIR, and
MATT MCGREW, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02055 (D.D.C., July 17,
2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding Danaher's business, operations,
and prospects in order to trade Danaher securities at artificially
inflated prices between April 21, 2022, and April 24, 2023.
Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) as the
severity of the COVID-19 pandemic subsided, revenue growth
associated with Danaher's COVID-19-related businesses was
declining; (ii) contrary to the company's prior representations to
investors, revenues associated with Danaher's non-COVID-19-related
businesses were insufficient to compensate for the foregoing
negative trend; (iii) accordingly, Danaher overstated the company's
ability to sustain the growth it had experienced in 2020 and 2021;
(iv) as a result, it was unlikely that Danaher would be able to
meet its 2023 revenue forecasts; and (v) as a result, the
Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.
When the truth emerged, Danaher's stock price fell $22.36 per
share, or 8.79 percent, to close at $231.99 per share on April 25,
2023, the suit says.
Danaher Corporation is a manufacturer of professional, medical,
industrial, and commercial products and services, with principal
executive offices located at 2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite
800W, Washington, DC. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
Jan E. Messerschmidt, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: dsommers@cohenmilstein.com
jmesserschmidt@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
DAVE'S KILER: Sued Over Mislabeling of Products' Protein Content
----------------------------------------------------------------
The report says that anyone who purchased certain Dave's Killer
Bread products in Illinois since June 2021
What's Going On?
Attorneys working with ClassAction.org have reason to believe that
some varieties of Dave's Killer Bread may not contain as much
digestible protein as indicated on product labels. They're now
looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed on behalf
of customers over the company's potential mislabeling of its
products' protein content.
Which Products Are Under Investigation?
Dave's Killer Bread Sprouted Whole Grain 21 oz; Dave's Killer Bread
Powerseed 25.5 oz; Dave's Killer Bread 21 Whole Grains 27.2 oz; and
Dave's Killer Bread Good Seed 27.2 oz
How Could a Lawsuit Help?
A lawsuit could help customers get back some of the money they
spent on the bread and potentially force the manufacturer to change
how it makes or labels its products.
Attorneys working with ClassAction.org want to hear from people who
purchased any of the following Dave's Killer Bread products in
Illinois within the past several years:
Dave's Killer Bread Sprouted Whole Grain 21 oz
Dave's Killer Bread Powerseed 25.5 oz
Dave's Killer Bread 21 Whole Grains 27.2 oz
Dave's Killer Bread Good Seed 27.2 oz
They have reason to believe that consumers may have been misled
about the amount of digestible protein the bread provides. Although
the products' front labels state that each serving provides either
3 or 5 grams of protein, it's believed that when proper testing
methods are used to calculate how much of the protein in the bread
is digestible and able to be used by the human body, the products
provide far less usable protein than consumers are led to expect.
A class action is now being considered to help customers get back
some of the money they spent on the Dave's Killer Bread products.
How Could Dave's Killer Bread Be Mislabeling Its Products?
Protein is an essential part of the human diet and can be obtained
from both animal- and plant-based sources. However, not all
proteins are nutritionally equal. Plant-based proteins are
generally less digestible than animal proteins and contain fewer
essential amino acids. While most animal proteins are "complete,"
meaning they provide all nine essential amino acids, most proteins
from plant sources are "incomplete" and must be combined with other
protein types in order to meet the human body's amino acid
requirements.
Federal food labeling rules require that when a food's front label
contains a claim about its protein content, the food's nutrition
facts panel must list a "corrected amount of protein per serving"
in the form of a percent of daily value. This percentage takes into
account the protein's digestibility and makes it easier for
consumers to determine how much usable protein they're getting per
serving. For instance, although 6 grams of casein, a protein found
in milk and dairy products, provides 13% of the recommended daily
value of protein, 6 grams of wheat gluten provides only 3%. For
reference, the recommended daily value of protein for adults is 50
grams (based on a 2,000 calorie diet), and a food that contains 5%
of the daily value of protein per serving is considered low in
protein.
Although the Dave's Killer Bread products state a protein amount on
their front label - such as "5g protein" - there is no
corresponding percent of daily value for protein on the breads'
nutrition facts panel, which could be a potential violation of food
labeling laws. It's believed that if proper testing methods are
used to determine the percent of daily value for protein per
serving of the Dave's Killer Bread products, it would come out to
much less than the amount provided by meat or other easily
digestible proteins. If so, it's possible that consumers may not be
receiving as much protein as they've been led to expect based on
the products' labels.
How Could a Lawsuit Help?
A class action lawsuit, if filed and successful, could help
customers get back some of the money they spent on Dave's Killer
Bread products. It may also be able to force the company to make
sure it is not mislabeling its products. [GN]
DIRECT LOGISTIC: Mendoza Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRAYAN MENDOZA, ANDERSON PACHECO LACHE, ANDREA, BRYAN PULIDO
RODRIGUEZ, CLAUDIA FEO RUIZ, JACKSON LEZAMA PENA, JENNY RODRIGUEZ
BASTO, JENNY PACHECO SALAMANCA, JOSE GONZALEZ PARADA, JUAN MORENO,
MAIRA HERNANDEZ MORENO, MIGUEL CARCHI QUEZADA, and RAYLITH BRIONES
MORALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. DIRECT LOGISTIC TRANSPORT LLC, ERIC BROWN,
and IAN BROWN, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-05392 (E.D.N.Y., July
17, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law
including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide wage
notices, and failure to provide accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiffs worked as drivers and delivery personnel for the
Defendants at any time between 2021 and 2023.
Direct Logistic Transport LLC is a transportation company based in
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
DOLGEN MIDWEST: Husar Seeks Sept. 8 Extension to File Class Cert.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NORMAN HUSAR, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DOLGEN MIDWEST,
LLC d/b/a DOLLAR GENERAL, Case No. 1:22-cv-02044-JG (N.D. Ohio),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order permitting him to
until September 8, 2023. to file his motion for class certification
and memorandum in support.
In addition, the Plaintiff moves the Court for an Entry permitting
him to supplement his expert witness disclosure and allow him to
disclose one additional expert witness, Dr. Greg Allenby.
The instant Motion is not being brought by the Plaintiff for the
purposes of delay and for the reasons set forth in the foregoing
Memorandum in Support, the Plaintiff contends.
On May 22, 2023, the Plaintiff timely disclosed experts to the
Defendant. The disclosures are attached hereto as the Plaintiff
disclosed Ian H. Altman as an actual expert, Dr. Arkshay R. Rao as
an expert in economics, and Colin B. Weir as an expert in retail
business operations and damages.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 10, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pZqLuw at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc E. Dann, Esq.
Brian D. Flick, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Crossman, Esq.
DANNLAW
15000 Madison Ave.
Lakewood, OH 44107
Office: (216) 373-0539
Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com
- and -
Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
Scott Harris, Esq.
Gary Klingler, Esq.
Nick Sucio, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN
800 South Gay Street, Ste. 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
E-mail: aedwards@milberg.com
hbryson@milberg.com
sharris@milberg.com
nsuciu@milberg.com
gklinger@milberg.com
FORT BELVOIR: Seeks to Strike Plaintiffs' Declarations
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHIEF PETTY OFFICER JOHN
FISCHER and ASHLEY FISHER, et al., v. FORT BELVOIR RESIDENTIAL
COMMUNITIES, LLC (FRBC) et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00286-RDA-LRV
(E.D. Va.), the Defendants FRBC, Michaels Management Services LLC
(MMS), and MMS Army file a motion to strike all or portions of the
Plaintiffs' Declarations.
The putative class action case arises out of claims pertaining to
military housing brought by former and current residents living on
the U.S. Army Garrison Fort Belvoir ("Fort Belvoir") located in
Virginia. Fort Belvoir currently contains 2,143 military family
homes.
On March 16, 2022, the Plaintiffs John and Ashley Fischer and Jorge
and Raven Roman filed the initial Complaint in this matter. On
August 8, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint,
adding the Plaintiffs John and Cassandra Lane.
The current operative complaint, which is the Third Amended
Complaint (TAC) filed on December 9, 2022, includes these six the
Plaintiffs plus an additional 26 the Plaintiffs.
Additionally, the Defendants move to strike in their entirety
certain Declarations that were submitted by individuals who were
not disclosed by the Plaintiffs during discovery and/or prior to
the Plaintiffs filing their Motion for Class Certification.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 10, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Dpl0Jz at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Hilton Wise, Esq.
Joseph M. Langone, Esq.
WISE LAW FIRM PLC
10640 Page Avenue, Suite 320
Fairfax, VA 22030
Telephone: (703) 934-6377
E-mail: dwise@wiselaw.pro
jlangone@wiselaw.pro
- and -
Joel R. Rhine, Esq.
Martin A. Ramey, Esq.
Ruth A. Sheehan, Esq.
RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C.
1612 Military Cutoff Rd., Suite 300
Wilmington, NC 28403
Telephone: (910) 772-9960
E-mail: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com
mjr@rhinelawfirm.com
RAS@rhinelawfirm.com
- and -
Mona Lisa Wallace, Esq.
John Hughes, Esq.
WALLACE AND GRAHAM, PA.
525 N. Main Street
Salisbury, NC 28144
Telephone: (704) 633-5244
E-mail: mwallace@wallacegraham.com
jhughes@wallacegraham.com
- and -
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Kenya Reddy, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN LAW FIRM
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
E-mail: JYanchunis@ForThePeople.com
KReddy@ForThePeople.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Kathryn E. Bonorchis, Esq.
Richard G, Morgan, Esq.
Tina A. Syring, Esq.
Emily Suhr, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
100 Light Street, Suite 130
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: (410) 525-6409
Facsimile: (410) 779-3910
E-mail: Kathryn.Bonorchis@lewisbrisbois.com
FRANK STRADA: Court Tosses Hart Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CURTIS DANIEL HART, v.
FRANK STRADA, Case No. 1:23-cv-00009 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge
William L. Campbell, Jr. entered an order denying the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification.
The Court said, "Pending before the Court is Judge Holmes' Report
and Recommendation, which was filed on June 9, 2023. Through the
Report and Recommendation, Judge Holmes recommends that the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification be denied. Although the
Report and Recommendation advised the parties that any objections
must be filed within 14 days of service, no objections have been
filed. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
dednied."
A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44PYSo5 at no extra charge.[CC]
FROEDTERT HOSPITAL: Settles Privacy Class Action for $2MM
---------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin Law Journal on July 19 disclosed that Froedtert Hospital
has agreed to pay $2 million in an order granting unopposed motion
class action suit, despite the health care system's denial of all
allegations in the Plaintiff's complaint, as well as denial of all
liability in this case, according to Chicago Attorney David
Almeida, who represents the 459,000 class members.
"The Parties, through their counsel, have entered into a Settlement
Agreement following good faith, arm's-length negotiations and a
mediation overseen by Hon. Stuart E. Palmer (Ret.)," court
documents obtained by the Wisconsin Law Journal said.
According to the court documents, "Froedtert's alleged use of
certain tracking technologies including the Meta (a/k/a Facebook)
Pixel on its MyChart portal between February 1, 2017 to January 22,
2020, and on its public websites between February 1, 2017 to May
23, 2022 (the "Website Usage Disclosure") during which Plaintiffs
allege their web usage data, containing personal health
information, was shared to Facebook allegedly resulting in the
invasion of Plaintiffs' and Settlement Class Members' privacy."
During an interview with the Wisconsin Law Journal, Almeida said,
"if the judge grants final approval, then checks will be issued to
the class members."
The final approval hearing, during which the judge will consider
whether to approve the settlement, is scheduled for September 29,
2023 at 10:00 a.m.
For the past 22 years, Almeida worked as a defense attorney and
often defended hospital systems and other healthcare entities in
class action litigation; in recent months, he switched to
plaintiff's work. According to Almeida, while some healthcare
systems have stopped using these tracking technologies to share
protected health information with Facebook, many others continue to
do so.
The Wisconsin Law Journal also reported in July that the death of
woman discharged from Froedtert ER highlights gap in medical
malpractice laws. [GN]
GENERAL MOTORS: Parties File Class Cert Briefing Schedule
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK RILEY, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00924-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Parties ask the
Court to enter an order setting a briefing scheduling concerning
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and the Defendant's
motion to Exclude the Opinion and Testimony of the Plaintiff's
Expert Darren Manzari:
The Plaintiff filed a putative class action involving claims for
relief for breach of warranty and contract arising from an alleged
defect in certain GM vehicles.
On May 19, 2023, the Plaintiff filed his motion for class
certification. On June 2, 2023, the Court extended GM's deadline to
respond to the motion for class certification to June 30, 2023.
On June 30, 2023, GM filed its opposition to the Plaintiff's motion
for class certification and its motion to exclude the opinion and
testimony of the Plaintiff's expert Darren Manzari.
-- The Plaintiff's deadline to file Aug. 4, 2023
reply in support of motion for
class certification:
-- The Plaintiff's deadline to file Aug. 4, 2023
opposition to GM's motion to exclude
the opinion and testimony of the
Plaintiff's expert Darren Manzari
-- GM's deadline to file reply in support Sept. 1, 2023
of its motion to exclude the opinion
and testimony of the Plaintiff's expert
Darren Manzari:
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 10, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Y0XlZo at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Markovits, Esq.
Lemberg Law, Llc
43 Danbury Road
Wilton, CT 06897
Telephone: (203) 653-2250
Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel R. Birnbaum, Esq.
Joseph J. Orzano, Esq.
William F. Benson, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 460-5000
Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
E-mail: dbirnbaum@seyfarth.com
jorzano@seyfarth.com
wbenson@seyfarth.com
GEO GROUP: Gomez Class Suit Stayed Pending Nwauzor Proceedings
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE HERNANDEZ GOMEZ, et
al. v. THE GEO GROUP, INC. Case No. 1:22-cv-00868-ADA-CDB (E.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered an order:
1. Granting the Defendant's motion for stay pending the
appellate
proceedings in Nwauzor v. GEO Group, Inc., Case No. 3:17-
cv05769-RJB (W.D. Wash.), appeal docketed, No. 21-36024 (9th
Cir. Jan. 11, 2022), and Washington v. GEO Group, Inc., Case
No.
3:17-cv-05806-RJB (W.D. Wash.), appeal docketed, No. 21-36025
(9th Cir. Jan.11, 2022); and
2. Directing the parties to file a joint report addressing the
status of these cases 90 days from the date of entry of this
order, and thereafter, every 90 days and within 14 days of
the
aforementioned cases being ruled upon by the Ninth Circuit.
The Court said, "Having weighed the parties' arguments and the
competing interests, the Court concludes a stay is appropriate.
There is a slight risk of harm to the Plaintiffs. However, that
risk does not outweigh the interests of efficiency and judicial
economy that will be served by staying this action as the
forthcoming Washington Appeals decision may significantly impact
the instant action -- including the parties’ pending motions to
dismiss, for class certification, and for summary judgment. The
CMAX factors set forth by the Ninth Circuit weigh in favor of
granting a stay of this action. he parties' final joint report upon
the resolution of any case must set forth the parties’ positions
as to the case’s impact on this instant litigation and whether
the stay should be maintained or lifted."
On July 13, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint for declaratory
and injunctive relief and damages against the Defendant. On
September 19, 2022, the Defendant filed the instant motion to stay.
On October 3, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
Defendant's motion to stay. The Plaintiffs argue the Court should
deny the stay as it would unduly harm the Plaintiffs, unduly
benefit the Defendant, and not serve the interests of judicial
economy and conservation of judicial resources.
GEO Group is a publicly traded C corporation that invests in
private prisons and mental health facilities in North America,
Australia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44XiXrR at no extra charge.[CC]
GETTY IMAGES: Remote Workers Sue Over Unreimbursed Expenses
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that Getty
Images faces a proposed class action over its alleged failure to
reimburse remote employees in Seattle for business-related
expenses.
The eight-page case says that in response to the Washington
governor's statewide "Stay Home, Stay Healthy" order issued in
March 2020 to curb the spread of COVID-19, Getty Images closed its
Seattle office and instructed employees to work remotely until
further notice.
From that point on, the visual media company and stock image
supplier has unlawfully required employees to shoulder the business
expenses they've incurred while working from home, which include
the costs of internet and phone service, office supplies, utilities
and securing their own remote work offices, the lawsuit charges.
According to the complaint, Getty Images is required under
Seattle's Wage Theft Ordinance to compensate employees at least
once a month for all necessary expenses incurred through their job
duties.
The plaintiffs, two former Getty Images employees who worked from
their home offices in Seattle, say the company never paid them back
for these necessary out-of-pocket expenses.
The lawsuit seeks to represent any Getty Images employees who
worked remotely from home in Seattle within the last three years.
[GN]
GILEAD SCIENCES: Searcy Bid to File Docs Under Seal Initially OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN SEARCY, et al.,
v. GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-01523-MTS (E.D. Mo.),
the Hon. Judge Matthew T. Schelp entered an order preliminarily
granting the Plaintiffs' motion to file under seal.
The Court shall determine the permanent sealing of the material at
the time the Court issues its ruling on the Plaintiffs' motion to
certify class.
Gilead Sciences is an American biopharmaceutical company.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44U71XZ at no extra charge.[CC]
GREAT STAR: Gair Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CANDICE GAIR on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. GREAT STAR TOOLS,
USA, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00976-MWB (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time to
file her Reply brief in support of her Motion for Class
Certification:
On January 24, 2023, the Plaintiff filed the Motion. On July 6,
2023, the Court issued an Order providing that the Great Star may
file a brief in opposition to the Motion by July 20, 2023, and that
the Plaintiff may file a Reply brief by August 3, 2023.
The Plaintiff's counsel has a pre-existing deadline of August 2,
2023, to file an opening brief in another matter before the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Counsel would have
difficulty meeting the current Reply deadline here.
An extension of the Reply deadline by one week, to August 10, 2023,
will allow the Plaintiff adequate time to respond to any arguments
Great Star may raise to the Plaintiff's Motion.
GreatStar Tools is a developer, manufacturer, and supplier of
tools, primarily hand tools and power tools.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 7, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Q4i50t at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP
270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 221-1747
E-mail: rsr@raisnerroupinian.com
jar@raisnerroupinian.com
- and -
Robert E. Chernicoff, Esq.
CUNNINGHAM,CHERNICOFF & WARSHAWSKY, PC
2320 N. 2nd St.
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 238-6570
E-mail: rec@cclawpc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Keith James, Esq.
KEITH JAMES, PLLC
29100 Northwestern Highway, Suite 315
Southfield, MI 48034
E-mail: James@keithjamespllc.com
- and -
Matthew J. Hank, Esq.
Tanner Mccarron, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Three Parkway
1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1400
Philadelphia, PA 19102.1321
E-mail: mhank@littler.com
tmccarron@littler.com
HARVARD COLLEGE: Faces Johnson Suit Over Anatomical Gift Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. PRESIDENT & FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE a/k/a HARVARD
COLLEGE; and CEDRIC LODGE, Case No. 1:23-cv-11578 (D. Mass., July
14, 2023) alleges that the Defendants breached their duty of care
by failing to take reasonable steps to ensure that the donated
cadavers were being properly and lawfully handled and maintained as
part of the Anatomical Gift Program.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Lodge, while employed by
Defendant Harvard and HMS, stole donated cadavers and unlawfully
transported the cadavers interstate starting around 2018 through
August 16, 2022. The Plaintiff also contends that the Defendant
Lodge stole dissected portions of donated cadavers, including
heads, brains, skin, bones, and other human remains and removed
those remains from the morgue in Massachusetts and transported them
to his residence in New Hampshire, all which was beyond and outside
of the scope of Defendant Harvard's Anatomical Gift Program.
On June 13, 2023, Defendant Lodge was indicted by a Grand Jury in
United States District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania for
having committed the crimes related to his unlawful and reckless
handling of the donated cadavers: (1) Conspiracy; and (2)
Interstate Transport of Stolen Goods, Aid and Abet. Defendant
Harvard terminated Defendant Lodge's employment on May 6, 2023.
The Plaintiff is the biological son of Ms. Anne Weaver who died on
June 4, 2017. Prior to her death, Ms. Anne Weaver arranged with the
Defendant Harvard and HMS to donate her body as part of the
Anatomical Gift Program. Ms. Anne Weaver's remains were one of the
many donated cadavers mishandled and desecrated by Defendant Lodge,
the Plaintiff asserts.
Accordingly, between 350-400 donated cadavers may have been
involved in Defendant Lodge's alleged unlawful conduct and scheme.
President & Fellows is a Massachusetts Corporation and owns and
operates Harvard Medical School which is located at 25 Shattuck
Street Boston.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin J. McCullough, Esq.
Michael C. Forrest, Esq.
Robert J. Hartigan, Esq.
Kathryne D. Masson, Esq.
MAZOW | MCCULLOUGH, PC
10 Derby Square, 4th Floor
Salem, MA 01970
Telephone: (978) 744-8000
Facsimile: (978) 744-8012
E-mail: kjm@helpinginjured.com
mcf@helpinginjured.com
rjh@helpinginjured.com
kdm@helpinginjured.com
HARVARD PILGRIM: Lamonica Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
------------------------------------------------------------
Haley Lamonica, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated v. Point32Health d/b/a Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Case
No. 1:23-cv-11424-NMG (D. Mass., June 26, 2023), is brought arising
out of Point32Health d/b/a Harvard Pilgrim Health Care failures to
properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately
destroy Plaintiff(s)' and Class Members' sensitive personal
identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its
business purposes.
The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted
cyberattack from March 2023 through April 2023 to compromise
Defendant's network (the "Data Breach") that contained personally
identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information
("PHI") (collectively, "the Private Information") of Plaintiffs and
other individuals ("the Class"). This class action arises out of a
2023 data breach ("Data Breach") of documents and information
stored on the computer network of Harvard Pilgrim, a third-party
company handling employee benefits such as insurance plans.
According to notices sent to the Department of Health and Human
Services Office for Civil Rights ("HHS") and State Attorneys
General, this Data Breach occurred on or about March 28, 2023, and
included the Private Information of approximately 2,550,922
individuals, including Plaintiff(s) and Class. The Defendant
launched an investigation into the Data Breach and confirmed that
an unauthorized actor accessed its system on March and may have
copied and exfiltrated certain files containing Plaintiff(s)' and
Class Members' Private Information.
Despite learning of the Data Breach on or about April 17, 2023 and
determining that Private Information was involved in the breach,
Defendant did not begin sending notices of the Data Breach (the
"Notice of Data Breach Letter") until June 15, 2023. On its
computer network, Harvard Pilgrim holds and stores certain highly
sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private
Information") of the Plaintiff(s) and the putative Class Members,
who are individuals enrolled in employment insurance benefits
administered by Harvard Pilgrim, i.e., individuals who provided
their highly sensitive and private information in exchange for
employment and/or business services. Harvard Pilgrim also admits
that it "discovered a cybersecurity ransomware incident that
impacted systems that support Harvard Pilgrim Health Care
Commercial and Medicare Advantage Stride. plans (HMO)/(HMO-POS)."
and that its investigation also revealed that certain personal
information was involved in the incident.
As a result of Harvard Pilgrim's Data Breach, Plaintiff(s) and
thousands of Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the
form of financial losses resulting from identity theft,
out-of-pocket expenses, the loss of the benefit of their bargain,
and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or
mitigate the effects of the attack. The Data Breach was a direct
result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect
Plaintiff(s) and Class Members' Private Information, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a benefits receiver through Harvard Pilgrim.
Point32Health is the parent company of Harvard Pilgrim Health
Care.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard E. Levine, Esq.
STANZLER LEVINE, LLC
37 Walnut Street, Suite 200
Wellesley, MA 02481
Phone: (617) 482-3198
Email: rlevine@stanzlerlevine.com
- and -
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
Lisa A. White, Esq.
MASON LLP
5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640
Washington, DC 20015
Phone: (202) 429-2290
Email: gmason@masonllp.com
dperry@masonllp.com
lwhite@masonllp.com
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Anglin Sues Over Hyundai Palisades' Steering Defects
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LORA C. ANGLIN and W. DAVID ANGLIN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA
d/b/a HYUNDAI MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, Defendants, Case No.
8:23-cv-01279 (C.D. Cal., July 17, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty of merchantability, violations of the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act and Georgia Fair Business Practices Act, unjust
enrichment, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty,
and unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices.
The case arises from the Defendant's design, manufacturing,
marketing, distributing, and selling of 2022 Hyundai Palisades with
steering defect. The Class vehicles suffer from a latent safety
defect that causes the vehicles' steering wheel to dangerously
shake or forcefully pull in one direction, causing the vehicles to
veer from the intended direction of travel. Despite customer
complaints and notices, Hyundai refused to acknowledge the steering
defect and make an appropriate recall, enabling their defective
Class vehicles to harm consumers like the Plaintiffs, says the
suit.
Hyundai Motor America, doing business as Hyundai Motor North
America, is an automobile manufacturer, with a principal address
and place of business at 10550 Talbert Avenue, Fountain Valley,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael F. Ram, Esq.
Marie N. Appel, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 358-6913
E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com
mappel@forthepeople.com
- and -
Kevin E. Epps, Esq.
Tyler Gaines, Esq.
EPPS, HOLLOWAY, DELOACH & HOIPKEMIER, LLC
1220 Langford Drive, Building 200-101
Watkinsville, GA 30677
Telephone: (706) 508-4000
Facsimile: (706) 842-6750
ILLUSORY SYSTEMS: Seeks Dismissal of Hacking Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Ross, writing for Blockworks, report that Illusory
Systems, the firm behind Nomad Bridge, moved to dismiss a class
action lawsuit against the company centered on a nearly $190
million hack that occurred last year.
The original complaint listed Illusory, Archetype, Ethereal
Ventures, Consensys, Coinbase, Alchemy, Circle and Ozone as
defendants.
The group filed the motion to dismiss, claiming the original
complaint failed to properly state a claim.
The motion to dismiss said the plaintiffs were not looking to "hold
the hackers liable for their wrongdoing and the harm they caused,"
but instead were angling to "blame Illusory and the Keyholders for
purported shortcomings in certain security features that allegedly
allowed the assets to be stolen, and seek to hold Illusory and the
Keyholders liable for their losses."
The suit accused the defendants of making "knowingly false
statements about the Nomad Bridge's security" and violating laws
prohibiting wire fraud and operating an unlicensed
money-transmitting business, two offenses falling under the
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
The defendants said the plaintiffs' attorneys "do not state an
underlying substantive RICO claim" in the proceedings.
The original suit, filed in February, asked for funds that went
missing in the hack to be returned to customers, and it also sought
monetary damages. Some $20 million of the nearly $190 million lost
in the hack was later recovered.
"Given the Investor Defendants' exceedingly attenuated relationship
to the alleged flaws of the Nomad Bridge, there is no set of facts
that Plaintiffs can plausibly allege to overcome the numerous
deficiencies in the [first amended complaint," the motion said.
A court has yet to grant or deny the motion to dismiss.
The original class action suit from earlier this year claimed that
the company behind Nomad's bridge "had promised users that it
employed state-of-the-art cryptography to protect user assets."
Illusory made an "illusory promise," the plaintiffs alleged.
When the $186 million hack took place in August 2022, plaintiff
Mannu Singh claimed to have lost $170,000 of his assets.
Nomad, prior to the hack, had marketed itself as a "security-first"
platform, which could send ERC-20 tokens between compatible
blockchains.
Updated July 20, 2023 at 12:09 pm ET: Added all defendants listed
in the complaint. [GN]
IMAGINE360 ADMINISTRATORS: Sued Over February 2023 Cyberattack
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action lawsuit claims healthcare company Imagine360
failed to protect the personal information of nearly half a million
individuals from a cyberattack reportedly detected in January and
early February 2023.
The 46-page lawsuit says Imagine360 announced in June of this year
that it had been affected by two data breaches in late January and
early February 2023, both of which targeted third-party
file-sharing platforms the company uses.
According to the defendant's online notice of the incidents, the
company discovered on January 30 that the file-sharing platform
Citrix had been hacked. Then, on February 3, Imagine360 was
notified by third-party vendor Fortra that its GoAnywhere
file-transfer software had also fallen victim to a data breach, the
notice says.
The suit relays that Clop, a Russia-linked ransomware group,
claimed responsibility for the cyberattack against Fortra, which
compromised data belonging to over 130 client organizations,
including Imagine360.
The defendant, a Pennsylvania-based healthcare company that
provides self-funded health insurance plans to employers, is
accused of failing to ensure that Fortra and Citrix utilized
sufficient data security measures to protect the personal
information of its clients' employees, the case explains.
According to the complaint, the private data compromised in the
breach included employees' names, addresses, dates of birth, Social
Security numbers and medical billing and insurance information. Per
the filing, the cyberattack also exposed certain medical
information, such as diagnoses and medication details.
"Had [Imagine360] provided adequate supervision over its agents,
vendors, and/or suppliers, it could have prevented the data
breach," the suit contends.
Further, although the cyberattacks purportedly occurred in January
and early February of this year, the defendant did not notify
victims of the breach until June, the case shares.
By collecting and storing the private information of its clients'
employees, Imagine360 was legally obligated to protect the data
from falling into the hands of cybercriminals, the complaint
charges.
The plaintiff in the case is an employee of Lapham-Hickey Steel
Corp., an Imagine360 client that was impacted by the breach, the
filing says. Like other victims, the plaintiff now faces a
heightened risk of fraud, identity theft, phishing schemes and
other illegal activity as a result of the company's negligence, the
suit alleges.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who was
impacted by the data breach, including those who received a notice
of the incident. [GN]
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Summary Judgment Hearing Set for Sept.7
-----------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 21, 2023, that the hearing for summary
judgment and Daubert motions are scheduled for September 7, 2023.
Three class action complaints were filed against the Company in the
Northern District of California Court alleging anti-trust
allegations relating to the service and repair of certain
instruments manufactured by the Company.
A complaint by Larkin Community Hospital was filed on May 20, 2021,
a complaint by Franciscan Alliance, Inc. and King County Public
Hospital District No. 1 was filed on July 6, 2021, and a complaint
by Kaleida Health was filed on July 8, 2021.
The Court has consolidated the Franciscan Alliance, Inc. and King
County Public Hospital District No. 1 and Kaleida Health cases with
the Larkin Community Hospital case, which is now captioned on the
Larkin docket as "In Re: da Vinci Surgical Robot Antitrust
Litigation."
A Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint has been filed on
behalf of each plaintiff named in the earlier-filed cases.
On January 14, 2022, Kaleida Health voluntarily dismissed itself as
a party to this case.
On January 18, 2022, the Company filed an answer against the
plaintiffs in this matter, and discovery has commenced. The parties
have filed summary judgment and Daubert motions, and a hearing on
these motions is scheduled for September 7, 2023.
Intuitive Surgical is an American corporation that develops,
manufactures, and markets robotic products designed to improve
clinical outcomes of patients through minimally invasive surgery,
most notably with the da Vinci Surgical System.
JOHNS HOPKINS: Faces Class Action Over May Cyberattack
------------------------------------------------------
Scott Maucione, writing for WYPR News, reports that people affected
by the May cyber attack on Johns Hopkins Health System and Johns
Hopkins University are filing a class action lawsuit against the
organization.
The lawsuit states that tens or even hundreds of thousands of
people had their personal identifiable information exposed through
a vulnerability in the MoveIt file transfer software that was
exploited by a Russian-linked ransomware organization called Clop.
The plaintiffs allege that Johns Hopkins willfully, intentionally
or recklessly failed to implement reasonable security measures to
prevent the unauthorized disclosure of personal data.
The lawsuit claims negligence on the part of Johns Hopkins and a
breach of implied contract for failing to protect privacy.
Pamela Hunter, who is named as the main plaintiff in the case,
noted that she was informed of the breach on June 24, that she was
previously unaware of the breach or that Johns Hopkins was holding
her information.
"Plaintiff and the class members remain, even today, in the dark
regarding what data was stolen, the particular malware used, and
what steps are being taken to secure their PHI/PII and financial
information going forward," the lawsuit states.
Johns Hopkins is not alone being a target of cyber attacks. A
recent study from Trustwave, a cloud security organization, found
that in 2022 "the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
reported more than 28.5 million breached healthcare records, a
significant increase from 21.1 million in 2019."
The study found that about one in four cyber attacks target the
healthcare industry. Notable intrusions include an attack on
MediBank, which exposed 9.7 million customers and one of
PharMerica, which exposed 5.8 million customers.
Both of those organizations are facing class action suits for
allegedly failing to protect personal information.
Johns Hopkins stated that it took immediate action after the attack
and will provide credit monitoring to all who were impacted.
Johns Hopkins did not respond to multiple requests for an interview
for this story. [GN]
LITTLE SCHOLARS: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Villa
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY VILLA, v. LITTLE
SCHOLARS CHILDCARE LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-05772-PGG-BCM
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding
general pretrial management as follows:
-- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related
to
scheduling and discovery must be made to Judge Moses and in
compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil
Cases.
-- Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must
be
initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery
set
by the Court.
-- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting
discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need
for
such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil
Rule
37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices.
-- For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion
conferences
are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe
that
an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for
a
motion or narrow the issues.
Little Scholars Childcare LLC is a home daycare that offers
childcare for families.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Y2K6Ya at no extra charge.[CC]
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marriott
International, Inc. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Marriott
International, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-05400 (E.D.N.Y., July 17,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Marriott International, Inc. -- https://www.marriott.com/default.mi
-- is an American multinational company that operates, franchises,
and licenses lodging including hotel, residential and timeshare
properties.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
MASTEC SERVICES: Perez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mastec Services
Company, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Angel Perez, as an
individual, on behalf of himself, and all persons similarly
situated v. Mastec Services Company, Inc., Mastec Network
Solutions, Inc., Mastec Network Solutions, LLC, Case No. 23CV004890
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 14, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
MasTec -- https://www.mastec.com/ -- is one of the nation's top
power plant and renewable energy construction companies,
specializing in building and engineering of natural gas power
plants, alternative fuel power plants, wind farms and solar energy
facilities.[BN]
MDL 2966: Court Partly OK's Sealing Bids Relating to Class Cert.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Xyrem (Sodium Oxybate) Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 3:20-md-02966-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Richard Seeborg entered an order granting four of the parties eight
administrative sealing motions in connection with the briefing on
the motion for class certification.
-- The remaining four were disposed of in part and ruling was
reserved in part.
-- Additional sealing statements and proposed revisions have
since
been submitted.
-- The order resolves these four motions, and the parties are
directed to file redacted or unredacted versions of the
relevant
documents, consistent with the rulings herein and in the prior
order.
Finally, Class the Plaintiffs filed a sealing motion for materials
designated confidential by the Defendants and some non-parties
stemming from the reply in support of class certification. Under
the prior order, Jazz was required to file a revised statement
proposing narrower redactions to the Conti Reply Report.
Additionally, Class Plaintiffs indicated that some material was
designated confidential by non-party Prime Therapeutics LLC. Prime
did not submit a sealing statement, ruling was reserved on these
materials, and Prime was ordered to submit a statement. Class the
Plaintiffs have since represented that Prime has indicated it did
not intend to file anything in response to the order.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46XaIOx at no extra charge.[CC]
MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION: Duane Morris Attorneys Discuss Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq., and Rebecca S. Bjork, Esq., of Duane
Morris, disclosed that on July 18, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that district courts
must analyze the predominance and superiority requirements for
certification of a class action when considering an "issue class"
under Rule 23(c). In Harris v. Medical Transportation Management,
Inc., No. 22-7033 (D.C. Cir. July 18, 2023), the three-judge panel
ruled that the district court erred when it certified an "issue"
class under Rule 23(c)(4) without first undertaking an analysis of
whether the class certification prerequisites of Rule 23(a) and
23(b) had also been satisfied. The case was remanded for further
proceedings. The D.C. Circuit's decision ought to be required
reading for employers with large workforces and those dealing with
wage & hour class actions. It bears watching whether the district
court's analysis of the rigorous requirements of Rule 23(b) on
remand also results in a pro-certification decision, given the
instructions provided on remand.
Case Background
In Harris, the named plaintiffs were non-emergency medical drivers
for the defendant, a company that provides transportation to
individuals on public assistance who require transit getting to
medical appointments. They alleged that they and a class of other
drivers who they seek to represent in a class action lawsuit were
denied minimum and overtime pay in violation of District of
Columbia and federal wage and hour laws. Slip op. at 5-6.
Whether defendant MTM could as a matter of law be held liable as
the drivers' employer is a threshold question in the litigation.
Id. at 6. The district court certified issues classes as to (i)
whether MTM is the drivers' joint employer (along with its
sub-contractors); and (ii) whether MTM is a general contractor
under D.C. law and thus strictly liable. Id. at 8. The district
court did so despite finding previously that the predominance
requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) was not met under the facts of the
case specifically as they relate to the payment system for the
drivers. Id. at 7-8.
MTM appealed the issue certification ruling.
The D.C. Circuit's Decision
In a straightforward ruling, but one that delves into the
complexities of Rule 23 with law-professor like precision, the D.C.
Circuit panel consisting of Judges Millett, Childs and Rogers
determined that the district court could not certify the issue
classes under Rule 23(c)(4) without deciding whether those classes
also meet the requirements of Rule 23(a) -- commonality and
typicality -- and 23(b) -- predominance and superiority. In
essence, the D.C. Circuit read the plain language of Rule 23 and
observed that sub-sections (a), (b) and (c) all bear on the
certification inquiry conducted by the district court and therefore
must be considered on an equal basis. Id. at 14-15.
In the penultimate statement of the holding, Judge Childs opined
that "Rule 23's text and structure offer no quarter to the view
that Rule 23(c)(4) creates an independent type of class action that
is freed from all of Rule 23's other class action prerequisites. So
the district court should have ensured that the issue class that it
certified met all, and not just some, of Rule 23(a) and (b)'s
preconditions to class status." Id. at 15-16.
The D.C. Circuit instructed the district court that it must analyze
on remand each of the potential class actions available under Rule
23(b)(3)'s predominance analysis. Id. at 19-20. It discussed
various ways in which Rule 23(c)(4) can be applied in the context
of the joint employer analysis that is at issue in Harris, such as
bifurcating the liability issue from remedial claims, or where
affirmative defenses may muddy the waters of class-wide evidence in
a certified issues class. Id. at 21-22.
In a similar vein, Judge Childs instructed that summary judgment
motions on discrete issues represent another way in which district
courts could management issue certified class actions where the
predominance of individualized issues threaten to overrun the
common proof. Id. at 24-25.
Implications For Employers
The D.C. Circuit opinion in Harris v. MTM provides corporate
counsel and executives a clear and easily understandable
explanation of how Rule 23(b) and (c) intersect with one another
when an issue class or classes are certified in class action
litigation. District courts cannot certify issue classes under Rule
23(c)(4) without undertaking the rigorous analysis required to
conclude that a class action is superior and manageable, that
common issues will predominate over individualized issues, and that
there are common and typical issues to be resolved in the first
place. And by suggesting specific mechanisms that a district court
has at its disposal for case management purposes such as targeted
summary judgment motions, the decision provides reasonable
strategies to consider when facing class action litigation. [GN]
METLIFE INC: Averts Class Action Over $65MM Drug Rebates
--------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a lawsuit
accusing a MetLife Inc. unit of mismanaging its workers' health
plan by pocketing $65 million in drug rebates fell flat when a
federal judge said the plan participants weren't injured by this
conduct.
Former MetLife employees Marla Knudsen and William Dutra received
the benefits they were promised under their health plan and don't
have a legal right to the general pool of plan assets, Judge
William J. Martini of the US District Court for the District of New
Jersey said on July 18. They lack standing to challenge MetLife's
handling of these drug rebates. [GN]
MGM RESORTS: Gibson Bid to Appoint Interim Class Counsel Nixed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Richard Gibson and
Heriberto Valiente, v. MGM Resorts International; Cendyn Group,
LLC; The Rainmaker Group Unlimited, Inc.; Caesars Entertainment,
Inc.; Treasure Island, LLC; Wynn Resorts Holdings, LLC; Case No.
2:23-cv-00140-MMD-DJA (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Daniel J. Albregts
entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion
for appointment of interim class counsel.
The Court further entered an order that:
-- The joint proposed discovery plan is denied without
prejudice.
-- Cendyn, Rainmaker, Caesars, Treasure Island, and Wynn's motion
to
stay discovery is granted.
-- Cendyn, Rainmaker, Caesars, Treasure Island, and Wynn shall
nonetheless exchange initial disclosures, negotiate an ESI and
protective order, respond to the Plaintiffs' Interrogatory
Nos. 1
and as directed to each respective party, and provide an
organizational chart in response to the Plaintiffs' Request
for
Production No. 1 as directed to each respective party.
-- MGM's motion to stay discovery is granted in part and denied
in
part. It is denied in part regarding MGM's request that MGM be
permitted to refrain from engaging in the limited discovery to
which the other the Defendants have agreed.
The case is an antitrust case arising out of the Plaintiffs Richard
Gibson and Heriberto Valiente's claim that certain Las Vegas hotels
used a common third-party algorithm to artificially inflate hotel
prices. The Plaintiffs bring their claims on their own behalf and
that of other persons who rented hotel rooms in Las Vegas.
MGM Resorts is an American global hospitality and entertainment
company operating destination resorts in Las Vegas, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Mississippi, Maryland, Ohio, and New Jersey.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47d4ASu at no extra
charge.[CC]
MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC: Loses Bid to Strike Confer Class Allegations
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUSTIN CONFER, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC
TOOL CORP., Case No. 2:23-cv-02028-KHV-ADM (D. Kan.), the Hon.
Judge Kathryn H. Vrati entered an order overruling Milwaukee
Electric Tool Corporation's motion to dismiss Count II of the
Plaintiff's complaint and motion to dismiss or strike the
Plaintiff's "Nationwide Class" allegations filed March 24, 2023.
-- The Court agrees with Mussat and declines to extend
Bristol-Myers
to the class action at issue. The Defendant's sole argument is
that the Court should preemptively deny class certification
based
on Bristol-Myers.
-- Therefore, it has not "conclusively" shown that plaintiff
"will
be unable to establish facts that would make class treatment
appropriate."
-- The Court denies defendant's motion to dismiss or strike the
Plaintiff’s class allegations.
-- Because unjust enrichment claims are equitable, they generally
are not available when an adequate remedy exists on a legal
claim. Even if plaintiff cannot take his unjust enrichment and
statutory claims to judgment, the Court declines to dismiss
the plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim at this time, on
theory
that legal claims for relief displace it.
On January 24 2023, Dustin Confer, individually and on behalf of
other persons similarly situated, filed suit against Milwaukee
Electric. The Plaintiff alleges that defendant violated the Kansas
Consumer Protection Act (KCPA). The Plaintiff further asserts
claims for unjust enrichment and breach of implied warranty.
On March 30, 2021, plaintiff purchased one of defendant's organic
bonded abrasive discs at Home Depot in Olathe, Kansas. The
Plaintiff could not use the disc because he did not know if it had
expired, so the disc was worthless.
Before selling, distributing or advertising the discs, defendant
knew or should have known that the discs did not include a clear
expiration warning or label, the Plaintiff contends.
Milwaukee Electric is a multi-national company that develops,
manufactures, and markets power tools.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/471DAoC at no extra charge.[CC]
MY SWEET MUFFIN: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against My Sweet Muffin, LLC.
The case is styled as Alison Michele Cruz, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. My Sweet Muffin, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-05418-MKV (S.D.N.Y., June 26, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
My Sweet Muffin -- https://www.mysweetmuffin.com/ -- is an
exclusive online store specializing in baby items, including toys,
nursery decor, and gifts.[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
NAIVE MELODY: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Cristobal Ramirez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. NAIVE MELODY 24 LLC d/b/a MARIAN'S, CHRISTIAN ROWAN,
Case No. 520434/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., July 17, 2023), is
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the
New York Labor Law ("NYLL") that he and others similarly situated
are entitled to recover from the Defendants: unpaid wages due to
time shaving; unpaid minimum wages due to an invalid tip credit;
illegally retained gratuities; compensation for late payment of
wages; statutory penalties; liquidated damages; and attorneys' fees
and costs.
Throughout his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was not
compensated for all hours worked due to Defendants' policy of time
shaving. Plaintiff was subject to a 30 minute meal break deduction
every day. However, meal time was not free and clear, and Plaintiff
was interrupted and required to work through his meal breaks on a
daily basis, either polishing silverware, preparing tables, or
stocking. As a result, Plaintiff was time shaved a total 1 hour per
week. FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class Members also suffered
similarly from Defendants' illegal policy of time shaving by
deducting for meal breaks which were not free and clear, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a food runner
for the Defendants' Marian's restaurant.
NAIVE MELODY 24 LLC d/b/a MARIAN'S is a domestic limited liability
company organized under the laws of the State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Phone: 212-465-1188
Fax: 212-465-1181
NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Central American Files Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nassau County, et al.
The case is styled as Central American Refugee Center, M.C., V.A.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. The
County of Nassau, Nassau County Police Department, Patrick Ryder,
in his official capacity as Commissioner of Nassau County Police
Department; John Doe, head of the Internal Affairs Unit of the
Nassau County Police Department; Sergeant Sabrina Gregg, Nassau
County Police Department Language Access Coordinator; Case No.
1:23-cv-06158 (E.D.N.Y., July 17, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.
Nassau County -- https://www.nassaucountyny.gov/ -- is an affluent
inner suburban county located on Long Island, immediately to the
east of New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Fulvia Vargas-De Leon, Esq.
Meena Oberdick, Esq.
Andrew Claude Case, Esq.
LATINOJUSTICE PRLDEF
475 Riverside Drive, Suite 1901
NY, New York 10115
Phone: (917) 259-9636
Email: fvargasdeleon@latinojustice.org
moberdick@latinojustice.org
acase@latinojustice.org
NATIONAL RAILROAD: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Yates
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yates v. National Railroad
Passenger Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-01188-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.),
the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as
follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Q5XQPZ at no extra charge.[CC]
NATIONSBENEFITS LLC: Lizotte Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Lizotte, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NATIONSBENEFITS, LLC, NATIONSBENEFITS HOLDINGS, LLC,
and AETNA INC., Case No. 0:23-cv-61209-RAR (S.D. Fla., June 26,
2023), is brought concerning a person's private affairs for
NationsBenefits' failure to safeguard the Plaintiff's highly
confidential data and failure to carry the burden and the resulting
harm caused to Plaintiff and the members of the Classes ("Class
Members").
Congress has passed legislation under the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") in order to
protect this highly confidential data, because in the wrong hands,
bad actors may target and exploit the most sensitive and vulnerable
populations among the public. As a health organization,
NationsBenefits had obligations to safeguard this information.
On April 13, 2023, NationsBenefits began notifying affected Class
Members of a data breach occurring on or about January 30, 2023
("Data Breach"). NationsBenefits retained this information from
affected Class Members for nearly two months, having first learned
of the Data Breach on or about February 7, 2023, from the provider
of its file transfer software, Fortra, LLC. According to Fortra,
the information compromised in the Data Breach included highly
sensitive data that represents a gold mine for data thieves. This
includes names, addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of birth,
health insurance information, and other sensitive medical records
(collectively, the "Private Information") and includes personally
identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information
("PHI") as defined by HIPAA that Defendants collected and
maintained.
As a result of NationsBenefits' actions and negligence in failing
to implement adequate and reasonable measures to safeguard Class
Members' Private Information, Plaintiff and the Class Members
experienced damages from: theft of their Private Information and
the resulting loss of privacy rights in that information; improper
disclosure of their Private Information; loss of value of their
Private Information; the amount of ongoing reasonable identity
defense and credit monitoring services made necessary as mitigation
measures; NationsBenefits' retention of profits attributable to
Plaintiff's and other customers' Private Information that
NationsBenefits failed to adequately protect; economic and
non-economic impacts that flow from imminent, and ongoing threat of
fraud and identity theft to which Plaintiff are now exposed to;
ascertainable out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time
allocated to fixing or mitigating the effects of this data breach;
and overpayments of Aetna products and/or services which Plaintiff
purchased, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual who had his Private Information
compromised in the Data Breach.
NationsBenefits, based in Plantation, Florida, has more than 3,500
employees across all locations and is ranked by Deloitte Technology
as one of the fastest growing companies for delivering health
technologies in North America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
Zachary S. Bower, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,
OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
2222 Ponce de Leon
Miami, FL 33134
Phone: (973) 994-1700
Email: jalperstein@carellabyrne.com
zbower@carellabyrne.com
- and -
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Kevin G. Cooper, Esq.
Jordan M. Steele, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: (973) 994-1700
Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
kcooper@carellabyrne.com
jsteele@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
Christopher L. Ayers, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
Phone: (973) 639-9100
Facsimile: (973) 679-8656
Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
cayers@seegerweiss.com
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Lemus Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Mutual
Insurance Company, et al. The case is styled as Ana L. Lemus, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Nationwide
Mutual Insurance Company, Does 1-50, Case No. 23CV004939 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 17, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company -- http://www.nationwide.com/
-- is a group of large U.S. insurance and financial services
companies based in Columbus, Ohio.[BN]
NATURE BACKS CLOTHING: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nature Backs Clothing
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Alison Michele Cruz, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Nature Backs
Clothing Company, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-05420-VSB (S.D.N.Y., June
26, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Nature Backs Clothing Company -- https://www.naturebacks.com/ --
offers organic shirts.[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
NCSPLUS INCORPORATED: Gentile Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NCSPlus Incorporated,
et al. The case is styled as Florence Gentile, Scott Norris,
Marissa Gentile, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NCSPlus Incorporated, Susan Holzman, Robert Timmerman,
Jr., Case No. 1:23-cv-05358-JLR (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
NCSPlus Incorporated -- https://www.ncsplus.com/ -- is an Accounts
Receivable Management firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Travis Tatko, Esq.
CAPELL BARNETT MATALON & SCHOENFELD LLP
1385 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10018
Phone: (212) 661-1144
Fax: (888) 419-0650
Email: travistatko@nysbusinesslaw.com
NESTLE USA: Must Face False Advertising Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Christopher A. Cole, Esq., of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, in an
article for Mondaq disclosed that 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.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide
to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about
your specific circumstances. [GN]
NEW SOUTH WALES: Liable for Financial Losses Over Light Rail Delays
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Gerathy, writing for ABC News, reports that a court has found
the state government is liable for the financial losses suffered by
some businesses along the Sydney CBD light rail route during delays
to the project's construction.
A group of about 300 retailers and residents are suing Transport
for NSW in a class action, alleging they suffered "unreasonable
interference" from the works between the CBD, Randwick and
Kingsford.
This morning, Supreme Court Justice Richard Cavanagh ruled that the
two lead plaintiffs Hunt Leather in the Strand arcade and a Thai
restaurant on Anzac Parade in Kensington had succeeded in proving
the construction caused substantial and unreasonable disruption.
But he cautioned not all parties to the class action would be in
the same position and further hearings would be needed to determine
how to proceed.
Justice Cavanagh found that the disruption to businesses along the
route was "far in excess of what was planned or promised" when the
long-delayed project was announced.
That was largely due to problems with utility pits underneath the
route which caused the project to drag on for months longer than
expected, he found.
Speaking outside the court, Sophie Hunt said her family business
Hunt Leather had been devastated by the construction, which saw
hoardings erected on the street outside and the shop inundated with
dust.
"The government shouldn't be allowed to ruin people's lives to such
an extent for such a long period," she said.
"We were all prepared for some disruption, we were excited about
the project. But we weren't prepared for four years of being shut
off."
She said it would take the business at least a decade to recover.
"I've got so much debt, it's not even funny."
The court heard an original plan to do works on utilities
underneath the route before the major construction was abandoned in
the planning stage, in favour of only doing that work at six key
intersections.
When more utilities were discovered along the route during
construction, there was no agreement in place with Ausgrid or
Sydney Water as to how those utilities could be treated, and no
incentive for contractor Altrac to rein in blowouts in the
construction timeline.
Justice Cavanagh said Transport for NSW was "well aware of the
risks of substantial delay" and described them as "not only
foreseeable but predictable".
"The end result of that process was business owners were exposed to
that risk and the risk came home," he said.
Justice Cavanagh noted that the businesses would not be compensated
for their losses for the entire period of construction, only the
point at which the delays caused the inconvenience to be
"unreasonable".
The owner of one of the other businesses taking part in the class
action, Angela Vithoulkas, said the July 19 decision was a victory
in a David and Goliath battle.
"Thousands of small businesses have been vindicated because there
was a state government who dared to be arrogant enough to consider
that ruining the lives of small business was OK. It's not OK, it
should never be OK," she said.
"This is a warning to every single construction project happening
right now in New South Wales, do not destroy small businesses
because we will come at you and we will win."
Ms Vithoulkas, a former City of Sydney councillor, owned a cafe
along the light rail route which shut down after 18 years in
business.
"The government knew before the project started, they knew when
they did the investigative works that there were problems with the
utilities that would delay the project. They always knew -- they
never assumed any responsibility.
"State government when you get it wrong, pay for it."
Damages for the two lead plaintiffs will be decided at a hearing in
October. [GN]
NEW YORK, NY: Agreement in Students With Disabilities Suit Tackled
------------------------------------------------------------------
New York City Mayor Eric Adams and New York City Department of
Education (DOE) Chancellor David C. Banks on July 19 announced that
the DOE has reached an agreement in a 20-year old court case to
provide equitable, comprehensive, and timely support to students
with disabilities and their families who have chosen to exercise
their due process rights. The agreement stems from the 2003 class
action lawsuit LV et.al vs. NYC DOE class action lawsuit, and
displays the Adams administration's commitment to collaborating on
initiatives that will honor the experiences of students with
disabilities and their families. The original case was filed by
parents of children with disabilities who voiced concerns that the
DOE was not implementing impartial hearing orders issued in their
favor in a timely manner.
The negotiated agreement contains 40 requirements proposed by a
court-appointed special master that the DOE must meet to improve
services for students and their families. The final agreement
represents months of work and collaboration between the DOE, the
plaintiffs, the special master, and the court to improve the
implementation of Impartial Hearing Orders.
"As a student, it was difficult to navigate the public school
system without the support I deserved, and too often, students with
disabilities have struggled in a system that wasn't fully able to
meet them where they are," said Mayor Adams. "The announcement is a
step in the right direction for both New York City's public school
students and their families. Together, with all those involved, the
DOE is building on the foundation this administration is setting to
support students with disabilities and reimaging special education
in public schools."
"For too long, the Department of Education has not done enough for
our students with disabilities and their families. Our families
have long deserved a transparent and responsive process for
receiving much needed services for their children, and we are proud
to continue our efforts to make this a more family-oriented
process," said Chancellor Banks. "The 40 requirements developed by
Special Master David Irwin, in collaboration with DOE and
plaintiffs, and memorialized on July 19 in Judge Preska's order,
are the result of tireless work and collaboration with our general
counsel and key DOE leaders who ensured the special master had
unfettered access and deep engagement with necessary staff to truly
understand the profound challenges that make this work complex and
difficult. The new requirements are stringent because we, too,
believe that change is long overdue. While case volume and
challenges increased over the past decade, we are moving
aggressively to set a new course."
"The court's signing of this order represents a key milestone in
this decades-old case and sets forth a roadmap for lasting reforms
that will benefit thousands of students," said New York City
Corporation Counsel Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix. "I thank Judge Preska
for her steady oversight of this longstanding matter. I commend the
chancellor for his leadership and the entire DOE team for working
collaboratively with the special master to develop this thoughtful
and comprehensive plan."
A Blueprint for Change
There are 40 obligations outlined by the special master with
implementation timelines ranging between 45 days to 18 months from
the date of the order, including requirements for reporting on
progress.
Key points from the court order include:
1. Development of a family-centered customer support plan for the
Implementation Unit.
2. Identification of key performance indicators for monitoring the
administrative workflows of the Implementation Unit, in
collaboration with the special master.
3. Redesign of workflows to address key pain points around the
implementation of payment orders and service orders.
4. Building and maintaining a toolkit of existing assistive
technology, schools, programs, and services.
5. Research and design of a web-based interface for impartial
hearing officers.
6. Formalization of an approach to sustain knowledge of
implementation processes.
7. Establishment of a file-sharing process and tool to improve
transparency of all documentation presented at the hearing.
8. Assessment and implementation of a solution to support the
submission and immediate approval of timesheets.
9. Development of a clear procedure by the Implementation Unit to
inform schools and Committees on Special Education of an ordered
Individualized Education Programs (IEP) meeting.
Building on This Administration's Commitment to Students with
Disabilities
The Adams administration's unyielding commitment to scaling and
sustaining special education programs with track records of success
was celebrated during the 2022-2023 school year with the citywide
expansion of four programs: Sensory Exploration, Education &
Discovery (SEED); Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD); Nest and
Horizon; and Path Programs. This $205 million investment supported
the creation of 70 additional SEED programs, 15 new ASD Nest and
Horizon programs, and seven Path classrooms. This also includes a
new paid internship opportunity for high school students with IEPs
to work in the SEED sensory gyms.
A historic investment was also made in early childhood special
education, earmarking $130 million for providers over two years.
This investment guaranteed an early childhood special education
seat for every child living with a disability by spring 2023,
lengthened the school day to align with general education early
childhood programs, and provided additional benefits to providers,
including professional development opportunities, increases in
salary to accommodate a lengthened school day, and to create pay
parity among providers to match their general education peers.
This administration also recognizes the importance of access to
extracurricular programming for young people. During the 2022-2023
school year, DOE launched a partnership with Special Olympics New
York to create new standalone and unified basketball, bocce ball,
and track & field teams, increasing access to sports for over 2,000
students in District 75 schools.
Lastly, a new Special Education Advisory Council was formed in
December 2022 to identify existing gaps in instruction and
programming, and share recommendations regarding priority
investments in programs and services for students with
disabilities. This council has 50 members and is comprised of
parents, caregivers, local community leaders, university partners,
advocates, students, alumni, educators, and experts in the special
education field. [GN]
NEW YORK, NY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Charles Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
AKILI CHARLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF
EDUCATION; and NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendants,
Case No. 520484/2023 (N.Y., Sup., Kings Cty., July 17, 2023)
alleges that the Defendant's update of Personnel Eligibility
Tracking System allowed vendors to access information about their
own employees and other vendors' employees when conducting
searches.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Plaintiff and the
Class suffered damages arising from the costs associated with
identity theft and the increased risk of identity theft caused by
Defendants' wrongful conduct.
The Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages based on the
opportunity cost and value of time that they were and are forced to
expend to monitor their financial and bank accounts as a result of
the Breach. The Breach was caused and enabled by the Defendants'
violation of its obligations to abide by best practices and
industry standards in protecting personal information in its
dealings with vendors, says the Plaintiff.
NEW YORK CITY comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean. At its core is Manhattan, a densely
populated borough that's among the world's major commercial,
financial and cultural centers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
NEW YORK, NY: Settles Civil Rights Class Action for $13MM
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that New York City has agreed to pay
more than $13 million to settle a civil rights lawsuit brought on
behalf of roughly 1,300 people who were arrested or beaten by
police during racial injustice demonstrations that swept through
the city during the summer of 2020.
If approved by a judge, the settlement, which was filed in
Manhattan federal court on July 19, would be among the most
expensive payouts ever awarded in a lawsuit over mass arrests,
experts said.
The lawsuit focused on 18 of the many protests that erupted in New
York City in the week following the killing of George Floyd by a
police officer in Minneapolis. With certain exceptions, people
arrested or subjected to force by NYPD officers at those events
will each be eligible for $9,950 in compensation, according to
attorneys for the plaintiffs.
The agreement, one of several stemming from the 2020 Black Lives
Matter protests, allows the city to avoid a trial that could be
both expensive and politically fraught.
It comes as many other cities across the U.S. are negotiating their
own settlements with protesters who spilled into the streets to
decry racist police brutality after Floyd's death, a period of
unrest that saw 10,000 people arrested in the span of a few days.
Attorneys with the National Lawyers Guild, which represented the
plaintiffs in New York, accused NYPD leaders of depriving
protesters of their 1st Amendment rights through a "coordinated"
campaign of indiscriminate brutality and unlawful arrests.
Through more than two years of litigation, attorneys for the city
maintained that police were responding to a chaotic and
unprecedented situation, pointing to some unruly protests in which
police vehicles were set on fire and officers pelted with rocks and
plastic bottles.
A spokesperson for the NYPD deferred questions to the city's Law
Department, which did not respond to a request for comment.
During some of the 2020 protest marches, officers deployed a crowd
control tactic known as kettling against peaceful protesters,
corralling them in tight spaces and attacking them with batons and
pepper spray before making mass arrests.
Adama Sow, one of the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said their
group of marchers were trapped by police without warning. Sow and
the other arrestees were placed in zip ties until their hands
turned purple, then held in a sweltering correctional bus for
several hours.
"It was so disorganized, but so intentional," Sow said. "They
seemed set on traumatizing everyone."
The city invoked qualified immunity, which protects police officers
from lawsuits stemming from lawful work performed in the line of
duty, and defended the decision to arrest medics and legal
observers as within the rights of the department.
While attorneys for the plaintiffs cited past crackdowns on large
demonstrations, including during the 2004 Republican National
Convention, as evidence of longstanding "systemic violations" by
the NYPD, attorneys for the city said there was no systematic
effort to deprive people of their right to protest.
"There is no history -- or present or future -- of unconstitutional
policing," Georgia Pestana, an attorney for the city, wrote in a
memo. "There is no frequent deprivation of constitutional rights."
The lawsuit named former Mayor Bill de Blasio and retired NYPD
Commissioner Dermot Shea as well as other police leaders as
defendants. Under the settlement agreement, neither the city nor
the NYPD is required to admit any wrongdoing.
Protesters who were arrested on certain charges -- including
trespassing, property destruction, assaulting an officer, arson or
weapons possession -- will be excluded from the settlement. Those
who were seen on video blocking police from making arrests may also
be ineligible.
Unlike some other lawsuits related to the 2020 protests, the class
action was not meant to force the NYPD to change its practices.
There are several other lawsuits aimed at injunctive relief that
are ongoing, including one brought by New York Attorney General
Letitia James that calls for a federal monitor to oversee the
NYPD's policing of protests.
Another class action settlement announced earlier this year would
award $21,500 to those arrested by police during one demonstration
in the Bronx, a payout that could total around $10 million
including legal fees.
Separately, more than 600 people have brought individual claims
against New York City related to police action during the 2020
protests, according to the city's comptroller, Brad Lander. Roughly
half of them have resulted in settlements and resolutions, costing
the city nearly $12 million to date.
Wylie Stecklow, an attorney for the protesters in the class action
lawsuit, said the growing cost to taxpayers should serve as a "red
flag" for city leaders about the NYPD's inability to correct its
"decades old problem with constitutionally compliant protest
policing."
"While the arc of the moral universe is indeed long, sometimes it
needs reform to bend towards justice" he said. [GN]
NINA FOOTWEAR CORP: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nina Footwear Corp.
The case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Nina Footwear Corp., Case No.
1:23-cv-05635-PGG-KHP (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Nina Footwear -- https://www.ninashoes.com/ -- is an apparel and
fashion company specializing in footwear and accessories,
headquartered in New York.[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
NORTH PARK: Murphy Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MURPHY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NORTH PARK UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-06159 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990, the New York State Human Rights Law, the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.northpark.edu/, contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues include, but not limited to: (a)
lack of alternative text (alt-text), or a text equivalent; (b)
empty links that contain no text; (c) redundant links; and (d)
linked images missing alt-text.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
North Park University is an operator of the North Park online
college across the United States, including New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Michael@gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
Dana@gottlieb.legal
NUTRACEUTICAL WELLNESS: Malich Sues Over Nutrafol's Deceptive Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OLENA MALICH, RACHEL CLUGSTON, ERIN SCOTT, IGOR KRAVCHENKO, and
MONICA KAPOOR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. NUTRACEUTICAL WELLNESS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-06146 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of New York's General Business
Law, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair
Competition Law, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the Illinois
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Nutrafol
hair growth products. Throughout its advertising campaign, the
Defendant uses a common fraudulent scheme that deceives consumers
into believing that the products are proven clinically effective
and that the ingredients are medical grade treatments for hormone
imbalances characteristic of common hair loss diseases. The
Defendant's representations, however, are false and misleading
because the supposed clinical studies that the Defendant cites in
its marketing to support these claims do not, in fact, offer any
competent or reliable clinical proof to support its claims.
Moreover, the Defendant's implied disease claims that suggest that
the products treat underlying hormone imbalances that are
characteristic of common hair loss diseases have not been approved
by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and have not been
substantiated by competent reliable evidence. As a result of the
Defendant's misrepresentations, it sells the products at a premium
price, says the suit.
Nutraceutical Wellness, Inc. is a manufacturer of nutritional
products, with its principal place of business in New York, New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
328 Barry Ave. S., Suite 200
Wayzata, MN 55391
Telephone: (612) 389-0600
Facsimile: (612) 389-0610
E-mail: mweiner@pwfirm.com
- and -
Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 254-6808
Facsimile: (202) 973-0900
E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com
- and -
Allison W. Parr, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest, Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: aparr@tzlegal.com
- and -
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
E-mail: cardoso@kolawyers.com
- and -
Rachel L. Soffin, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
E-mail: rsoffin@milberg.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com
O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES: Perez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against O'Reilly Auto
Enterprises, LLC. The case is styled as Stephanie Perez, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. O'Reilly Auto
Enterprises, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0007289 (Cal. Super.
Ct., San Joaquin Cty., July 14, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC --
https://corporate.oreillyauto.com/ -- owns and operates retail auto
parts stores. The Company provides private-label and generic
automotive products for domestic and imported cars, including new
and remanufactured automotive replacement parts, maintenance items,
and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
KARASIK LAW FIRM
16021 Aiglon St
Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
O'REILLY AUTO: VVanti Bid for Class Status Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMANTHA VVANTI, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. O'REILLY AUTO
ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-02407-WLH-JPR (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Wesley L. Hsu entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, as
follows:
-- The Court Certifies under Rule 23(b)(3) the following class:
Class 2: Direct Violation of Wage Statement Class, defined as
all
current and former non-exempt hourly employees of the
Defendant in the state of California who worked in
an
O'Reilly Auto Parts retail store and who, at any time
from January 4, 2018, through the present, received
at
least one wage statement.
-- The Court Denies the Plaintiff's motion as to Class 1: Meal
Break
Class, Class 3: Derivative Violation of Wage Statement Class,
and
Class 4: Waiting Time Class.
-- As a result, the Court finds that a class action is superior
to
other available alternatives with respect to the Plaintiff’s
Direct Wage Statement Class. The Plaintiff has satisfied this
prong of Rule 23. The Plaintiff has also established that the
putative Direct Wage Statement Class is ascertainable.
The Plaintiff Vvanti sued the O'Reilly on behalf of herself and
others, alleging that O'Reilly violated a host of California Labor
Code provisions related to wages and lawful meal breaks.
The Defendant removed the action from Los Angeles Superior Court to
this Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. Shortly after
removal, the case was stayed pending resolution of two
earlier-filed class actions asserting overlapping class claims
against the Defendant.
The Plaintiff then filed a First Amended Complaint, which added a
Private Attorney General Act claim. Tthe Defendant answered.
O'Reilly owns and operates retail auto parts stores.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44B1Qwu at no extra charge.[CC]
OPENAI INC: Frankfurt Kurnit Attorney Discusses BIPA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Smizer, Esq., of Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC, in an
article for Lexology, disclosed that on June 28, 2023, a group of
anonymous plaintiffs brought a class action lawsuit against OpenAI,
alleging the companies' artificial intelligence tools have violated
privacy protection laws. Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that
these AI products use "stolen private information" taken from
"hundreds of millions internet users, including children of all
ages, without their informed consent or knowledge." As a result,
plaintiffs allege, OpenAI has violated a number of State and
federal laws, ranging from Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy
Act (BIPA) to the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act
(ECPA).
This action marks one of the first AI-related lawsuits not focused
primarily on intellectual property infringement. On the same days
at this lawsuit, two U.S. authors sued OpenAI in the same court
(the Northern District of California) in another class action
lawsuit for copyright infringement claims, alleging OpenAI had
mined data from a number of books without consent from the
writers.
In the 157-page complaint, plaintiffs assert that tech companies
"are onboarding society into a plane that over half of the surveyed
AI experts believe has at least a 10% chance of crashing and
killing everyone on board." Although this is one of the first
privacy-focused AI lawsuits, it is not first lawsuit concerning
data mining and scraping.
In November 2022, the Ninth Circuit ruled on a case involving HiQ
Labs, a data science company, for allegedly violating the Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) by scraping public user profiles and
related information from a social media website. This ruling came
after the case had been remanded by the U.S. Supreme Court. In
short, the six-year litigation ended in a stipulation between the
parties that would prohibit HiQ Labs from scraping any more data
from user's social media profiles and destroy the algorithms
created as a result of the scraped user data.
Among a number of other claims, plaintiffs allege that OpenAI has
violated the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) by failing to
provide sufficient notice and honoring consumer requests. In
particular, the complaint notes the technical impossibilities for
consumers attempting to exercise their right to deletion. The
complaint reads: "OpenAI fails to disclose that once its AI
Products have been trained on an individual's information, that
information has been included into the product and cannot
reasonably be extracted."
While the lawsuit contains some perhaps overbroad warnings about
artificial intelligence, this class action poses an interesting
legal challenge to OpenAI, particularly in light of the FTC-Edmodo
order. As a quick recap, the FTC sued Edmodo, an ed-tech provider,
for allegedly violating children's privacy. Notably, the FTC
required the deletion of all "Affected Work Product," which
includes models or algorithms that were developed using personal
information collected unlawfully from children.
In light of these LinkedIn and Edmodo decisions, the real risk to
OpenAI here may be the eventual requirement to destroy its trained
artificial intelligence models, at the least to the extent those
models can be shown to have incorporated unlawfully scraped
personal information. Further, the outcome of this lawsuit will
undoubtedly alter the data practices and training methods employed
by AI companies across the internet. [GN]
OSKA SHOP NEW YORK: Hussein Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against OSKA Shop New York,
LLC. The case is styled as Sumaya Hussein, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. OSKA Shop New York, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-03865 (N.D. Ill., June 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
OSKA Shop New York, LLC -- https://us.oska.com/ -- is a women's
clothing store in New York City who design timelessly beautiful,
high-quality minimalist clothing that defies trends.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
OTO DEVELOPMENT: Lockett Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NIKOL LOCKETT,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
OTO DEVELOPMENT, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:22-cv-04730-MEMF-MAR
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. Certifying a class of about 565 employees on three main
theories, with an additional sub-class identified for the
rest
break-dependent theory of liability;
2. Appointing the Plaintiff as representative of the proposed
class
or later proposed and approved by the Court and any other
sub-
class the Court may devise;
3. Appointing Kane Moon, H. Scott Leviant, and Mariam Ghazaryan
of
Moon Law Group, PC, as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P.
23(g); and
4. Issuing such other Orders as necessary to effectuate the
Court's
certification Order.
The case is wage and hour class action lawsuit involving hourly
employees that worked for hotel operating company OTO in
California.
The Plaintiff requests that the Court certify the following class:
"All individuals employed by the Defendant in hourly-paid or
nonexempt positions in California at any time since April 1,
2020,
who did not sign an arbitration agreement."
Front Desk SubClass: All individuals employed by the Defendant
as
Front Desk Agents (or comparable job titles) in hourly-paid or
non-
exempt positions in California at any time since April 1, 2020,
who
did not sign an arbitration agreement.
The Plaintiff further requests certification of such sub-classes as
are necessary to manage the proposed class, including penalty
sub-classes defined by applicable statutes of limitation.
OTO provides hotel development and management services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 10, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rIhB6k at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
Mariam Ghazaryan, Esq.
MOON LAW GROUP, PC
1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 232-3128
Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
E-mail: kmoon@moonlawgroup.com
hsleviant@moonlawgroup.com
mghazaryan@moonlawgroup.com
PLURALSIGHT INC: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned INDIANA PUBLIC RETIREMENT
SYSTEM and PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND OF
CHICAGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. PLURALSIGHT, INC.; AARON SKONNARD; and JAMES BUDGE,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00128-DBB-DAO (D. Utah), the Parties stipulate and
jointly move the Court to extend the deadline for the Defendants to
file an opposition to Lead the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and appointment of class representatives and class
counsel, and the deadline for the Plaintiffs to file a reply in
support of the motion for class certification.
Pursuant to the Order Granting Stipulated Motion to Extend, the
deadline for the Defendants to oppose the Motion for Class
Certification is currently July 13, 2023, and the deadline for the
Plaintiffs to file a reply in support of the Motion for Class
Certification is September 8, 2023.
The Parties request the Court enter an order extending the deadline
for the Defendants to file any opposition until August 14, 2023,
and the Plaintiffs’ deadline to file any reply until October 9,
2023.
The Defendants state that good cause for this request exists
because the Defendants need additional time to complete the factual
discovery relevant to the Motion for Class Certification, including
the completion of document productions from the Plaintiffs’
non-party investment advisors, and conducting several noticed Rule
30(b)(6) depositions of the Plaintiffs and their non-party
investment advisors.
Pluralsight is an American privately held online education company
that offers a variety of video training courses for software
developers, IT administrators, and creative professionals through
its website.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 10, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KaDkKu at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
Steven J. Toll, Esq.
Jan Messerschmidt, Esq.
William Wilder, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1705
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 357-0370
Facsimile: (312) 357-0369
E-mail: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com
stoll@cohenmilstein.com
wwilder@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Keith M. Woodwell, Esq.
CLYDE SNOW & SESSIONS, P.C.
201 South Main Street, Suite 1300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 322-2516
Facsimile: (801) 521-6280
E-mail: kmw@clydesnow.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Gregory L. Watts, Esq.
Caitlin E. McKelvie, Esq.
Stevenson C. Smith, Esq.
Tamara Lemmon, Esq.
Ignacio E. Salceda, Esq.
Stephanie L. Jensen, Esq.
Tyre L. Tindall, Esq.
McKinney Wheeler, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
15 West South Temple
Gateway Tower West, Suite 1700
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Telephone:(801) 401-8510
E-mail: gwatts@wsgr.com
cmckelvie@wsgr.com
stevenson.smith@wsgr.com
tlemmon@wsgr.com
isalceda@wsgr.com
sjensen@wsgr.com
ttindall@wsgr.com
mckinney.wheeler@wsgr.com
PORSCHE CARS: Abel Sues Over Overcharges for Cars
-------------------------------------------------
Robert John Abel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC. and DR. ING h.c. F.
PORSCHE AG, Case No. 3:23-cv-03807 (D.N.J., July 17, 2023), is
brought on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
purchasers and lessees of Porsche vehicles from model years 2014
through 2019 which, with the sunsetting of 3G services by wireless
carrier partners, will no longer be able to operate the functions
of the "Porsche Connect" systems installed in the "Cars," and
commenced to obtain recompense for diminution in value and/or
overcharges for Cars whose telematics were rendered inoperable when
3G as phased out, and/or to recover the costs to repair, retrofit
or replace the 3G telematics or if necessary the Cars.
Porsche has admitted and identified the models and years of the
cars with now inoperable "Porsche Connect" features. Defendants
made numerous representations and provided warranties in their
marketing of the Cars regarding the Porsche Connect systems, when
in fact, the Cars' Porsche Connect features were only temporary due
to the defective manufacture and defective design of Porsche's
factory equipped 3G telematics systems which was built to be
operative only on a 3G network installed in the Cars. The Cars'
internet enabled features such as roadside emergency safety
features were rendered inoperable after the 3G phase out in 2022
due to Defendants' use of obsolete telematics equipment they
installed in the cars. The cars affected are: "911" for model years
2017-2019; "Cayenne" for 2015-2019; "Macan" for 2017-2018; "718"
for 2017-2021; "Panamera" for 2014-2018 and the "918 Spyder" for
2014 (collectively the "Cars").
The Defendants' representations about Porsche Connect were false
and misleading. In the months and years following the introduction
of Porsche Connect in the early 2010s, as the phasing out of 3G
service was being planned and 4G and 5G service was being phased
in, Defendants never disclosed after model year 2021 was issued
that the "telematics" in the Cars had been built and installed with
3G only capabilities and that Porsche Connect would not be operable
on any generation beyond 3G (hereinafter referred to as "3G Only
Limitations").
By making ubiquitous misrepresentations about Porsche Connect and
the Cars, and by failing to honor their "bumper-to-bumper"
warranties, Defendants engaged in deceptive acts in violation of
Florida and Georgia consumer fraud statutes; breached express and
implied warranties under UCC uniform code provisions adopted by all
states other than Louisiana; and violated the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, and committed other wrongdoing. Defendants are liable
to Plaintiff and all other similarly situated members of the Class
for all damages resulting from the claims herein, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident of the state of Florida who purchased a
2018 Porsche Panamera in or about July, 2018 from Porsche of
Orlando ("Vehicle") as a "new vehicle."
Porsche cars have been sold in the USA since the 50s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lee Squitieri, Esq.
SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
305 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 421-6492
PROFESSIONAL FIDUCIARY: Parties Seek to Reset Class Cert Briefing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT MACTAGGERT, v.
PROFESSIONAL FIDUCIARY SERVICES LLC; JOHN MICHAEL MAIER; ROBERT S.
SCIDMORE; and BRET FARNUM, Case No. 3:22-cv-00371-wmc (W.D. Wis.),
the Parties request the Court to amend the Preliminary Pretrial
Conference Order to stay and reset the current deadlines for the
Plaintiff to seek class certification and for the Defendant to
respond to the Plaintiff's class certification motion.
On October 28, 2022, the Court entered the Preliminary Order
providing in relevant part that the deadline for plaintiffs to seek
certification of a Rule 23 class would be August 4, 2023
-- Any response would be due August 18, 2023.
-- The deadline for any reply would be September 1, 2023.
On September 22, 2022, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Plaintiff's complaint. The Motions to Dismiss have been fully
briefed, including the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a
sur-reply, and remain pending.
Resolution of the Motions to Dismiss may impact the Plaintiff's
request for class certification.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44U6fKA at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick O. Muench, Esq.
Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
Laura Babiak, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
318 W. Adams Street, Suite 1512
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 500-8680
Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
E-mail: pmuench@baileyglasser.com
gporter@baileyglasser.com
rjenny@baileyglasser.com
lbabiak@baileyglasser.com
- and -
William E. Parsons, Esq.
Connor J. Clegg, Esq.
HAWKS QUINDEL S.C.
409 E. Main Street
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 257-0040
Facsimile: (608) 256-0236
E-mail: wparsons@hq-law.com
cclegg@hq-law.com
- and -
Robert A. Izard, Esq.
Douglas P. Needham, Esq.
IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP
29 South Main Street, Suite 305
West Hartford, CT 06107
E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com
dneedham@ikrlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Danielle E. Marocchi, Esq.
Thomas M. Burnett, Esq.
Daniel G. Murphy, Esq.
REINHART, BOERNER, VAN DEUREN
1000 North Water Street, Suite 1700
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Telephone: (414) 298-1000
Facsimile: (414) 298-8097
E-mail: tburnett@reinhartlaw.com
dmarocchi@reinhartlaw.com
DMurphy@reinhartlaw.com
- and -
Lars C. Golumbic, Esq.
Ross Philip McSweeney, Esq.
Sarah Adams, Esq.
GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED
1701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 306-3013
E-mail: lgolumbic@groom.com
rmcsweeney@groom.com
sadams@groom.com
- and -
Kendall W. Harrison
GODFREY & KAHN S.C.
One East Main Street, Suite 500
Madison, WI 53701
Telephone: (608) 257-3911
Facsimile: (608) 257-0609
E-mail: kharrison@gklaw.com
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Pulignani Sues Over Access of Personal Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN PULIGNANI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, THE
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, and THE JOHNS HOPKINS HEALTH SYSTEM
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01912-MJM (D. Md., July
17, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
breach of third-party beneficiary contract, breach of contract,
negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and declaratory and
injunctive relief.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the protected health information (PHI) and personally
identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly
situated customers stored within their systems following a data
breach that existed as far back as 2021. The Defendants also failed
to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals
about the data breach. As a result, the PII and PHI of the
Plaintiff and Class members were compromised and damaged through
access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties,
says the suit.
Progress Software Corporation is a software company based in
Massachusetts.
The Johns Hopkins University is a research university based in
Maryland.
The Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation is a hospital system
based in Maryland. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Courtney L. Weiner, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF COURTNEY WEINER PLLC
1629 K. Street NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 827-9980
E-mail: cw@courtneyweinerlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey Brown, Esq.
Michael Tompkins, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: JBrown@LeedsBrownLaw.com
mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Kroeger Allowed to File Docs Under Seal
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kroeger v. Progressive
Universal Insurance Company, Case No. 4:22-cv-00104 (S.D. Iowa,
Filed March 25, 2022), the Hon. Judge Helen C. Adams entered an
order granting motion for leave to file under seal.
The Plaintiff may file under seal the materials specified in
motion, which are included in the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.
The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.
Progressive Universal operates as an insurance firm.[CC]
PYRAMID LQR: Chan Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Africa Chan, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. PYRAMID LQR MANAGEMENT, L.P., and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV12865 was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County
of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on July 17, 2023, and assigned Case No.
2:23-cv-05770.
The Plaintiff's Complaint pleads causes of action for: failure to
pay all minimum wages; failure to pay all overtime wages; meal
period violations; rest period violations; failure to indemnify
necessary business expenses; waiting time penalties; wage statement
violations; and unfair business practices pursuant to California
Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff seeks recovery of
compensatory damages, including unpaid wages, overtime,
reimbursement of unpaid business expenses, and premium pay, general
and special damages, liquidated damages, statutory and civil
penalties, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, pre-judgment
interest, costs of suit, attorneys' fees.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Sabrina L. Shadi, Esq.
Matthew W. Morris, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
Phone: (310) 820-8800
Fax: (310) 820-8859
Email: sshadi@bakerlaw.com
mmorris@bakerlaw.com
RAINBOW ROADSIDE: Fox FLSA Suit Transferred to E.D. North Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jesse Fox, Lorenzo Dominguez, and Michael
Skillings, and on Behalf of all others similarly situated v.
RAINBOW ROADSIDE SERVICES, LLC, a Limited Liability Company,
KIMBERLY J. GREEN, An Individual, and MARY ELIZABEITH LOFLIN, An
individual, and CHRISTOPHER MARTIN, an Individual, Case No.
6:22-cv-01540 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina on July 17, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-00123-M to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Acts.
RAINBOW ROADSIDE SERVICES offers Roadside Assistance, Auto Repair,
Tires.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602-3343
Phone: (813) 579-2483
Email: aheystek@wfclaw.com
rcooke@wfclaw.com
- and -
Daniel Elliot Kalter, Esq.
ALLEN NORTON & BLUE, P.A.
324 South Hyde Park Avenue, Suite 225
Tampa, FL 33606-4130
Phone: (813) 251-1210
Fax: (813) 253-2006
The Defendants appears pro se.
ROB'S BACKSTAGE: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rob's Backstage
Popcorn LLC. The case is styled as Nadreca Reid, individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Rob's Backstage Popcorn LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06077 (S.D.N.Y., July
14, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Rob's Backstage Popcorn -- https://eatrobs.com/ -- is a snacking
brand.[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
RUSSELL FEED INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Russell Feed, Inc.
The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Russell Feed, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-06138 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Russell Feed & Supply -- https://www.russellfeedandsupply.com/ -- a
leader in the feed industry, offers a large selection of products
at competitive prices.[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
RYANAIR HOLDINGS: Final Settlement Deal in Class Suit for Court OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ryanair Holdings PLC. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the
fiscal period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 24, 2023, that the final settlement
agreement for the Birmingham Retirement putative securities class
suit is subject to the approval of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.
In November 2018, a putative securities class action complaint was
filed against the Company and Mr. O'Leary in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "District
Court").
The District Court appointed lead plaintiffs, the City of
Birmingham Retirement and Relief System and City of Birmingham
Firemen's and Policemen's Supplemental Pension System (the
"Birmingham Funds"), in January 2019.
The Birmingham Funds filed an amended complaint in April 2019 that
purports to be on behalf of purchasers of Ryanair American
Depositary Shares ("ADSs") between May 30, 2017 and September 28,
2018.
The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that in filings
with the SEC, investor calls, interviews, and other communications,
the Company and/or Mr. O'Leary made materially false and misleading
statements and omissions regarding employment and financial data,
employee negotiation processes, the September 2017 pilot rostering
management issue, and the likelihood and financial impact of
unionization, which allegedly artificially inflated the market
value of the Company's securities.
In June 2020, the District Court issued a ruling dismissing in part
the Birmingham Funds' claims, including claims regarding employment
and financial data, employee negotiation processes, the September
2017 pilot rostering management issue, and the financial impact of
unionization.
The Birmingham Funds' claims regarding the likelihood of
unionization were not dismissed.
In March 2021, the Birmingham Funds issued a motion to amend their
claim, seeking, among other things, to re-introduce prior dismissed
claims.
The Company and Mr. O'Leary filed an opposition to the motion to
amend in May 2021.
The motion was refused in March 2022. In March 2023, following
mediation, the parties agreed to settle the case.
The total settlement amount is U.S.$5m, which is considerably less
than the legal costs that would have been incurred had this action
gone all the way to trial.
The Company's position remains that there was no lawful basis for
this claim, but that the settlement will enable it to avoid the
further costs and distraction of ongoing litigation, and it is
therefore in the interest of all of the Company’s shareholders to
agree to this very modest settlement.
The final settlement agreement is subject to approval by the
Court.
Ryanair is an Irish low-cost airline founded in 1984. It is
headquartered in Swords, Dublin, with its primary operational
bases
at Dublin and London Stansted airports.
SAMSUNG DISPLAY: Heckerman Suit Challenges eMagin Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUDSON D. HECKERMAN, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated stockholders of EMAGIN CORP., v. JILL J. WITTELS, ANDREW
G. SCULLEY, ERIC BRADDOM, PAUL CRONSON, ELLEN RICHSTONE, STEPHEN M.
SEAY, SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD, EMERALD INTERMEDIATE, INC., EMERALD
MERGER SUB, INC., and EMAGIN CORPORATION, Case No. 2023-0716 (Del.
Ch., July 14, 2023) challenges the transaction through which
Samsung proposes to acquire eMagin for $2.08 per share.
According to the complaint, following a process focused on a single
bidder (Samsung) and relying on a financial advisor who issued an
obviously unreliable fairness opinion, the eMagin Board breached
their fiduciary duties by agreeing to terms in the Merger Agreement
that disenfranchise eMagin's stockholders by coercing them to vote
in favor of the Merger. eMagin stockholders have no choice but to
approve the Merger regardless of its merits because the Merger
Agreement contains a coercive $9 million so-called "naked no vote"
termination fee that represents 4.13% of the proposed transaction
consideration. What this means is that if eMagin stockholders
exercise their fundamental right to vote "no" to the Merger, their
stock loses value because the Company will have to pay Samsung the
full $9 million termination fee. It appears the Board did not
obtain any value in the transaction in exchange for
disenfranchising eMagin's stockholders through the coercive $9
million naked no vote termination fee, says the suit.
Not only will stockholders own an entity worth $9 million less if
they vote down the Merger, but paying the $9 million naked no vote
fee may cause the Company to become insolvent or potentially
default on one of its lending facilities, the suit asserts.
Absent a Court order, eMagin stockholders will inequitably lose out
on the ability to decide whether eMagin should remain an
independent entity or to potentially obtain increased merger
consideration from Samsung or another potential purchaser following
an uncoerced "no" vote by eMagin's public stockholders, added the
suit.
Plaintiff Heckerman has been an eMagin stockholder continuously
since March 2021.
Samsung manufactures and distributes display products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Derrick Farrell, Esq.
Javier Bleichmar
Joseph A. Fonti
Thayne Stoddard
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
3411 Silverside Rd.
Baynard Building, Ste 104
Wilmington, Delaware 19810
Telephone: (302) 499-2158
- and -
John A. Kehoe. Esq.
Michael K. Yarnoff
KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C.
Two Penn Center Plaza
1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1020
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 792-6676
SECURLY INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Bate Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
SHERI BATE, and her child N.M.; and AZUCENA MEJIA, and her child
A.S., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. SECURLY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-01304-AGS-DEB (S.D. Cal., July 17, 2023) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.
SECURLY, INC. provides software solutions. The Company offers cloud
based web filtering solutions and parental control products for
schools and families. Securly operates worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (866) 219-3343
Facsimile: (866) 219-8344
Email: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com
SELENE FINANCE: Diaz Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Selene Finance, LP,
et al. The case is styled as Luis Diaz, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Selene Finance, LP, John Does
1-25, Case No. 2:23-cv-03798-SDW-AME (D.N.J., July 16, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Selene Finance, LP -- https://www.selenefinance.com/ -- operates as
a residential mortgage company. The Company offers all aspects of
mortgage loan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Phone: (973) 227-5900
Fax: (973) 244-0019
Email: jkj@legaljones.com
SHARECARE HEALTH: Crosley Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sharecare Health Data
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Marisa Crosley, on behalf of
Herself and all others similarly situated v. Sharecare Health Data
Services, LLC, Case No. 2377CV00684 (Mass. Super. Ct., Essex Cty.,
July 17, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Contract/Business Cases."
Sharecare Health Data Services -- https://hds.sharecare.com/ --
provides secure electronic exchange, delivery and integration of
PHI.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alexandria A. Jacobs, Esq.
Walter H. Jacobs, Esq.
W. JACOBS AND ASSOCIATES AT LAW, L.L.C.
Willows Professional Park 795 Turnpike Road
North Andover, MA 01845
SIX FLAGS: Mack Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Danielle Mack, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. SIX FLAGS GREAT ADVENTURE, LLC, and
SIX FLAGS ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION, Case No. OCN-L-1222-23 was
removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Ocean County, to the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on July
17, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-03813.
The Complaint alleges claims under the New Jersey Wage and Hour
Law
("NJWHL"). Specifically, Plaintiff contends that she and the
members of the Putative Class (as defined in the Complaint) are
entitled to recovery under the NJWHL for Defendants' purported
failure to pay Plaintiff and the members of the Putative Class for
time spent undergoing security screenings and for the walking time
before and after the security screenings.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Garrett D. Kennedy, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10020
Phone: (212) 335-4500
Fax (212) 335-4501
Email: garrett.kennedy@dlapiper.com
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Court Modifies Amended Case Management Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADAM FRANCHI, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. SMILEDIRECTCLUB,
INC., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-0096 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge
Jeffery S. Frensley entered an order granting joint motion to
modify the amended case management order to extend certain pretrial
deadlines, which do not affect the schedule for dispositive motions
or trial.
Event Current Proposed
Deadline
Modification
Deadline to file any response July 10, 2023 Aug. 28,
2023
brief in opposition to the
motion for class certification
Deadline to file any reply brief Aug. 11, 2023 Sept. 29,
2023
in support of the motion for
class certification
Deadline to complete depositions Aug. 14, 2023 No change
and fact discovery
Deadline to identify and disclose Oct. 13, 2023 No change
all affirmative expert witnesses
and provide expert reports
Deadline to identify and disclose Nov. 27, 2023 No change
any rebuttal expert witnesses
and rebuttal reports
Deadline to complete expert Dec. 1, 2023 No change
depositions
Deadline to file dispositive Jan. 30, 2024 No change
motions
Deadline to file responses to March 15, 2024 No change
dispositive motions
Deadline to file optional April 15, 2024 No change
replies in support of
dispositive motions
Deadline to file motions in July 1, 2024 No change
limine and motions objecting
to expert testimony
Deadline to file responses to July 8, 2024 No change
motions in limine and motions
objecting to expert testimony
Pretrial conference July 15, 2024 No change
Trial July 23, 2024 No change
SmileDirectClub is a teledentistry company.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rHEgQ9 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher M. Wood, Esq.
Henry S. Bator, Esq.
Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
Scott H. Saham, Esq.
Jeffrey J. Stein, Esq.
Ashley M. Kelly, Esq.
Ting H. Liu, Esq.
Stephen Johnson, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-2203
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: cwood@rgrdlaw.com
hbator@rgrdlaw.com
darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
scotts@rgrdlaw.com
jstein@rgrdlaw.com
akelly@rgrdlaw.com
tliu@rgrdlaw.com
sjohnson@rgrdlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Steven A. Riley, Esq.
Milton S. (Trey) Mcgee, III, Esq.
Elizabeth O. Gonser, Esq.
RILEY & JACOBSON, PLC
1906 West End Ave,
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 320-3700
E-mail: sriley@rjfirm.com
tmcgee@rjfirm.com
egonser@rjfirm.com
- and -
Jay B. Kasner, Esq.
Scott D. Musoff, Esq.
Michael C. Griffin, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER
& FLOM LLP
One Manhattan West
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 735-3000
Facsimile: (917) 735-2000
E-mail: jay.kasner@skadden.com
scott.musoff@skadden.com
michael.griffin@skadden.com
- and -
Andrew G. Fiorella, Esq.
BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER,
COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP
200 Public Square, Suite 2300
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 363-4453
Facsimile: (216) 363-4588
E-mail: afiorella@beneschlaw.com
- and -
John S. Hicks, Esq.
Christopher E. Thorsen, Esq.
BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN,
CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
1600 West End Avenue, Suite 2000
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 726-5600
Facsimile: (615) 726-0464
E-mail: jhicks@bakerdonelson.com
cthorsen@bakerdonelson.com
- and -
Sharon L. Nelles, Esq.
Andrew J. Finn, Esq.
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 558-4000
Facsimile: (212) 558-3588
E-mail: nelless@sullcrom.com
finna@sullcrom.com
SMITHFIELD FOODS: Court OK'd Bid to FIle Sur-Reply
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMMANUEL JEAN-FRANCOIS, et
al., v. SMITHFIELD FOODS, INC., et al., Case No. 7:22-cv-00063-D
(E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge James C. Dever III entered an order
granting the Defendants motion to file a sur-reply and denying as
duplicative plaintiffs' motion for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
collective action certification.
The plaintiffs seek a collective of ·a11 employees of several of
Smithfield Fresh Meats Corp.'s North Carolina facilities. However,
plaintiffs already were part of the collective who received notice
as part of the Canas action.
The Canas collective fully represents every plaintiff in this
proposed collective. All Smithfield Fresh Meats Corp. employees in
North Carolina are in the Canas collective and should have received
notice in Canas.
The court declines to certify another collective action. Instead
plaintiffs' remedy is to proceed with their action as an individual
action or request to be paid now what they would have received
had they submitted a claim form from the Canas reserve fund.
The case concerns an employment compensation dispute between
Emmanuel Jean-Francois, Alicia Johnson, and Wanda King and their
employer, Smithfield Fresh Meats Corp., and its sister companies,
Smithfield Packaged M~ats Corp., Smithfield Foods, Inc., and
Smithfield Distribution, LLC.
Smithfield Foods is a pork producer and food-processing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44VOZEN at no extra charge.[CC]
SOUTH UNIVERSITY SAVANNAH: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed South University Savannah,
LLC. The case is styled as James Murphy, for himself and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated v. South University
Savannah, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06161 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
South University -- https://www.southuniversity.edu/ -- is a
private university with its main campus and online operations in
Savannah, Georgia, United States.[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
STEPHENS INSTITUTE: Ibarra Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stephens Institute,
et al. The case is styled as Raul B. Ibarra, an individual, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Stephens
Institute, Does 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC23607667 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., July 14, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Stevens Institute of Technology -- https://www.stevens.edu/ -- is a
private research university in Hoboken, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Emil Davtyan, Esq.
DAVTYAN LAW FIRM
400 N Brand Blvd., Ste. 700
Glendale, CA 91203-2364
Phone: 818-875-2008
Fax: 818-722-3974
Email: emil@davtyanlaw.com
Website: www.d.law
- and -
Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq.
DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
2540 Foothill Blvd., Ste. 201
La Crescenta, CA 91214-4583
Phone: 818-230-8380
Fax: 818-230-0308
Email: alvin@yeremianlaw.com
Website: www.yeremianlaw.com
SUNSWEET GROWERS: Hinojosa Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Annamarie Renteria Hinojosa, an individual,
on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. SUNSWEET GROWERS INC., a California corporation; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CVCS23-0000742 was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the
County of Sutter, to the United States District Court for the
District of South Carolina on July 14, 2023, and assigned Case No.
2:23-at-00672.
In the Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts nine causes of action
against Defendant arising out of her employment with Defendant.
Specifically, Plaintiff brought claims for: unfair competition in
violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code; failure to pay minimum wages
in violation of Cal. Lab. Code, failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of Cal. Lab. Code, failure to provide required meal
periods in violation of Cal. Lab. Code and the applicable IWC Wage
Order, failure to provide required rest periods in violation of
Cal. Lab. Code and the applicable IWC Wage Order, failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of Cal. Lab.
Code, failure to reimburse employees for required expenses in
violation of Cal. Lab. Code, failure to pay sick wages in violation
of Cal. Lab. Code, and retaliation in violation of Labor Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Timothy J. Long, Esq.
Michael A. Wertheim, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916.442.1111
Facsimile: 916.448.1709
Email: longt@gtlaw.com
Michael.Wertheim@gtlaw.com
TDBBS LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TDBBS, LLC. The case
is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. TDBBS, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06139 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 17, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Tdbbs, LLC -- https://www.tdbbsllc.com/ -- provides pet foods. The
Company offers dog treats and chews.[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
TESLA INC: Class Suit Over Misrepresentation Ongoing in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tesla Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal period
ending June 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 21, 2023, that the proposed class suit is
ongoing.
On February 27, 2023, a proposed class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against
Tesla, Inc., Elon Musk and certain current and former Company
executives. The complaint alleges that the defendants made material
misrepresentations and omissions about the Company's Autopilot and
FSDC technologies and seeks money damages and other relief on
behalf of persons who purchased Tesla stock between February 19,
2019 and February 17, 2023.
Tesla is an American multinational automotive and clean energy
company.
TESTIMONIAL COMMUNITY LOVE: Propps Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Testimonial Community
Love Center, et al. The case is styled as Lyric Drashuan Leann
Propps, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nationwide
Mutual Insurance Company, Does 1-50, Case No. 23STCV16731 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 17, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Contract Dispute (Not
Breach/Insurance/Fraud/Negligence)."
Testimonial Community Love Center (TCLC) is a private, non-profit,
secular organization.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ginzburg Daniel, Esq.
FRONTIER LAW CENTER
23901 Calabasas Rd. #2074
Calabasas, CA 91302
TEXAS HEALTH: Seeks More Time to File Response on Notice
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN LANGHAM, V. TEXAS
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Case No. 6:22-cv-00057-JDK (E.D. Tex.),
the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending time to
file its response to the Plaintiff's motion to authorize notice to
potential collective action Plaintiffs and certify class.
On May 31, 2023, Ms. Langham filed a motion to authorize notice to
potential collective action plaintiffs and certify class. As
required by the Second Amended Scheduling Order, the Defendant's
response was due by June 30, 2023.
On June 26, the Defendant filed its first unopposed motion for an
extension of time until July 11, 2023, to file its opposition. The
Court granted the Defendant's unopposed motion.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 10, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44RI1Re at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Colin Walsh, Esq.
Paige E. Melendez, Esq.
WILEY WALSH, P.C.
1011 San Jacinto Blvd., Ste 401
Austin, TX 78701
E-mail: colin@wileywalsh.com
pmelendez@robwiley.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John Scott, Esq.
Brent Webster, Esq.
Grant Dorfman, Esq.
James Lloyd, Esq.
Kimberly Gdula, Esq.
Ryan Kercher, Esq.
Yvonne D. Bennett, Esq.
GENERAL LITIGATION DIVISION
Capitol Station
Austin, TX 78711-2548
Telephone: (512) 475-4031
Facsimile: (512) 320-0667
E-mail: yvonne.bennett@oag.texas.gov
THUNDER BAY: Must Face Class Action Over Water Pipe Pinhole Leaks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Diaczuk, writing for TBnewswatch.com, reports that the
class-action lawsuit against the City of Thunder Bay involving
pinhole leaks in copper water pipes is moving forward, but one of
the claims has been dismissed by a judge.
In a hearing held in June, Justice Paul Perell certified the
negligence claim in the $350 million class-action lawsuit, but in a
decision he granted a motion to strike the nuisance claim.
The class-action relates to the city's use of sodium hydroxide in
the municipal water supply beginning in 2018 in an effort to reduce
lead levels in the water.
The class-action alleges that the addition of the chemical eroded
copper water pipes resulting in some property owners experiencing
pinhole leaks.
During the hearing in June, the city's legal team argued the
municipality is protected from such claims under the Municipal Act,
which grants immunity from damage caused by water escaping
municipal infrastructure or facilities.
Counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs argued the nuisance claim
should be certified because the alleged damage occurred as a result
of the city adding something to the water supply, not water
escaping from municipal infrastructure, and therefore the immunity
under the Municipal Act does not apply.
Perell said in his decision that the nuisance claim is caught by a
section of the Municipal Act and is therefore: "doomed to fail."
"The nuisance claim does not satisfy the cause of action criterion
and that the City's motion pursuant to Rule 21 to strike the claim
should be granted," Perell ruled.
"While in some of the putative Class Members' cases, the leak
occurred in the City's water works facilities, i.e., the leak was
found in a part of the City's supply of water infrastructure, in
all the putative Class Members' cases, the leaks occurred in
connection with the escape of water from the water works of the
City of Thunder Bay into which the municipality had added sodium
hydroxide."
The section of the Municipal Act cited by Perell states that: "no
proceeding based on nuisance, in connection with the escape of
water . . . from water works (facilities for the collection,
production, treatment, storage, supply or distribution of water),
shall be commenced against, a municipality."
"This is a straightforward matter of statutory interpretation,"
Perell said. "There are no ambiguities that have been identified.
The interpretation is consistent with the obvious purpose of the
statute, which was to eliminate certain types of nuisance claims
connected with the water and sewer works of a municipality."
Because the city is protected under a section of the Municipal Act
granting immunity for such damages, Perell ruled in favour of the
city of Thunder Bay to strike the nuisance claim.
The motion to certify the negligence claim was granted. [GN]
TMX FINANCE: Court Stays All Deadlines in Berry Suit Until August 8
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAKECIA BERRY, et al., v.
TMX FINANCE CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., and TMX FINANCE, LLC, Case
No. CV423-134 (S.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Christopher L. Ray entered
an order terminating as moot all stay and extension requests.
The Plaintiffs in this case and several other related cases brought
actions against entities associated with the Defendant TMX alleging
failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiffs' personal
identifiable information. See, e.g., Kolstedt v. TMX Fin. Corp.
Servs., Inc., Case No. CV423-076 (S.D. Ga., March 31, 2023).
The parties in these cases have filed requests for extensions of
deadlines, requests to stay deadlines, and motions to consolidate
the cases.
The District Judge set a status conference for July 25, 2023, in
all of the cases to address the Plaintiff's consolidation request
in Kolstedt.
Instead of addressing each stay and extension request individually
before the District Judge's status conference, the Court stays all
deadlines in the cases until August 8, 2023.
The Clerk is directed to terminate all pending motions except the
following motions:
-- Kolstedt, Case CV423-076: Docs. 16, 25 & 33.
-- Trottier v. TMX Fin. Corp. Servs., Inc., CV423-083 (S.D. Ga.
April 5, 2023): Doc. 16
-- Johnson et al v. TMX Fin. Corp. Servs., Inc., CV423-096 (S.D.
Ga.
Apr. 12, 2023): Doc. 5
TMX Finance is the parent company to the brands TitleMax,
TitleBucks, EquityAuto Loan, and InstaLoan. The company holds more
than 900 stores in over fourteen states including Alabama, Arizona,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New
Mexico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin, and
an online presence in Idaho.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OazDWq at no extra charge.[CC]
TMX FINANCE: Court Stays All Deadlines in Carder Until August 8
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN CARDER, v. TMX
FINANCE CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., and TMX FINANCE LLC, Case No.
CV423-088 (S.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Christopher L. Ray entered an
order terminating as moot all stay and extension requests.
The Plaintiffs in this case and several other related cases brought
actions against entities associated with the Defendant TMX alleging
failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiffs' personal
identifiable information. See, e.g., Kolstedt v. TMX Fin. Corp.
Servs., Inc., Case No. CV423-076 (S.D. Ga., March 31, 2023).
The parties in these cases have filed requests for extensions of
deadlines, requests to stay deadlines, and motions to consolidate
the cases.
The District Judge set a status conference for July 25, 2023, in
all of the cases to address the Plaintiff’s consolidation request
in Kolstedt.
Instead of addressing each stay and extension request individually
before the District Judge's status conference, the Court stays all
deadlines in the cases until August 8, 2023.
The Clerk is directed to terminate all pending motions except the
following motions:
-- Kolstedt, Case CV423-076: Docs. 16, 25 & 33.
-- Trottier v. TMX Fin. Corp. Servs., Inc., CV423-083 (S.D. Ga.
April 5, 2023): Doc. 16
-- Johnson et al v. TMX Fin. Corp. Servs., Inc., CV423-096 (S.D.
Ga.
Apr. 12, 2023): Doc. 5
TMX Finance is the parent company to the brands TitleMax,
TitleBucks, EquityAuto Loan, and InstaLoan. The company holds more
than 900 stores in over fourteen states including Alabama, Arizona,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New
Mexico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin, and
an online presence in Idaho.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46ZLI99 at no extra charge.[CC]
TMX FINANCE: Court Stays Deadlines in Scheide Suit Until August 8
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWIN SCHEIDE, v. TMX
FINANCE CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., Case No. CV423-129 (S.D. Ga.),
the Hon. Judge Christopher L. Ray entered an order terminating as
moot all stay and extension requests.
The Plaintiffs in this case and several other related cases brought
actions against entities associated with the Defendant TMX alleging
failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiffs' personal
identifiable information. See, e.g., Kolstedt v. TMX Fin. Corp.
Servs., Inc., Case No. CV423-076 (S.D. Ga., March 31, 2023).
The parties in these cases have filed requests for extensions of
deadlines, requests to stay deadlines, and motions to consolidate
the cases.
The District Judge set a status conference for July 25, 2023, in
all of the cases to address the Plaintiff's consolidation request
in Kolstedt.
Instead of addressing each stay and extension request individually
before the District Judge's status conference, the Court stays all
deadlines in the cases until August 8, 2023.
The Clerk is directed to terminate all pending motions except the
following motions:
-- Kolstedt, Case CV423-076: Docs. 16, 25 & 33.
-- Trottier v. TMX Fin. Corp. Servs., Inc., CV423-083 (S.D. Ga.
April 5, 2023): Doc. 16
-- Johnson et al v. TMX Fin. Corp. Servs., Inc., CV423-096 (S.D.
Ga.
Apr. 12, 2023): Doc. 5
TMX Finance is the parent company to the brands TitleMax,
TitleBucks, EquityAuto Loan, and InstaLoan. The company holds more
than 900 stores in over fourteen states including Alabama, Arizona,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New
Mexico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin, and
an online presence in Idaho.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KdjEp9 at no extra charge.[CC]
TMX FINANCE: Court Stays Deadlines in Trottier Suit Until August 8
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH TROTTIER, v. TMX
FINANCE CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., Case No. CV423-083 (S.D. Ga.),
the Hon. Judge Christopher L. Ray entered an order terminating as
moot all stay and extension requests.
The Plaintiffs in this case and several other related cases brought
actions against entities associated with the Defendant TMX alleging
failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiffs' personal
identifiable information. See, e.g., Kolstedt v. TMX Fin. Corp.
Servs., Inc., Case No. CV423-076 (S.D. Ga., March 31, 2023).
The parties in these cases have filed requests for extensions of
deadlines, requests to stay deadlines, and motions to consolidate
the cases.
The District Judge set a status conference for July 25, 2023, in
all of the cases to address the Plaintiff's consolidation request
in Kolstedt.
Instead of addressing each stay and extension request individually
before the District Judge's status conference, the Court stays all
deadlines in the cases until August 8, 2023.
The Clerk is directed to terminate all pending motions except the
following motions:
-- Kolstedt, Case CV423-076: Docs. 16, 25 & 33.
-- Trottier v. TMX Fin. Corp. Servs., Inc., CV423-083 (S.D. Ga.
April 5, 2023): Doc. 16
-- Johnson et al v. TMX Fin. Corp. Servs., Inc., CV423-096 (S.D.
Ga.
Apr. 12, 2023): Doc. 5
TMX Finance is the parent company to the brands TitleMax,
TitleBucks, EquityAuto Loan, and InstaLoan. The company holds more
than 900 stores in over fourteen states including Alabama, Arizona,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New
Mexico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin, and
an online presence in Idaho.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rGId7G at no extra charge.[CC]
TMX FINANCE: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert. Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIAN JOHNSON, JEREMIAH
GILLS, and YOLANDA JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. TMX FINANCE CORPORATE SERVICES, INC.,
Case No. 4:23-cv-00096-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order granting their motion for an extension of
time for the Plaintiffs to file their Motion for Class
Certification.
The Plaintiffs filed this Class Action Complaint on April 12, 2023.
On May 5, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion in support
of Consolidation, supporting the Unopposed Motion to Consolidate
Cases filed May 3, 2023, in Kolstedt v. TMX Finance Corporate
Services, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-00076-RSB-CLR and notified the
Court of an additional related case not included in the Kolstedt
Consolidation Motion that should be included in consolidation.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 10, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OoqaM9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark D. Johnson, Esq.
GILBERT, HARRELL, SUMERFORD & MARTIN, PC
777 Gloucester Street, Suite 200
Brunswick, GA 31521
Telephone: (912) 265-6700
Facsimile: (912) 264-0244
E-mail: mjohnson@ghsmlaw.com
- and -
John C. Herman, Esq.
Candace N. Smith, Esq.
HERMAN JONES LLP
3424 Peachtree Road NE
Suite 1650
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: (404) 504-6555
E-mail: jherman@hermanjones.com
csmith@hermanjones.com
- and -
Mark S. Reich, Esq.
Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
55 Broadway, 4th Floor, Suite #427
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: mreich@zlk.com
cmaccarone@zlk.com
UNION CARBIDE: Files Opposition on Bid to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEE ANN SOMMERVILLE,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00878 (S.D.W.
Va.), Union Carbide filed its memorandum of law in opposition to
the Plaintiff's motion to certify class.
Covestro LLC joins in and adopts that memorandum of law and its
request for relief in full, because the arguments that Union
Carbide raises make class certification inappropriate as against
any defendant, not just Union Carbide.
Union Carbide is a manufacturer of chemicals, petrochemicals, and
related products.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 10, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QfqiPo at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
David A. Fusco, Esq.
Travis L. Brannon, Esq.
Wesley A. Prichard, Esq.
K&L GATES LLP
K&L Gates Center, 210 Sixth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 355-6500
E-mail: david.fusco@klgates.com
travis.brannon@klgates.com
wesley.prichard@klgates.com
- and -
Jon B. Orndorff, Esq.
Kelly Calder Mowen, Esq.
ORNDORFF MOWEN PLLC
135 Corporate Centre Drive, Suite 524
Scott Depot, WV 25560
Telephone: (866) 481-2765
Facsimile: (681) 245-6313
E-mail: jon.orndorff@om-pllc.com
kelly.mowen@om-pllc.com
UNITED AIRLINES: Class Certification Discovery Due Oct. 6
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID SAMBRANO ET AL., v.
UNITED AIRLINES INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-01074-P (N.D. Tex.), the
Hon. Judge Mark T. Pittman entered an order granting the
Defendant's motion to extend the Parties' class discovery and
certification briefing deadlines.
The Court further entered orders that the discovery and briefing
deadlines shall be as follows:
1. Class Certification Discovery shall be October 6, 2023
completed on or before:
2. The Parties shall transmit their final Aug. 31, 2023
document production on or before:
3. The Plaintiffs' opening brief in Nov. 6, 2023
support of class certification shall
be filed on or before:
4. The Defendant's response in opposition Dec. 4, 2023
to class certification shall be
filed on or before:
5. The Plaintiffs' reply shall be filed Dec. 18, 2023
on or before:
United Airlines operates a domestic and international route network
spanning cities large and small across the United States and all
six inhabited continents.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46XMJ1G at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED SERVICES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 21, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dolan v. United Services
Automobile Association, Case No. 7:21-cv-05813 (S.D.N.Y., Filed
July 7, 2021), the Hon. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti entered an order
amending the briefing schedule as follows:
-- The Plaintiffs' motion for class March 21, 2024
certification is due:
-- The Defendant's response is due: April 29, 2024
-- The Plaintiffs' reply, if any, is due: May 24, 2024
The nature of suit states Other Statutes -- Other Statutory
Actions.
United Services is an American financial services company providing
insurance and banking products exclusively to members of the
military, veterans, and their families.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Charles Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
ASHANTE CHARLES, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF ARITZIA INC., Defendant,
Case No. 611267/2023 (N.Y., Sup., Nassau Cty., July 17, 2023) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a staff.
UNITED STATES OF ARITZIA INC. retails apparel and accessories. The
Company offers designer and athletic clothes such as t-shirts,
blouses, sweaters, jackets, shorts, pants, jeans, skirts, shoes,
and handbags for women. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC: Clemensen Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Erik Clemensen, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated v. University of the Pacific, Case No.
STK-CV-VCR-23-06085 was removed from the San Joaquin Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on July 17, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-at-00602 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Education Civil Rights.
University of the Pacific -- https://www.pacific.edu/ -- is a
private university devoted to experience-driven education that
gives students pathways to the fastest growing sectors.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeffrey Myles Lenkov, Esq.
MANNING & KASS, ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP
801 S. Figueroa St., 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 624-6900
Fax: (213) 624-6999
Email: jml@manningllp.com
UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC: Faces Athletic Aid Discrimination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action alleges University of the Pacific (UOP) has
discriminated against male student-athletes by failing to pay them
equal athletic financial aid since at least 2020.
The 12-page lawsuit claims that throughout the past several years,
the private university in Stockton, California has deprived male
student-athletes of their fair share of athletic financial aid by
failing to award scholarship money in proportion to their athletic
participation rates.
For example, men comprised about 48 percent of all UOP
student-athletes during the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 academic years
but received only 38 and 42 percent of the total athletic financial
aid the school awarded those respective years, the case contends.
"Thus, in just the two most recently reported academic years," the
complaint says "UOP's male student-athletes received over $925,000
less in athletic financial aid—and its female student-athletes
received over $925,000 more—than they would have received if UOP
had granted such aid in proportion to the number of students of
each sex participating in intercollegiate athletics."
According to the filing, the university's disproportionate
allocation of athletic financial aid violates Title IX of the
Education Amendment of 1972 and California's Equity in Higher
Education Act, both of which prohibit educational institutions
receiving public funds from discriminating against individuals on
the basis of sex.
The plaintiff, a student-athlete at UOP from 2016 to 2021, says it
wasn't until his final year on the school's varsity swimming team
that he received a partial athletic scholarship totaling $5,000.
The suit claims that the plaintiff would have received more
financial aid had UOP complied with state and federal laws
requiring educational institutions to allocate athletic financial
aid to male and female athletes in proportion to the number of
students of each sex participating in intercollegiate athletics.
The lawsuit looks to represent all current and former male students
who participated in intercollegiate varsity athletics at University
of the Pacific from the 2020-2021 academic year to the present and
did not receive all of the athletic financial aid they could have
received. [GN]
UOI GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bobadilla Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
NATALIYA BOBADILLA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UOI GROUP, INC. d/b/a ASKANELI
RESTAURANT; and OLEKSANDR UVAROV, Defendants, Case No.
CACE-23-015745 (Fla., Cir., Broward Cty., July 17, 2023) seeks to
recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Bobadilla was employed by the Defendants as a general
manager.
UOI GROUP, INC. is engaged in the development of new restaurant,
construction of restaurants, franchising of askaneli restaurant,
management of third-party restaurants. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jorge L. Costa, Esq.
Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
REMER, GEORGES-PIERRE &
HOOGERWOERD, PLLC
2745 Ponce De Leon Blvd
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 416-5000
Email: JCosta@rgph.Law
agp@rgph.law
UPPER DARBY TOWNSHIP, PA: Plaintiff Opposes Suit Dismissal Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Malfitano, writing for Pennsylvania Record, reports that a
Clifton Heights woman maintains that Upper Darby Township has
violated state and federal laws over the past two years by failing
to notify hundreds and potentially thousands of drivers it issued
parking tickets to of how they may contest those tickets, and that
its rationale for wanting to dismiss the case is unfounded.
Mary G. Candido (individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated) first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 21 versus Upper Darby
Township.
"This class action arises from Upper Darby's deprivation of
constitutional due process rights to notice and a hearing in
conjunction with the issuance of parking tickets. Upper Darby's
Parking Enforcement Department issues parking tickets for various
purported vehicle parking-related violations. Upper Darby's tickets
inform recipients that they may plead guilty and pay the parking
fine, or else face prosecution. The tickets also note that
recipients may contest tickets, but to do so they should wait to
receive notice of a summons and hearing date to appear before the
local district justice," the suit said.
"But, since at least the spring of 2021, the notice of summons and
hearing date are never sent to recipients. Hundreds, if not
thousands, of persons receiving parking tickets from Upper Darby
never receive notice of how and when they may contest a parking
ticket, nor an opportunity to appear and dispute a ticket. Instead,
Upper Darby leaves recipients in limbo, under ever-compounding
fines and the fear of prosecution, without the most basic due
process concepts of notice and an opportunity to be heard. Absent
any notice or hearing, many individuals simply pay the tickets out
of fear or confusion, without ever being afforded their right to
notice and a hearing."
The suit added that Upper Darby's conduct constitutes a violation
of Ms. Candido's and other class members' due process rights, as
well as negligence and unjust enrichment under state law.
"In one extreme example, a local barber shop owner had his car
towed for parking violations for which he never received any
summonses or hearing dates, while parking ticket fines kept adding
up and compounding. He 'absolutely' wanted a hearing, but never
received one. Plaintiff is but one of the many individuals, like
the local shop owner discussed above, who has never received any
notice or hearing date in connection with parking tickets issued by
Upper Darby. Plaintiff has received multiple parking tickets since
spring of 2021. The most recent ticket she received was issued on
or about Dec. 17, 2022," the suit stated.
"Plaintiff has never received a notice (e.g., summons) or hearing
date in connection with any parking ticket issued to her by Upper
Darby. Plaintiff also is aware of multiple other individuals who
have similarly received parking tickets issued by Upper Darby that
they would like to contest, but cannot because Upper Darby has
never provided them with notice or a hearing. Startlingly, it has
been reported that although a local state court has heard parking
violation matters in the past, since the spring of 2021 there were
zero hearings held on any parking violation matters. This strongly
corroborates plaintiff's and other class members' experiences were
not isolated or one-off instances, but are part of an ongoing
pattern and practice by Upper Darby to deny individuals their due
process rights to notice and a hearing."
In a June 20 motion to dismiss the complaint, Upper Darby countered
that the case should be dismissed with prejudice, for failure to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Moreover, the motion argued that the plaintiff had not demonstrated
personal injury or deprivation of her civil liberties, a key tenet
needed to prove the plaintiff's claims.
"Specifically, plaintiff fails to allege that she has personally
suffered, or is at significant 'imminent' risk of suffering, any
deprivation of a life, liberty or property interest based on the
Township's failure to issue summonses on the parking tickets she
received," per the dismissal motion.
"The failure to plead a deprivation of personal, individual
interests demonstrates a lack of 'injury-in-fact' suffered by the
plaintiff, and undermines her ability to assert a claim for
violation of her due process rights under Section 1983, as well as
her analogous claim for attorneys' fees under Section 1988.
Plaintiff's state law claim for unjust enrichment should be
similarly dismissed, based on plaintiff's failure to allege any
benefit conferred by her upon the Township. Lastly, plaintiff's
state law negligence claim should be dismissed based on her
inability to demonstrate a violation of her constitutional rights,
and further based on the application of the doctrine of
governmental immunity."
UPDATE
Candido filed an opposition brief to the dismissal motion on July
14, arguing that Upper Darby's attempt to dismiss the case did not
pass muster.
"Upper Darby's motion to dismiss does not dispute that it fails to
provide notice and a hearing -- something it has failed to do,
inexplicitly, since approximately June 2021. Rather, in its motion,
Upper Darby principally argues that plaintiff lacks Article III
standing. That argument lacks merit. The complaint sufficiently
alleges that plaintiff is part of the same putative class she seeks
to represent; that she herself has been subjected to Upper Darby's
wrongful policy, pattern and practice; that she, like all other
putative class members, have protectable due process interests; and
that her and other putative class members are deprived of their
interests by Upper Darby's deliberate indifference. These
well-pleaded allegations satisfy Article III's 'very generous'
injury-in-fact requirement," the brief stated, in part.
"Upper Darby's ancillary arguments fare no better. The complaint
adequately alleges the elements of each claim. As to the merits of
the Section 1983 due process claim (Count I), that Upper Darby
believes other procedural safeguards are enough once a hearing does
occur is neither an appropriate consideration at this
pleadings-only stage, nor ultimately determinative insofar as the
complaint challenges Upper Darby's predicate failure to provide
timely notice and an opportunity to be heard in the first instance.
Governmental immunity does not bar the state-law negligence claim
(Count II) because Pennsylvania's immunity statute explicitly
carves out negligence claims relating to personal property (e.g.,
money, vehicle impoundment, etc.), which Count II alleges. And
plaintiff has standing to assert her unjust enrichment claim (Count
III) for monies she paid (and other putative subclass members paid)
to Upper Darby and which it unjustly retained without affording the
subclass notice and a hearing."
For counts of violation of due process rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983, negligence, unjust enrichment and violation of 42
U.S.C. Section 1988, the plaintiff is seeking the following
reliefs:
* An order certifying this action as a class action;
* An order appointing plaintiff as Class Representative, and
appointing undersigned counsel as Class Counsel to represent the
Class;
* A declaration that Upper Darby violated the constitutional and
related protections described herein;
* An order awarding appropriate preliminary and/or final injunctive
relief against the conduct of defendant described herein, both
retroactive to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard for
the Class for prior parking tickets and prospectively for future
parking tickets issued;
* Payment to plaintiff and class members of all damages, exemplary
damages, and/or restitution associated with the conduct for all
causes of action in an amount to be proven at trial, including but
not limited to the full amounts paid by the subclass for parking
tickets issued without a notice and hearing;
* An award of attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and costs, as
provided by applicable law and/or as would be reasonable from any
recovery of monies recovered for or benefits bestowed on the class
members;
* Interest as provided by law, including but not limited to,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by rule or
statute; and
* Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just,
equitable or proper.
The plaintiff is represented by Ruben Honik of Honik, LLC in
Philadelphia, plus David J. Stanoch of Kanner & Whiteley, in New
Orleans, La.
The defendant is represented by Joseph D. Shelby, James F. Devine
and Ryan Morris of Cipriani & Werner, in Lancaster.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case
2:23-cv-01542[GN]
VAIL RESORTS: Court Tosses Quint Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDY DEAN QUINT; and JOHN
LINN; and MARK MOLINA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, v. VAIL RESORTS, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-03569-DDD-NRN (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Daniel D. Domenico
entered an order as follows:
-- Magistrate Judge Gallagher's report and recommendation is
adopted
in part and overruled in part.
-- The defendant's partial objections to report and
recommendation
are overruled.
-- The plaintiffs' objections to the Magistratre Judge's
recommendation on motion to certify class is sustained in part
and overruled in part.
-- The motion for class certification is denied.
-- The motion to disseminate notice to collective members and
toll
statute of limitations is granted in part and denied in part.
The plaintiffs have adequately alleged that Vail violates Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requirements that are relevant to snow
sports instructors, and I find that snow sports instructors at
other resorts are similarly situated with respect to these claims,
since an employer is likely to implement the same policies for
similar personnel.
Vail argues that parties to an ongoing California case should not
receive notice of the FLSA claims. According to Vail, a proposed
settlement in this case "will effectively extinguish the FLSA
claims as to all but 1,603 Vail employees who opted out, including
Instructors."
The plaintiffs object to Judge Gallagher's recommendation to limit
conditional certification to snow sports instructors. They point to
an affidavit by an employee who works as a lift operator, lift
ticket scanner, and summer activities guide stating similar
allegations regarding compensation for travel time, donning and
doffing, and work expenses.
The plaintiffs' motion to certify a class is denied because
differences in state law create insurmountable difficulties in
managing the class action and make it undesirable to concentrate
litigation in this forum The plaintiffs in this case are employees
at Vail Resorts, Inc. who allege that Vail has violated federal and
state employment laws. They moved to certify a class of:
"all current and former Vail Resorts hourly employees who worked
in
the United States" and who were affected by alleged state law
violations, and to disseminate notice to similarly situated
employees to form an FLSA collective."
The motion for class certification is denied because a class action
involving claims under the laws of nine separate states would
present excessive difficulties and should not be concentrated in
this forum.
Vail Resorts is an American mountain resort company headquartered
in Broomfield, Colorado.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O3o1Eo at no extra
charge.[CC]
VI.GI GOURMET: Faces Lopez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
LEONARDO MARIN LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VI.GI GOURMET 96, CORP. (d/b/a
ENZO BRUNI LA PIZZA GOURMET) and VINCENZO BRUNITTO a/k/a ENZO
BRUNI, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06150 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2023)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law including
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to pay spread-of-hours wages, failure to provide payroll
notices, and failure to provide accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a dishwasher, food
prep, and cook at Enzo Bruni La Pizza Gourmet from approximately
June 2022 until on or about February 22, 2023.
Vi.Gi Gourmet 96, Corp. is an owner and operator of an Italian
restaurant under the name Enzo Bruni La Pizza Gourmet, located at
1827 2nd Ave., New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, PC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
VISION SOLAR: Averts Class Action Over Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Vision
Solar LLC defeated a proposed class action alleging it made
unsolicited telemarketing calls to consumers who registered their
numbers on the national Do Not Call registry.
Plaintiff Brennan Landy failed in an amended complaint to cure
deficiencies found in the original complaint as to the identity of
the corporate defendant, Judge Joseph H. Rodriquez of the US
District Court for the District of New Jersey said on July 18.
Rodriguez dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice.
Vision Solar, a seller of solar panels, was named as a defendant in
a July 14 Department of Justice lawsuit. [GN]
VOLTECH ELECTRIC: Da Silva Seeks Class Status
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODNEI DE ASSIS DA SILVA,
GABRIEL MENDES, VALDINELIO CAMILO SANTAMA, and EDWARD FIALHO, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. VOLTECH
ELECTRIC, INC., and MARCELO ARAUJO, Case No. 1:23-cv-10743-DLC (D.
Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
conditional certification and allowing judicial notice of the
action to be provided to potential collective action members
informing them of their right to opt in to this case under Section
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The Plaintiffs contend that they have met their burden of making a
modest factual showing that they and other electricians working for
Voltech were improperly classified as independent contractors and
did not receive overtime and other wages for all hours worked as a
result of Voltech's policies. Their claims under the FLSA rely on
common evidence and are readily susceptible to class-wide
resolution.
The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following class:
"All individuals that performed work as electricians for Voltech
Electric, Inc. between July 2020 and the present."
The Plaintiffs also request that the Court: appoint them as class
representatives; and appoint Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. as class
counsel.
Voltech is a full service, licensed and insured electrical
contracting company.
A copy of Plaintiffs' motion dated July 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44BWqBn at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
Matthew Thomson, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
mthomson@llrlaw.com
WAKE FOREST: Suit Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHELLEY R. GARNICK,
TANAJAH CLARK and ZOE R. JONES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY BAPTIST
MEDICAL CENTER, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY
BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER, THE RETIREMENT BENEFIT COMMITTEE OF WAKE
FOREST UNIVERSITY BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case
No. 1:21-cv-00454-WO-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs submit an
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement agreement, preliminary approval of class notice,
approval of plan of allocation, and scheduling of a fairness
hearing.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 10, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O67NKQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile (717) 233-4103
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
donr@capozziadler.com
WALMART INC: Court Approves Arrison Class Status Bid
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kathy Arrison, et al., v.
Walmart Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00481-SMB (D.
Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Susan Brnovich entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion for Rule 23 Class Certification for the proposed
class and subclass.
The Court further entered an order appointing counsel at Lear Werts
LLP as Class Counsel.
The Plaintiffs seek Rule 23 class certification on behalf of a
punitive class of Arizona non-exempt Walmart associates alleging
claims for unpaid wages under the Arizona Wage Act and civil
penalties for related record keeping violations.
According to the complaint, from April 10, 2022, through February
2022, Walmart began a nationwide policy requiring all associates at
retail locations to complete a mandatory COVID screening before
their shift.
Screenings entailed walking to a designated location, standing in
line at least six feet apart, scanning one's badge or recording an
employee identification number, answering a series of five-to-seven
questions relating to symptoms and COVID exposure, and having one's
temperature taken.
After completing the screening, associates were permitted to
clock-in, but only at the appropriate time their shift was
scheduled to begin.
The Plaintiff alleges Walmart did not pay associates for screenings
held on April 10, 2022. On April 11, 2022, Walmart began paying
associates an extra daily fixed sum equivalent to five minutes'
work for the screenings.
Walmart alleges managers were instructed to manually add five
minutes of pay for any associates who underwent screenings prior to
April 11. Walmart also allowed associates to increase their time
entries if the screenings took longer than five minutes.
The Plaintiffs allege less than two percent of shifts were so
adjusted, and that some employees, including Arrison and Smith,
"labored under the understanding they were not being paid at all
for the COVID screening."
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores in the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 11, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44VS4oj at no extra charge.[CC]
WALMART INCORPORATED: Bid for Summary Judgment Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kathy Arrison, et al., v.
Walmart Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00481-SMB (D.
Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Susan Brnovich entered an order granting the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to precluding treble
damages under the Plaintiffs' Arizona Wage Act claim for
post-screening time (Count I), and the Plaintiffs' record keeping
claim in its entirety (Count II).
The Court further ordered denying the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment on all remaining portions of the Plaintiffs'
Arizona Wage Act claim, including treble damages for April 10
screening time (Count I), and the Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment
claim (Count III).
Walmart focuses on factor five, arguing the Plaintiffs fail to meet
this factor whether they win or lose on their AWA claim. As the
Plaintiffs have already conceded in their Complaint, should the
Plaintiffs prevail on Count I [AWA claim] for all wages and damages
claims, then they would not be entitled to recover under this Count
III [unjust enrichment claim].
The Court held oral argument on June 28, 2023. After considering
the parties' arguments and the relevant law, the Court will grant
in part the Defendants’ Motion for the reasons discussed below.
In response to COVID-19 and guidance from federal, state, and local
public health agencies, Walmart began screening employees for
COVID-19 symptoms in its Arizona stores on April 10, 2020 through
February 28, 2022. Before the start of every shift, associates
underwent a multi-step screening process as a prerequisite to
entering the store.
After screening, an associate could leave the store and return
without screening again for that day.
The Plaintiffs originally sought damages for failing to pay for
COVID screening time and post-screening time (the time between
completion of screening and clocking in).
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores in the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O5LbKg at no extra charge.[CC]
WASHINGTON, DC: Parties File Bid to Stay Class Cert Briefing
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as V.C., et al., v. DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:23-cv-01139-CKK (D.D.C.), the Parties ask
the Court to enter an order under Rule 6(b)(1)(A) to stay briefing
on the Plaintiffs' pending Motion for Class Certification.
The Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification is due by July 24, 2023. The Parties have conferred
and believe that pausing briefing on the Motion for Class
Certification while discovery occurs will be a more efficient use
of their. The Parties also propose that after the Court issues a
Scheduling Order, the Parties will provide a proposed schedule
which will include class-certification briefing, in accordance with
LCvR 16.3(c)(12).
The Parties submit that this constitutes good cause justifying the
requested stay. No party will suffer prejudice if the Court agrees
and grants this Motion. the Defendant previously requested an
extension of time to respond to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification, which the Court granted.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/474wPTl at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Dennis A. Corkery, Esq.
Jacqueline Kutnik-Bauder, Esq.
Kristin McGough, Esq.
Laura Graham, Esq.
WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE
FOR CIVIL RIGHTS & URBAN AFFAIRS
700 14th St. NW, Ste. 400
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 319-1000
E-mail: dennis_corkery@washlaw.org
Jacquelinw_kutnik-bauder@washlaw.org
Kristin_mcgough@washlaw.org
laura_graham@washlaw.org
- and –
John A. Freedman, Esq.
John R. Sabacinski, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
601 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
Telephone: (202) 942-5000
E-mail: John.Freedman@arnoldporter.com
John.Sabacinski@arnoldporter.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Brian L. Schwalb
Stephanie E. Litos
Matthew R. Blecher
Pamela A. Disney
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
400 Sixth Street, N.W., Suite 10100
Washington, D.C. 20001
Telephone: (202) 807-0371; (202) 724-6643
Facsimile: (202) 730-1470
E-mail: pamela.disney@dc.gov
andy.saindon@dc.gov
WICHITA, KS: Seeks August 11 Extension to File Class Cert Response
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PROGENY, a program of
Destination Innovations, Inc., CHRISTOPHER COOPER, ELBERT COSTELLO,
MARTEL COSTELLO, and JEREMY LEVY, JR., on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, v. CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS, Case No.
6:21-cv-01100-EFM-ADM (D. Kan.), the Defendant moves the Court for
and order extending the time to and including August 11, 2023,
within which to respond to plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 21, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DouGnV at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David R. Cooper, Esq.
Charles E. Branson, Esq.
FISHER, PATTERSON, SAYLER & SMITH, LLP
3550 S.W. 5th
Topeka, KS 66606
Telephone: (785) 232-7761
Facsimile: (785) 232-6604
E-mail: dcooper@fpsslaw.com
cbranson@fpsslaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jennifer L. Magana, Esq.
Sharon L. Dickgrafe, Esq.
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
City Hall-13th Floor
455 North Main
Wichita, KS 67202
Telephone: (316) 268-4681
Facsimile: (316) 268-4335
E-mail: sdickgrafe@wichita.gov
WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Hearing on Class Cert. Extended to Sept. 13
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM RUSHING and
ELIZABETH PERLIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC., et al., Case No.
3:16-cv-01421-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick
entered an order extending briefing deadlines as follows:
Event Current Amended
Deadline
Deadline
-- The Plaintiffs' Responses to the July 24, 2023 Aug. 14,
2023
Defendants' Daubert Motions:
-- The Plaintiffs' Reply in Support July 24, 2023 Aug. 14,
2023
of Motion for Class
Certification:
-- The Defendants' Replies in Aug. 2, 2023 Aug. 30,
2023
Support of their Daubert
Motions:
-- Hearing on Class Certification Aug. 16, 2023 Sept. 13,
2023
and Daubert Motions:
On April 25, 2023, the Defendants filed their Opposition to the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification along with two Daubert
Motions:
(1) Motion to Exclude Russell Lamb's Testimony regarding
Materiality, Benchmarking, and Hedonic Regression, and
(2) Motion to Exclude Jennifer Rhodes' Testimony regarding
Consumer Opinions and Perception.
On May 4, 2023, the Parties filed a stipulation to extend the
briefing deadlines. The Court granted the stipulation and approved
the following schedule:
Williams-Sonoma is an American publicly traded consumer retail
company that sells kitchenware and home furnishings.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rIi2xu at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Amber L. Eck, Esq.
HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP
225 Broadway, Suite 2050
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 342-8000
Facsimile: (619) 342-7878
E-mail: ambere@haelaw.com
- and -
Robert B. Carey, Esq.
Leonard W. Aragon, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Telephone: (602) 840-5900
Facsimile: (602) 840-3012
E-mail: rob@hbsslaw.com
leonard@hbsslaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
P. Craig Cardon, Esq.
Robert J. Guite, Esq.
Benjamin O. Aigboboh, Esq.
Alyssa M. Sones, Esq.
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
[*] Number of Securities Class Actions Filings Up in 1st Half 2023
------------------------------------------------------------------
The number of securities class action filings increased in the
first half of 2023, according to a report released on July 20 by
Cornerstone Research and the Stanford Law School Securities Class
Action Clearinghouse.
The report, Securities Class Action Filings—2023 Midyear
Assessment, found that plaintiffs filed 114 securities class
actions in federal and state courts in the first half of 2023, a
23% increase from the second half of 2022 and in line with the
semiannual average between 1997 and 2022. Six securities class
actions related to the recent turbulence in the banking sector were
filed (five in the first half of 2023 and one in the second half of
2022). There were 11 cryptocurrency-related filings in 2023. Of
these, over half included allegations related to cryptocurrency
exchanges.
"We continue to see a high level of cryptocurrency-related
securities class action filings," said Alexander "Sasha" Aganin,
the report's coauthor and a Cornerstone Research senior vice
president. "If this pace continues through the rest of the year, it
is likely that the total number of cryptocurrency filings will near
the record high seen in 2022."
Federal Section 11 and state claims under the Securities Act of
1933 are on pace to decrease substantially in 2023, from a combined
total of 50 filings in 2022 to an annualized total of 28 filings in
2023. Much of this decline is attributable to a drop in state 1933
Act filings, but federal Section 11 filing activity was down as
well.
The Maximum Dollar Loss (MDL) Index™ increased sharply to a
record high of $2,245 billion in the first half of 2023, more than
four times the 1997–2022 semiannual average of $548 billion and a
152% increase from the second half of 2022. Mega MDL filings (those
with an MDL of at least $10 billion) represented 92% of total MDL.
The Disclosure Dollar Loss (DDL) Index™ rose to $170 billion, an
increase of 45% compared to $117 billion in the second half of
2022, but was well below the record high of $505 billion in the
first half of 2022.
"The next few months could witness important developments in the
world of securities litigation," according to Joseph Grundfest,
professor at Stanford Law School and a former SEC Commissioner.
"The Supreme Court's remand in Pirani opens the door to new
interpretations of Section 12 liability, and to new learning about
the mechanics of Section 11 tracing. A district court's very recent
decision holding that Ripple's XRP token is a legal shape-shifter
-- sometimes it is a security subject to federal securities law and
sometimes it isn't -- will likely be appealed and is sure to
generate important appellate precedent."
Key Trends
Filings in the Financial sector tripled relative to the number of
such filings in 2022 H2, partially driven by filings in the 2023
Banking Turbulence trend category.
Core federal filings against non-U.S. issuers (20) are on pace to
remain well below the recent high in 2020 (73).
MDL in the Ninth Circuit increased by over 500%, while MDL in the
Second Circuit increased by 3%.
The likelihood of a core filing against a U.S. exchange-listed
company is on pace to increase slightly to an annualized rate of
3.2%.
The Dollar Loss on Offered Shares Index™ (DLOS Index™) for
federal Section 11 claims declined significantly compared to 2022.
DLOS from filings in California state courts increased
substantially, surpassing New York state court filings as the main
source of DLOS.
Core federal SPAC filings have remained low, with seven filings in
2023 so far.
The number and total index value of mega MDL filings are on pace to
reach historical highs in 2023.
About the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action
Clearinghouse
The Securities Class Action Clearinghouse is an authoritative
source of data and analysis on the financial and economic
characteristics of federal securities fraud class action
litigation. The SCAC maintains a database of more than 6,400
securities class action lawsuits filed since the passage of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The database also
contains copies of complaints, briefs, filings, and other
litigation-related materials filed in these cases. [GN]
*********
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 ***