/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230807.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, August 7, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 157
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Brant Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Brussard Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Campbell Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Covey Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Hauser Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
ACTIV ENTERPRISES: Morales Suit Removed to C.D. California
ADVANCED MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Walker Says
AES GROUP: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
ALLEGIANT FINAL MILE: Decena Suit Removed to N.D. California
AMAZON SERVICES: Leitch Seeks to File Reply to Opposition
AMAZON.COM: Berry Suit Removed to N.D. California
AMBULNZ HEALTH: Ariano Sues Over Unlawful Termination
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Docs Under Seal
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Seeks to Exclude Expert's Class Cert Opinions
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Wants Confidential Material to Remain Under Seal
AMERICAN FAMILY: Timmins, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
AMERICAN QUALITY HEALTH: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AMTEC HUMAN CAPITAL: Cooper Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ARAMARK CAMPUS: Vasquez Suit Removed to C.D. California
ARCON CREDIT: Jeffers Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
AU HEALTH SYSTEM: Douglas Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
B & S ZEEMAN: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Estrada Claims
BABY ON MAIN: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BB AT 55TH & 5TH: Clement Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BLACK TUX INC: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD: Cumalander Sues Over Denial of Benefits
BLUJAY SOLUTIONS: Tooker and Hahn Seek FLSA Certification
BOHME LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BP EXPLORATION: Alizadeh Loses Bid to Continue Pretrial Deadlines
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CALIFORNIA: Writ of Certiorari Filed in Kirola Suit
CARABEAN LLC: Cortes Sues Over Labor Law Violations Against Servers
CARBONITE INC: Court Certifies Class in Luna Securities Suit
CASE WESTERN: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to August 23
CHEROKEE GIVES: Court Stays Philadelphia Suit for 60 More Days
CHILDREN'S MED. CTR: Kellyman Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
CHURCH MUTUAL: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Response Under Seal
CPA GLOBAL: Brainchild Surgical Suit Transferred to C.D. California
CREDIT UNION: Lucero 401(k) Plan Suit Seeks Class Certification
CRISIS24 INC: Burk Suit Removed to C.D. California
D&D RETAIL LLC: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
D.R.I. ENTERPRISES: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DANONE NORTH AMERICA: Jasper Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
DAO ASIAN: Ping Lin Files Appeal in NY Appellate Ct.
DAVE & JOHNNY LTD: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
DAVID GUTIERREZ: Walker Files Bid for Class Certification
DELSEY LUGGAGE: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DIALOG DIRECT: Tronka Sues to Recover Unpaid and Overtime Wages
DNC PARKS: Must File Class Cert Opposition in Vega Suit
DOLEX DOLLAR: De La Rosa Sanchez Suit Removed to C.D. California
DTLR INC: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DUDE PRODUCTS: Darnall Sues Over Mislabeled Wipe Products
EAGLE LEATHER: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EAST SHORE SPECIALTY: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EDUCATION CREDIT: Bid to File Sur-Reply Tossed w/o Prejudice
EKSTER INC: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EMAGIN CORP: Juan Monteverde Investigates Proposed Samsung Sale
ENETI INC: Juan Monteverde Investigates Proposed Cadeler Sale
ENZO BIOCHEM: Murray Suit Seeks Claims Over Data Breach
FAY SERVICING: Rempel FDCPA Suit Remanded to New Jersey State Court
FG NEW AMERICA: Moglia Suit Balks at Merger Deal With Opportunity
FINANCIAL INDEMNITY: Court Awards $765K in Attys.' Fees and Costs
FLEET QUEST: Faces Scott Class Suit Over Illegal Labor Practices
FORT BELVOIR: Bid to Seal Documents Partly OK'd
FULFILLMENT AMERICA: Fails to Provide Notice of Mass Layoff
GOLDCO DIRECT: Bid to Certify Classes Due March 15, 2024
GOOGLE INC: Plaintiffs in Consumer Class Suit Seek Class Status
HP COMMUNICATION: Violates Labor Laws, Burnison Alleges
HSBC BANK: Extension of Class Cert Bid Deadline Sought
INDIANA PACKERS: Parties Seek Court Authorized Notice in FLSA Suit
INTELLIHARTX LLC: Fails to Secure Patient Private Info, Kelly Says
ISS FACILITY: Garcia's Bid for Certain Discovery Granted in Part
JA SOLAR: S.D. New York Awards $4.2MM in Attys.' Fees in ODS Suit
JP CLEANING: Faces Espiritu Suit Over Breaches of Labor Laws
LADY JANE: Fails to Pay Stylists' Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
LIBERTY ONE: Ramirez Bid for Conditional Certification Partly OK'd
MAXFORCE DELIVERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dafonseca et al. Say
MCKIBBON HOSPITALITY: Edwards Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
MEI ZHOU: Fails to Pay Deliverymen's Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
MERCEDEZ-BENZ USA: Capazzi MMWA Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
MISSOURI: Prisoner Civil Rights Suit to Proceed Against Wilson Only
MRS BPO LLC: Bateman Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
MS AEROSPACE: Willimams Sues Over State Labor Law Violations
MYSTIC LANDSCAPING: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Bernardo Alleges
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Bankr. Court Recommends Withdrawal of Reference
NESTLE USA: S.D. California Refuses to Toss Falcone Consumer Suit
NEVADA: District Court Directs Harris to File Complaint by Sept. 11
NEXTGEN LEADS: Faces Powell Class Suit Over Pre-Recorded Robocalls
ONPOINT COMMUNITY: Fact Discovery Must be Completed by Sept. 15
PRECISION FRANCHISING: Court Dismisses Shavin's NCWHA Claims
SANTA CLARA, CA: UNIFYSCC Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
SCRANTON CARDIOVASCULAR: Ferguson Sues Over Unprotected Health Info
SEA LIMITED: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 17
SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Class Certification Bid Due April 5, 2024
STAND LLC: Fails to Pay Cooks' Minimum & OT Wages, Ramirez Says
STEM INC: Faces Foley Securities Suit Over Misleading Statements
THREE WISHES: N.D. California Stays Harville Consumer Class Suit
TRADINGVIEW INC: Faces Crumwell Suit Over Website Accessibility
TRUSSWAY MANUFACTURING: Faces Flores Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
UPPERLINE HEALTH: Discloses Personal Info to Meta, Doe Suit Says
VELOCITY COMMERCIAL: Breaches Mortgage Contracts, Cranston Claims
VELODYNE LIDAR: Securities Class in Moradpour Gets Certification
VISA INC: Loses Appeal in ATM Fee Price-Fixing Class Action
WARREN SERVICES: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
ZEROCATER INC: Fails to Pay Timely Wages, Campbell Alleges
*********
3M COMPANY: Brant Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Brant, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-03440-RMG (D.S.C., July 18, 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. The Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with prostate
cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Brussard Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------------
George Brussard, 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-03433-RMG (D.S.C., July 18, 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
esophageal 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: Campbell Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
------------------------------------------------------------------
David L. Campbell, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-03442-RMG (D.S.C., July 18,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with kidney cancer
as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Covey Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Covey, 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-03552-RMG (D.S.C., July 21, 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: Hauser Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------------
David W. Hauser, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-03445-RMG (D.S.C., July 18, 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. The Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with hypothyroidism
as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
ACTIV ENTERPRISES: Morales Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Heriberto Morales as an individual and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. ACTIV ENTERPRISES, LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 50,
Inclusive, Case No. 22STCV22181 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on July 21, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-05943.
The Plaintiff asserts causes of action for: failure to pay wages;
failure to reimburse expenses; failure to provide lawful meal
periods; failure to provide lawful rest periods; unfair competition
(Business & Professions Code section 17200, et seq.); and failure
to furnish accurate itemized wage statements .[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Max Fischer, Esq.
Brian D. Fahy, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue
Twenty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
Phone: +1.213.612.2500
Fax: +1.213.612.2501
Email: max.fischer@morganlewis.com
brian.fahy@morganlewis.com
- and -
Sarah Zenewicz, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: +1.415.442.1000
Fax: +1.415.442.1001
Email: sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com
ADVANCED MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Walker Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
DESIREE WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ADVANCED MEDICAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-01945-JMC (D. Md., July 20, 2023) fails to properly
safeguard and protect the personally identifiable information (PII)
and protected health information (PHI) and seeks to hold the
Defendant responsible for the harms it caused the Plaintiff and
similarly situated persons in the preventable data breach of
Defendant's inadequately protected computer network.
On May 11, 2023, the Defendant identified unusual activity on
certain systems within its computer network. Following an
investigation, the Defendant determined that certain databases
containing the personal information of the Plaintiff and Class
members were accessed by unauthorized cybercriminals between May
10, 2023 and May 13, 2023.
According to the Defendant, the personal information accessed by
cybercriminals involved a wide variety of PII and PHI, including
names, addresses, Social Security numbers, emails, dates of birth,
driver's licenses, treatment or diagnosis information, provider
names, dates of service, guarantor ID, policy numbers, health
insurance information, and treatment cost information of 319,485
individuals.
The Defendant's misconduct - failing to implement adequate and
reasonable measures to protect the Plaintiff's and Class members'
Personal Information, failing to timely detect the Data Breach,
failing to take adequate steps to prevent and stop the Data Breach,
failing to disclose the material facts that it did not have
adequate security practices in place to safeguard the Personal
Information, and failing to provide timely and adequate notice of
the Data Breach - caused substantial harm and injuries to the
Plaintiff and Class members across the United States, the lawsuit
asserts.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff has already expended
time and suffered loss of productivity from taking time to address
and attempt to ameliorate, mitigate, and address the future
consequences of the Data Breach, including investigating the Data
Breach, researching how best to ensure that she is protected from
identity theft, reviewing account statements and other information,
and taking other steps in an attempt to mitigate the harm caused by
the Data Breach, the lawsuit claims.
Plaintiff Desiree Walker is a citizen and resident of Maryland.
Advanced Medical manages companies who provide healthcare services
to patients and consumers in the United States, including
throughout the Baltimore-Washington metropolitan area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas A. Pacheco, Esq.
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
900 W Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (212) 946-9305
E-mail: tpacheco@milberg.com
dlietz@milberg.com
- and -
A. Brooke Murphy, Esq.
MURPHY LAW FIRM
4116 Wills Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700
Oklahoma City, OK 73108
Telephone: (405) 389-4989
E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com
AES GROUP: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TARYN MOYNIHAN, On behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. AES GROUP, USA,
LLC, d/b/a KEY AUTISM SERVICES, KEY AUTISM SERVICES OPR, LLC d/b/a
KEY AUTISM SERVICES, TRINITY KEY HOLDINGS, LLC, DON FOSTER, AVINOAM
SCHECTER, AND YOSSI ZAKLIKOWSKI, Case No. 1:22-cv-11889-WGY (D.
Mass.), the Defendants file an assented to motion for extension of
time to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class
(Conditionally):
1. The Plaintiffs filed their Motion on July 5, 2023, making the
Defendants response due on or before July 19, 2023.
2. The Defendants require additional time to prepare a compete
response to the Motion, and thus seek an extension through
August 4, 2023, to file their response.
AES provides customers with innovative medical & industrial
mechanical equipment & construction solutions.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 17, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OewHI5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Sarah Herlihy, Esq.
Jonathan Hatfield, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
75 Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 367-0025
Facsimile: (617) 367-2155
E-mail: Sarah.Herlihy@JacksonLewis.com
Jonathan.Hatfield@JacksonLewis.com
ALLEGIANT FINAL MILE: Decena Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Christian Decena, Hairon Martinez, Miguel
Rios, and Rigoberto Godoy, individually, and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals v. ALLEGIANT FINAL MILE INC., A
Florida Corporation; DIVERSE LOGISTICS & DISTRIBUTION, INC., a
Florida corporation; MATTRESS FIRM, INC., a Delaware corporation;
and DOES 1 through 25, Inclusive, Case No. 23CV029993 was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for Northern
District of California on July 21, 2023, and assigned Case No.
3:23-cv-03633.
The First Amended Complaint is a purported class action alleging
the following causes of action: failure to pay minimum wages;
failure to pay overtime compensation; reimbursement of business
expenses; unlawful deductions from wages; failure to provide meal
periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements; waiting time penalties; unfair
competition; and Private Attorneys General Act.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Mara D. Curtis, Esq.
Brittany M. Hernandez, Esq.
Tanner J. Hendershot, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514
Phone: +1 213 457 8000
Facsimile: +1 213 457 8080
Email: mcurtis@reedsmith.com
bmhernandez@reedsmith.com
thendershot@reedsmith.com
AMAZON SERVICES: Leitch Seeks to File Reply to Opposition
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Leitch et al v. Amazon
Services Com LLC f/k/a Amazon Services Com Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-06121-LGS-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order to:
1. Withdraw the Plaintiffs' Motion to conditionally certify a
class
under FLSA Section 16(b) without prejudice to re-filing it at
the close of discovery; or, alternatively,
2. Allow the Plaintiffs to file a Reply to Amazon's opposition
at
the close of discovery, and
3. Direct Amazon to withdraw its cross-motion which attacks one
of
the declarations submitted by the Plaintiffs in support of
the
Motion, as moot or, in the alternative, stay the Cross-Motion
and the Plaintiffs' opposition thereto until the time the
Plaintiffs' Reply is filed.
Amazon provides e-commerce services. The Company retails books,
diamond jewelry, electronics, appliances, apparels, and
accessories.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 14, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3q4vGKP at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert Wisniewski, Esq.
ROBERT WISNIEWSKI P.C.
17 State Street, Suite 820
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 267-2101
E-mail: www.rwapc.com
AMAZON.COM: Berry Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Cheyenne Berry, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM, SERVICES LLC;
AMAZON.COM, INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 23CV032667 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on July 20, 2023, and assigned Case No.
3:23-cv-03614.
The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: failure to
pay minimum wage; reporting time pay; improper wage statements;
wages not paid upon separation; failure to provide suitable
seating; unfair business practices; and violation of Labor Code
(Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA")). The Complaint seeks,
among other things, alleged unpaid wages, statutory penalties, and
attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of Plaintiff and the Putative
Class.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Lindsay Hutner, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
101 Second Street, Suite 2200
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 655-1300
Facsimile: (415) 707-2010
Email: Lindsay.Hutner@gtlaw.com
- and -
Timothy J. Long, Esq.
Samuel S. Hyde, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 442-1111
Facsimile: (916) 448-1709
Email: longt@gtlaw.com
hydes@gtlaw.com
- and -
Matthew J. Weber, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
Phone: (310) 586-7700
Facsimile: (310) 586-7800
Email: Matthew.Weber@gtlaw.com
AMBULNZ HEALTH: Ariano Sues Over Unlawful Termination
-----------------------------------------------------
Ida Ariano, on her own behalf and on behalf of the general public,
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. AMBULNZ HEALTH, LLC,
a Delaware Limited Liability Company, RAPID RELIABLE TESTING, LLC,
a Delaware Limited Liability Company, DOCGO, INC. dba DOCGO MOBILE
HEALTH, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV16904
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 19, 2023), is brought for
the Plaintiff's employment termination in violation of California
Labor Code.
On July 12, 2022, the Plaintiff witnessed her Lead, Arkemi Robinson
falsifying medical records. Ms. Robinson was falsifying Plaintiff's
signature on PCR COVID tests in which Plaintiff had not performed.
As soon as Plaintiff found out, she immediately complained directly
to her Lead, Arkemi Robinson. On July 13, 2022, Plaintiff also
complained to her Supervisor, Larysa Rudich about Ms. Robinson's
illegal practices, including but not limited to the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 2014. Instead of taking the
appropriate corrective action, Ms. Robinson got upset and started
screaming and yelling at Plaintiff saying, "I'll look into it!" The
Plaintiff voiced her concerns about what she reasonably believed
was a violation of the law. Plaintiff submitted her complaint to
her Supervisor, Larysa Rudich. In response, Ms. Rudich told
Plaintiff that they would address the issue.
The Plaintiff also complained to the Human Resources Manager,
Esmeralda Almazan about the illegal practices including but not
limited to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
2014. OSHA - False Statement, Representation, or Certification. The
Plaintiff's complaints were ignored. The Plaintiff also submitted
her complaint to her Direct Supervisor/Operations Manager, Logan
Bethke about Ms. Robinson's illegal practices and retaliation
against Plaintiff after her complaints.
The Defendants failed to correct the serious illegal violations in
order to prevent to the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) 2014. OSHA - False Statement, Representation,
or Certification. The Plaintiff began to notice that Defendants
were bothered by Plaintiff's complaints. Defendants began to
retaliate against Plaintiff by taking her off the schedule. The
Defendants grew tired of Plaintiff's complaints and decided to
terminate Plaintiff's employment on July 21, 2022, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff began working for Defendants on October 18, 2021.
The Defendant is licensed to do business within the City of El
Monte, County of Los Angeles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Otkupman, Esq.
Nidah Farishta, Esq.
OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION
5743 Corsa Ave, Suite 123
Westlake Village, CA 91362
Phone: (818) 293-5623
Facsimile: (888) 850-1310
Email: Roman@OLFLA.com
Nidah@OLFLA.com
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Docs Under Seal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY OLIVER, TERRY
GAYLE QUINTON, SHAWN O’KEEFE, ANDREW AMEND, SUSAN BURDETTE,
GIANNA VALDES, DAVID MOSKOWITZ, ZACHARY DRAPER, NATE THAYER,
MICHAEL THOMAS REID, ALLIE STEWART, ANGELA CLARK, JOSEPH REALDINE,
RICKY AMARO, ABIGAIL BAKER, JAMES ROBBINS IV, EMILY COUNTS, DEBBIE
TINGLE, NANCI-TAYLOR MADDUX, SHERIE MCCAFFREY, MARILYN BAKER, WYATT
COOPER, ELLEN MAHER, SARAH GRANT and GARY ACCORD on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN EXPRESS
COMPANY and AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES COMPANY, INC.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00566-NGG-SJB (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiffs' request to file
documents under seal related to the Parties' Daubert Motions.
American Express Company is an American multinational financial
services corporation that specializes in payment cards.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 14, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/479w2Ah at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Todd A. Seaver, Esq.
Joseph J. Tabacco, Esq.
Carl N. Hammarskjold, Esq.
Justin N. Saif, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
425 California Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94104
E-mail: tseaver@bermantabacco.com
jtabacco@bermantabacco.com
chammarskjold@bermantabacco.com
ccleary@bermantabacco.com
jsaif@bermantabacco.com
- and -
Gordon Ball, Esq.
Jonathan T. Ball, Esq.
GORDON BALL LLC
7001 Old Kent Drive
Knoxville, TN 37919
E-mail: gball@gordonball.com
- and -
Jay B. Shapiro, Esq.
Samuel O. Patmore, Esq.
STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER
ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, P.A.
150 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 789-3200
Facsimile: (305) 789-3395
E-mail: jshapiro@stearnsweaver.com
spatmore@stearnsweaver.com
- and -
Christopher Lovell, Esq.
Gary S. Jacobson, Esq.
LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN
JACOBSON LLP
61 Broadway, Suite 501
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 608-1900
Facsimile: (212) 719-4775
E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com
gsjacobson@lshllp.com
- and -
Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
Andrew Szot, Esq.
MILLER LAW LLC
115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 332-3400
Facsimile: (312) 676-2676
E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com
aszot@millerlawllc.com
- and -
Jared B. Stamell, Esq.
Richard J. Schager, Jr., Esq.
Andrew Goldenberg, Esq.
STAMELL & SCHAGER, LLP
260 Madison Ave., 16/F
New York, NY 10016-2410
Telephone: (212) 566-4057
Facsimile: (212) 566-4061
E-mail: stamell@ssnylaw.com
schager@ssnylaw.com
goldenberg@ssnylaw.com
- and -
Simon Paris, Esq.
SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY
One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor
1650 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-8282
Facsimile: (215) 496-0999
E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
- and -
Eric. D. Barton, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Avenue Suite 300
Kansas City MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 701-1167
Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
E-mail: ebarton@wcllp.com
- and -
Lewis S. Kahn, Esq.
Melinda A. Nicholson, Esq.
KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163
Telephone: (504) 455-1400
Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
melinda.nicholson@ksfcounsel.com
- and -
Robert G. Methvin, Esq.
James M. Terrell, Esq.
Brooke B. Rebarchak, Esq.
METHVIN TERRELL YANCEY STEPHENS &
MILLER, P.C.
2201 Arlington Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 939-0199
Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
E-mail: rgm@mtattorneys.com
jterrell@mtattorneys.com
brebarchak@mtattorneys.com
- and -
Michael R. Williams, Esq.
Thomas H. Bienert, Jr. , Esq.
BIENERT KATZMAN LITTRELL WILLIAMS
LLP
903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350
San Clemente, CA 92673
Telephone: (949) 369-3700
Facsimile: (949) 369-3701
E-mail: mwilliams@bklwlaw.com
tbienert@bklwlaw.com
- and -
Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
Beau D. Hollowell, Esq.
KARON LLC
700 W. St. Clair Ave, Suite 200
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 622-1851
Facsimile: (216) 241-8175
E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com
bhollowell@karonllc.com
- and -
Jon Cuneo, Esq.
Daniel Cohen, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
4725 Wisconsin Ave, NW, Suite 200
Washington, D.C., 20016
Telephone: (202) 789-3960
Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
danielc@cuneolaw.com
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Seeks to Exclude Expert's Class Cert Opinions
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY OLIVER, TERRY
GAYLE QUINTON, SHAWN O’KEEFE, ANDREW AMEND, SUSAN BURDETTE,
GIANNA VALDES, DAVID MOSKOWITZ, ZACHARY DRAPER, NATE THAYER,
MICHAEL THOMAS REID, ALLIE STEWART, ANGELA CLARK, JOSEPH REALDINE,
RICKY AMARO, ABIGAIL BAKER, JAMES ROBBINS IV, EMILY COUNTS, DEBBIE
TINGLE, NANCITAYLOR MADDUX, SHERIE MCCAFFREY, MARILYN BAKER, WYATT
COOPER, ELLEN MAHER, SARAH GRANT and GARY ACCORD, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN EXPRESS
COMPANY and AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES COMPANY, INC.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00566-NGG-SJB (E.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the
Court to enter an order pursuant to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules
of Evidence, granting the Defendants' motion to exclude the
opinions proffered by the Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Russell L. Lamb,
related to class certification from the Court's consideration of
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and granting such
other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
American Express Company is an American multinational financial
services corporation that specializes in payment cards.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 14, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Y8QZYf at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Todd A. Seaver, Esq.
Joseph J. Tabacco, Esq.
Carl N. Hammarskjold, Esq.
Colleen Cleary, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
425 California Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94104
E-mail: tseaver@bermantabacco.com
jtabacco@bermantabacco.com
chammarskjold@bermantabacco.com
ccleary@bermantabacco.com
- and -
Gordon Ball, Esq.
GORDON BALL LLC
7001 Old Kent Drive
Knoxville, TN 37919
E-mail: gball@gordonball.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Evan Chesler, Esq.
Peter T. Barbur, Esq.
Rory A. Leraris, Esq.
Michael J. Zaken, Esq.
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP,
Worldwide Plaza
825 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 474-1000
E-mail: echesler@cravath.com
pbarbur@cravath.com
rleraris@cravath.com
mzaken@cravath.com
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Wants Confidential Material to Remain Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY OLIVER, TERRY
GAYLE QUINTON, SHAWN O'KEEFE, ANDREW AMEND, SUSAN BURDETTE, GIANNA
VALDES, DAVID MOSKOWITZ, ZACHARY DRAPER, NATE THAYER, MICHAEL
THOMAS REID, ALLIE STEWART, ANGELA CLARK, JOSEPH REALDINE, RICKY
AMARO, ABIGAIL BAKER, JAMES ROBBINS IV, EMILY COUNTS, DEBBIE
TINGLE, NANCI-TAYLOR ADDUX, SHERIE MCCAFFREY, MARILYN BAKER, WYATT
COOPER, ELLEN MAHER, SARAH GRANT and GARY ACCORD, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN EXPRESS
COMPANY and AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES COMPANY, INC.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00566-NGG-SJB (E.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the
Court to enter an order allowing for the competitively sensitive
material identified in Appendix A to the motion to remain
confidential and under seal, and granting such other and further
relief as this Court deems just and proper.
American Express Company is an American multinational financial
services corporation that specializes in payment cards.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 14, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KgWnCX at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Todd A. Seaver, Esq.
Joseph J. Tabacco, Esq.
Carl N. Hammarskjold, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
425 California Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94104
E-mail: tseaver@bermantabacco.com
jtabacco@bermantabacco.com
chammarskjold@bermantabacco.com
- and -
Gordon Ball, Esq.
GORDON BALL LLC
7001 Old Kent Drive
Knoxville, TN 37919
E-mail: gball@gordonball.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Evan Chesler, Esq.
Peter T. Barbur, Esq.
Rory A. Leraris, Esq.
Michael J. Zaken, Esq.
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP,
Worldwide Plaza
825 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 474-1000
E-mail: echesler@cravath.com
pbarbur@cravath.com
rleraris@cravath.com
mzaken@cravath.com
AMERICAN FAMILY: Timmins, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SABRINA TIMMINS, HOLLY
JOHNSON, ELAINE SCHERER, and TONIA HOBBS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN FAMILY
INSURANCE COMPANY and AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
S.I., Wisconsin corporations, Case No. 3:22-cv-00214-jdp (W.D.
Wis.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
their motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs request that the Court enter an order:
A. Finding that the Plaintiffs have met their burden to meet the
prerequisites of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) and certifying the
damages classes; or, in the alternative, certifying the
common
issues in this case pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b)(3), and
(c)(4);
B. Finding that the Plaintiffs have met their burden to meet the
prerequisites of Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) and certifying the
classes for declaratory relief;
C. Appointing the Plaintiff Hobbs as Class Representative for
the
Wisconsin class, the Plaintiff Timmins as Class
Representative
for the Kansas Class, and the Plaintiffs Scherer and Johnson
as Class Representatives for the Missouri Class; and
D. Appointing Andrew J. Shamis of Shamis & Gentile, P.A., Adam
A. Schwartzbaum and Scott Edelsberg of Edelsberg Law, and
Jacob
L. Phillips and Edmund A. Normand of Normand PLLC, as Class
Counsel.
E. Within fourteen days of the date of this Order, the Parties
shall file a joint proposed Notice plan for the Court's
approval.
The Plaintiffs move the Court to certify the following Classes:
The Wisconsin Class:
"All Wisconsin citizens insured by American Family Insurance
Company who made a first-party claim on a policy of insurance
issued by American Family Insurance Company to a Wisconsin
resident
where, from April 13, 2017 through the date an order granting
class
certification is entered, American Family Insurance Company
determined that the vehicle was a total loss and based its claim
payment on an appraisal report from Audatex where a typical
negotiation deduction ("TND") was applied to at least one
comparable vehicle."
The Kansas Class:
"All Kansas citizens insured by American Family Mutual
Insurance Company, S.I. who made a first-party claim on a policy
of
insurance issued by American Family Mutual Insurance Company,
S.I.
to a Kansas resident where, from April 13, 2017 through the date
an
order granting class certification is entered, American Family
Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. determined that the vehicle was a
total loss and based its claim payment on an appraisal report
from
Audatex where a typical negotiation deduction (TND) was applied
to
at least one comparable vehicle."
The Missouri Class
"All Missouri citizens insured by the Defendants who made a
firstparty claim on a policy of insurance issued by American
Family
Insurance Company to a Missouri resident where, from April 13,
2012
through the date an order granting class certification is
entered,
American Family Insurance Company determined that the vehicle
was a
total loss and based its claim payment on an appraisal report
from
Audatex where a typical negotiation deduction (TND) was applied
to
at least one comparable vehicle.
American Family is an American private mutual company that focuses
on property, casualty, and auto insurance, and also offers
commercial insurance, life, health, and homeowners coverage as well
as investment and retirement-planning products.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 17, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OAtRi8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq.
Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Office: (786) 289-9471
Direct: (305) 975-3320
Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
E-mail: adam@edelsberglaw.com
scott@edelsberglaw.com
- and -
Jacob L. Phillips, Esq.
Joshua R. Jacobson, Esq.
Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
NORMAND PLLC
3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175
Orlando, FL 32803
Telephone: (407) 603-6031
E-mail: jjacobson@normandpllc.com
ed@normandpllc.com
jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com
AMERICAN QUALITY HEALTH: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Quality
Health Products, Ltd. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on
behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v.
American Quality Health Products, Ltd., Case No. 1:23-cv-06247
(S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
American Quality Health Products --
https://americanqualityhealthproducts.com/ -- is an online shop
that sells medical equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
AMTEC HUMAN CAPITAL: Cooper Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AMTEC Human Capital,
Inc. The case is styled as Pricilla Cooper, on behalf of the State
of California, and others similarly situated and aggrieved v. AMTEC
Human Capital, Inc., The Clorox Company, The Clorox International
Company, Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 23CV038864 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Alameda Cty., July 19, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Amtec -- https://www.amtec.us.com/ -- has been teaming up with
business owners and leaders, with the relentless purpose of finding
the best match or the right fit for each position.[BN]
ARAMARK CAMPUS: Vasquez Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Lindsay A. Vasquez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. ARAMARK CAMPUS, LLC., a
Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 23STCV12869 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Orange, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on July 19,
2023, and assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-01306.
The Plaintiff alleges nine separate causes of action for: Failure
to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Owed; Failure to
Provide Lawful Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest
Periods; Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment; Failure to
Timely Pay Wages Owed Upon Separation From Employment; Failure to
Reimburse Necessary Expenses; Knowing and Intentional Failure to
Comply with Itemized Wage Statement Provisions; and Violation of
the Unfair Competition Law; all in violation of IWC Wage Orders;
and California Code of Civil Procedure.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Eric Meckley, Esq.
Sarah Zenewicz, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market
Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
Phone: +1.415.442.1000
Fax: +1.415.442.1001
Email: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com
sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com
- and -
Grace Johnson, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1400 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Phone: +1.650.843.4000
Fax: +1.650.843.4001
Email: grace.johnson@morganlewis.com
ARCON CREDIT: Jeffers Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arcon Credit
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Nicholas Jeffers,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Arcon
Credit Solutions, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-05789-ODW-PVC (C.D. Cal.,
July 18, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Arcon Credit Solutions, LLC -- https://arconcredit.com/ -- works
with consumers and businesses to resolve outstanding debts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lauren Tegan Rodkey, Esq.
PRICE LAW GROUP APC
6345 Balboa Boulevard Suite 247
Encino, CA 91316
Phone: (818) 600-5526
Fax: (818) 600-5426
Email: tegan@pricelawgroup.com
AU HEALTH SYSTEM: Douglas Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
Desiree Douglas, individually and for others similarly situated v.
AU Health System, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00091-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga.,
Augusta Division, July 5, 2023) seeks overtime pay and other
damages for the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by AU Health as a patient care
technician in Augusta, Georgia. The Plaintiff regularly worked more
than 40 hours in a week but AU Health failed to pay her for all
hours she worked. Instead, AU Health automatically deducted 30
minutes a day from her work time for so-called "meal breaks", even
though she did not actually receive bona fide meal breaks.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated hourly, non-exempt AU Health patient care
employees who were subject to the company's automatic meal break
deduction policy and were deprived of overtime wages for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours.
AU Health, which owns and/or operates hospitals and healthcare
facilities across Georgia and South Carolina, bills itself as a
world-class health care network, offering the most comprehensive
primary, specialty, and sub-specialty care in the region. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Troy A. Lanier, Esq.
430 Ellis Street
Augusta, GA 30901
Telephone: (706) 823-6800
E-mail: tlanier@tlanierlaw.com
- and –
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap,Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and –
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
B & S ZEEMAN: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Estrada Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
EDIBERTO ROMEO RAMIREZ ESTRADA, on behalf of himself, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. B & S ZEEMAN,
INC. d/b/a B & S ZEEMAN WINES AND SPIRITS, DAVID ISRAEL, and JOAN
ISRAEL, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-05904 (S.D.N.Y., July 10,
2023) alleges claims against the Defendants breach of contract,
unjust enrichment, for fraudulent filing of information returns and
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York
Labor Law.
In or around June 2019, the Plaintiff was employed as a delivery
person by Defendants at B & S Zeeman Wines and Spirits located at
47 University Place, New York, New York. As a delivery person,
Plaintiff’s was required to deliver wine and other beverages to
customers who placed delivery orders. Plaintiff's employment was
terminated in or around June 2022. However, throughout his
employment, Plaintiff was never compensated by Defendants at the
proper overtime rate for hours worked over 40 in a workweek.
Instead, the Defendants improperly compensated Plaintiff at an
hourly straight time rate for all hours worked over 40 in a
workweek, says the suit.
Pursuant to FLSA and NYLL, the Plaintiff also alleges that he and
others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendants:
(1) unpaid wages, including overtime, due to time shaving; (2)
unpaid overtime premium, due to compensation of overtime at a
straight time rate; (3) unpaid wages, including overtime, due to an
invalid tip credit; (4) illegal retention of gratuities; (5) unpaid
spread of hours premiums; (6) liquidated damages; and (7)
attorneys' fees and costs, the suit claims.
Located at 47 University Place, New York City, B & S Zeeman, Inc.
operates a wine store under the name B & S Zeeman Wines and
Liquors. [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
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
BABY ON MAIN: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Baby On Main, Inc.
The case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Baby On Main, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-06324 (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Baby On Main, Inc. doing business as Baby Grand --
https://babyongrand.com/ -- is a baby store in the Twin Cities,
Minnesota specializing in car seats, strollers, cribs, dressers,
high chairs, nursery decor , clothing, toys.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
BB AT 55TH & 5TH: Clement Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BB at 55th & 5th,
LLC. The case is styled as Vincent Clement, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. BB at 55th & 5th, LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-05542 (E.D.N.Y., July 21, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
BB AT 55TH & 5TH, LLC is a Sidewalk Cafe business in New York
licensed by NYC Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
BLACK TUX INC: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Black Tux, Inc.
The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. The Black Tux, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-06293-LGS (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Black Tux -- https://theblacktux.com/ -- is a men's fashion
company specializing in the online tuxedo and suit rental
industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD: Cumalander Sues Over Denial of Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------------
William Mark Cumalander, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF TENNESSEE, INC., Case
No. 7:23-cv-01174-M (E.D.N.C., July 20, 2023), is arising under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") brought on behalf
of participants and beneficiaries of ERISA health benefit plans
administered and/or insured by BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee,
Inc. ("BCBSTN") who were denied benefits for proton beam radiation
therapy ("PBRT") to treat prostate cancer.
The Plaintiff alleges that BCBSTN uniformly applied an arbitrary
medical policy to deny claims for PBRT as experimental,
investigational, and/or not medically necessary, despite PBRT being
recognized for decades by the medical community as an established,
safe, and effective standard of care for cancers, including
prostate cancer, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was and remains a participant in an employee group
health benefit plan (the "Plan") governed by the ERISA.
BCBSTN is an insurance company with its principal place of business
in Chattanooga, Tennessee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Norris A. Adams, II, Esq.
ESSEX RICHARDS, P.A.
1701 South Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: (704) 377-4300
Facsimile: (704) 372-1357
Email: nadams@essexrichards.com
- and -
Elizabeth K. Green, Esq.
KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP
19839 Nordhoff Street
Northridge, CA 91324
Phone: (818) 886-2525
Email: egreen@kantorlaw.net
- and -
Stephanie A. Casey, Esq.
COLSON HICKS EIDSON
255 Alhambra Circle, PH
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Phone: (305) 476-7400
Email: scasey@colson.com
BLUJAY SOLUTIONS: Tooker and Hahn Seek FLSA Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRAD TOOKER and DEBRA
HAHN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. BLUJAY SOLUTIONS INC. and E2OPEN, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00455-RJJ-PJG (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting their motion for FLSA Certification.
Blujay is a developer and provider of logistics and transportation
software and services for shippers and freight forwarders.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 14, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rO0wb2 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
H. Clara Coleman, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
E-mail: srey@nka.com
ccoleman@nka.com
BOHME LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bohme, LLC. The case
is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Bohme, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06320 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 21, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bohme -- https://bohme.com/ -- is a fast-fashion clothing brand
offering modern takes on classic looks, promoting personal style,
and finding the perfect outfit for every occasion.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
BP EXPLORATION: Alizadeh Loses Bid to Continue Pretrial Deadlines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled HAMID ALIZADEH v. BP EXPLORATION &
PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION I, Case No. 22-3159 (E.D. La.),
Judge Lance M. Africk of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Louisiana denies the Plaintiff's motion to continue pretrial
deadlines and trial date.
Before the Court is a motion to continue pretrial deadlines and the
trial date filed by Plaintiff Hamid Alizadeh. Defendants BP
Exploration & Production, Inc. and BP America Production Company
(collectively, "BP"), oppose the motion. Alizadeh seeks to continue
the deadline to respond to BP's motion for summary judgment, as
well as various deadlines in the Court's scheduling order.
The case arises from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Pursuant
to the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement
Agreement ("MSA"), this is a Back-End Litigation Option ("BELO")
lawsuit. Alizadeh alleges that he suffers from a variety of chronic
health conditions, including B-cell lymphoma, caused by exposure to
oil and dispersants while working in the response to the oil
spill.
On April 6, 2023, the Court issued a scheduling order setting forth
several deadlines, including a May 31, 2023 deadline to submit
expert reports, an Aug. 9, 2023 dispositive motions deadline, an
Aug. 29, 2023 pretrial conference, and an Oct. 2, 2023 trial date.
The order stated: "Continuances will not normally be granted."
On June 12, 2023, BP filed a motion for summary judgment with a
June 28, 2023 submission date. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.5,
Alizadeh's deadline to file a response to BP's motion was June 20,
2023. Judge Africk notes that Alizadeh did not file any opposition
to BP's motion and made no effort to seek a continuance before the
deadline. On June 27, 2023, he filed the instant motion.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A), the Court
may extend deadlines before they have passed "for good cause." Once
a deadline has passed, the Court may extend it "for good cause"
only "if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect."
The Fifth Circuit has explained that factors relevant to the
"excusable neglect" inquiry include the danger of prejudice to the
non-movant, the length of the delay and its potential impact on the
judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether
it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and whether the
movant acted in good faith, Judge Africk notes, citing Adams v.
Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn., 465 F.3d 156, 161-62 n.8 (5th Cir.
2006).
Balancing the four relevant factors under Adams, the Court
concludes that Alizadeh has not met his burden of showing excusable
neglect with respect to his failure to file an opposition to BP's
motion for summary judgment.
The Court next considers Alizadeh's request to extend the
submission date for BP's motion for summary judgment. This request
is functionally the same as his request to extend the deadline to
file an opposition to BP's motion. However, because this deadline
had not passed when he filed the instant motion to continue, this
request is governed by Rule 6(b)(1)(A).
Although Alizadeh asserts that his counsel has been discussing a
potential change in his representation, Judge Africk finds that he
does not explain why discussions with potential new counsel
prevented him from filing a timely response to BP's motion for
summary judgment or requesting a continuance before the deadline.
He also does not indicate how long he anticipates it will take him
to secure new counsel. Considering the equities, the Court,
therefore, finds that Alizadeh's references to discussions with
potential new counsel do not constitute good cause sufficient to
warrant extending the submission date.
The Plaintiff also asks the Court to continue several deadlines set
by the Court's scheduling order. Because these deadlines appear in
the Court's scheduling order, Judge Africk says these requests are
governed by Rule 16(b).
Mr. Alizadeh's expert witness deadline passed on May 31, 2023, and
he did not seek a continuance until June 27, 2023. Again, he
explains his failure to meet his deadlines only by referencing
"ongoing discussions with potential new counsel." Judge Africk
points out that he does not explain why discussions with potential
new counsel prevented him from complying with the expert witness
deadline or seeking a continuance before the deadline. Hence, the
Court finds that Alizadeh has shown neither good cause nor
excusable neglect warranting an extension of this deadline.
Mr. Alizadeh's request to continue the other deadlines in this
Court's scheduling order fares no better, Judge Africk says.
Considering the facts of the case, the potential prejudice to BP in
the form of increased costs and delayed resolution, as well as the
demands on counsel's time and the Court's, the Court finds that
Alizadeh's reference to potential new counsel does not constitute
good cause.
For the reasons stated, Judge Africk denies Alizadeh's motion to
continue.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order & Reasons dated July 13,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ruevwnn7 from
Leagle.com.
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Institute
of Technology, et al. The case is styled as Elva Lopez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
California Institute of Technology, Simplilearn Americas, Inc.,
Case No. CGC23607810 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., July 20,
2023).
The case type is stated as "Business Tort."
The California Institute of Technology -- http://www.caltech.edu/
-- is a private research university in Pasadena, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eve H. Cervantez, Esq.
ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
177 Post St., Ste. 300
San Francisco, CA 94108-4733
Phone: 415-421-7151
Fax: 415-362-8064
Email: ecervantez@altber.com
CALIFORNIA: Writ of Certiorari Filed in Kirola Suit
---------------------------------------------------
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, et al. filed a
petition for writ of certiorari in the lawsuit entitled City and
County of San Francisco, California, et al., Petitioners vs. Ivana
Kirola, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Case No. 21-15621, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.
The appellate case is captioned City and County of San Francisco,
California, et al., Petitioners vs. Ivana Kirola, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Case No. 23-35, in the
Supreme Court of United States, filed on July 12, 2023. [BN]
Defendants-Petitioners CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
CALIFORNIA, et al., are represented by:
Tara Michelle Steeley, Esq.
Office of the City Attorney City Hall
Room 234, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett
San Francisco, CA 94102
E-mail: Tara.steeley@sfcityatty.org
CARABEAN LLC: Cortes Sues Over Labor Law Violations Against Servers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GUADALUPE CORTES, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
and the Class, Plaintiff v. CARABEAN, LLC., d/b/a DOWNTOWN GALWAY
HOOKER, FIDDLESTICKS L.L.C. d/b/a FIDDLESTICKS, and MARY NIAMH
CONWAY, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-05876 (S.D.N.Y., July 10,
2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, the New York State Human
Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
In or about July 2020, Plaintiff Guadalupe Cortes was hired by
Defendants to work as a server at Galway Hooker Bar, located at 133
7th Ave S, New York, New York 10014. Plaintiff’s employment ended
in or around January 2023. However, the Defendants are allegedly
engaged in a policy and practice of refusing to pay Plaintiff and
FLSA Collective Plaintiffs proper wages for all hours worked,
including overtime hours for hours worked over 40. They also failed
to pay Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs proper wages for
all hours worked, including overtime hours, due to an invalid tip
credit. The Defendants also illegally retained gratuities from
Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs by having an invalid tip
pool, says the suit.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to recover from the Defendants:
(1) unpaid wages, including overtime, due to time shaving, (2)
unpaid wages, including overtime, due to an invalid tip credit, (3)
unpaid gratuities due to invalid tip pooling, (4) liquidated
damages and (5) attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff also
additionally seeks damages and other relief under the common law of
the State of New York for intentionally inflicting emotional
distress.
Carabean LLC owns and operates two Irish pubs in New York City.
[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
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
CARBONITE INC: Court Certifies Class in Luna Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUBEN A. LUNA,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
CARBONITE, INC., MOHAMAD S. ALI and ANTHONY FOLGER, Case No.
1:19-cv-11662-LTS (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Leo T. Sorokin entered
an order certifying a class consisting of:
"All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Carbonite Inc. common stock during the period from October 18,
2018
through July 25, 2019, and were damaged thereby."
Excluded from the Class are the Defendants (Carbonite, Mohammad
Ali, and Anthony Folger) and their immediate families, the
Company's officers and directors at all relevant times, as well
as
their immediate families, the Defendants' legal representatives,
heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which the
Defendants have or had a controlling interest.
The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have satisfied all four of
prerequisites for class certification under Rule 23(a) as well as
the predominance and superiority elements of Rule 23(b)(3).
They have also shown that the Trust and Robbins Geller meet the
requirements for appointment as class representative and class
counsel. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification and Appointment of Class Representative and Class
Counsel, is allowed.
This securities fraud class action, brought by and on behalf of
Lead the Plaintiff Construction Industry and Laborers' Joint
Pension Trust and other similarly situated holders of common stock
of the Defendant Carbonite, Inc., alleges that the Defendant
Carbonite and two of its officers, the Defendants Mohamad S. Ali
and Anthony Folger, made materially false statements that misled
investors in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act, and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5.
Carbonite is a provider of cloud and hybrid business continuity
solutions for small and midsized businesses.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 14, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OwQe7U at no extra charge.[CC]
CASE WESTERN: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to August 23
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL LOZADA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-02336-DAR (N.D.
Ohio), the Parties ask stipulate jointly move the Court for a
30-day extension (until August 23, 2023) for the filing of motions
for summary judgment and for class certification.
The parties have completed fact discovery and exchanged expert
reports pursuant to the Court's deadlines.
A 30-day extension of the deadline for motions for summary judgment
and class certification would not cause undue delay or prejudice
any party. The briefing would proceed on the following schedule:
-- Motions for Summary Judgment & Aug. 23, 2023
Class Certification:
-- Opposition Briefs: Sept. 22, 2023
-- Reply Briefs: Oct. 6, 2023
Case Western is a private research university in Cleveland, Ohio.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 14, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QgGGj0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (513) 345-8291
Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
- and -
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
- and -
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
Philip Furia, Esq.
Joseph Lipari, Esq.
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
270 Madison Ave., Suite 1800
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 969-7810
E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com
liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Carole S. Rendon
Karl Fanter
Douglas Shively
Elliot Nash
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
Key Tower, 127 Public Square, Suite 2000
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 621-0200
Facsimile: (216) 696-0740
E-mail: crendon@bakerlaw.com
kfanter@bakerlaw.com
dshively@bakerlaw.com
enash@bakerlaw.com
CHEROKEE GIVES: Court Stays Philadelphia Suit for 60 More Days
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Louise W. Flanagan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, Western Division, grants the joint
motion to continue stay in the lawsuit captioned PHILADELPHIA
INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff v. CHEROKEE GIVES BACK
FOUNDATION; THOMAS F. DARDEN II; THOMAS F. DARDEN III; SLOCUM H.
FOGLEMAN III a/k/a S. H. "JIM" FOGLEMAN; SAMUEL W. WHITT; MAURICE
J. COLEMAN; LATOYA KING a/k/a LATOYA GODLEY and RSUI INDEMNITY
COMPANY, Defendants And PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Counterclaim and Third-Party Plaintiff v. STEADFAST INSURANCE
COMPANY, Counterclaimant and Third-Party Defendant, Case No.
5:19-CV-445-FL (E.D.N.C.).
The matter is before the Court on the Joint Motion to Continue Stay
filed by Plaintiff Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company,
Defendants Cherokee Gives Back Foundation, Thomas F. Darden II,
Thomas F. Darden III, Slocum H. Fogleman III a/k/a S. H. "Jim"
Fogleman, Samuel W. Whitt, Maurice J. Coleman, and LaToya King
a/k/a LaToya Godley, and Third-Party Defendant Steadfast Insurance
Company (collectively, the "Parties").
The Court finds good cause exists to continue to stay further
proceedings in this case for an additional 60 days to allow the
settlement approval process in the Class Action to develop to the
point where the Parties' settlement of this action will become
final.
Judge Flanagan, therefore, grants the Joint Motion to Continue
Stay, and stays all deadlines and further action in this case for
60 days.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 13, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/47sz3ppf from Leagle.com.
CHILDREN'S MED. CTR: Kellyman Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Children's Med. Ctr.
of S. Fla., LLC. The case is styled as Jamar Kellyman, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Children's Med.
Ctr. of S. Fla., LLC, Case No. CACE23015947 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward
Cty., July 20, 2023).
Children's Medical Center of South Florida --
https://www.npcmc.com/ -- is a company that operates in the
Hospital & Health Care industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas J. Patti, III, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th St., 17th Floor
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 907-1136
Fax: (954) 529-9540
Email: tom@jibraellaw.com
CHURCH MUTUAL: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Response Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GENERATION CHANGERS
CHURCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY (CMIC), Case No.
3:21-cv-00764 (M.D. Tenn.), CMIC moves the Court for leave to file
under seal its Response in Opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification, Appointment of Class Representative and
Appointment of Class Counsel.
CMIC is an insurance provider for other organizations that inspire
and serve others.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 14, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OI4meZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Brandon McWherter, Esq.
MCWHERTER SCOTT & BOBBITT, PLC
341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230
Franklin, TN 37067
E-mail: brandon@msb.law
- and -
T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq.
SNODGRASS LAW LLC
100 S. Fifth Street, Suite 800
Minneapolis, MN 55402
E-mail: jsnodgrass@snodgrass-law.com
- and -
Erik D. Peterson, Esq.
ERIK PETERSON LAW OFFICES, PSC
110 W. Vine Street, Suite 300
Lexington, KY 40507
E-mail: erik@eplo.law
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel J. Ripper, Esq.
LUTHER-ANDERSON, PLLP
Chattanooga, TN 37401-0151
E-mail: dan@lutheranderson.com
- and -
Ryan A. Strain, Esq.
George T. Lewis, Esq.
BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN,
CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C.
165 Madison Ave., Suite 2000
Memphis, TN 38103
E-mail: blewis@bakerdonelson.com
rstrain@bakerdonelson.com
CPA GLOBAL: Brainchild Surgical Suit Transferred to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brainchild Surgical Devices, LLC, a New York
limited liability company, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated, Movant v. CPA Global Limited, Case No.
1:21-cv-00554 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on July 21, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-mc-00102 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.
CPA Global Ltd. doing business as Clarivate --
https://clarivate.com/ -- provides general, legal, and intellectual
property (IP) support services. The Company offers document review,
contract management, and litigation support services, as well as
intellectual property software, renewals and data management,
research, and consulting services.[BN]
The Movant is represented by:
Ryan Abbott, Esq.
ONE LLP
4000 MacArthur Boulevard East Tower Suite 500
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 502-2870
Fax: (949) 258-5081
Email: ryan@bnsklaw.com
CREDIT UNION: Lucero 401(k) Plan Suit Seeks Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDA L. LUCERO, HEATHER
BARTON, ILONA KOMPANIIETS and CYNTHIA HURTADO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CREDIT UNION RETIREMENT
PLAN ASSOCIATION, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CREDIT UNION
RETIREMENT PLAN ASSOCIATION, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CREDIT
UNION RETIREMENT PLAN ASSOCIATION and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No.
3:22-cv-00208-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an
order certify the following proposed Class:
"All persons, except the Defendants and their immediate
family
members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
Credit
Union Retirement Plan Association 401(k) Plan, at any time
between April 12, 2016, through the date of judgment."
The Plaintiffs also submit that they should be appointed as
representatives of the proposed Class and that their attorneys
should be appointed as Class Counsel.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 14, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OxzT33 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
CRISIS24 INC: Burk Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Patrick Burk, individually and on behalf of
the putative class v. CRISIS24, INC., a Delaware corporation;
CRISIS24 PROTECTIVE SOLUTIONS, LP, a Delaware limited partnership;
and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. 23STCV14245 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on July 21, 2023, and assigned Case No.
2:23-cv-05929.
The Complaint alleges, on behalf of Plaintiff and all putative
Class members, that Defendants: failed to pay all wages due, failed
to provide compliant meal and rest periods, failed to pay premiums
for non-compliant meal and rest periods, failed to issue accurate
itemized wage statements, failed to pay all wages due on
termination of employment, and violated California's Unfair
Competition Law (Business & Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Malcolm A. Heinicke, Esq.
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-2907
Phone: (415) 512-4000
Facsimile: (415) 512-4077
Email: malcolm.heinicke@mto.com
- and -
Joseph D. Lee, Esq.
Minkee K. Sohn, Esq.
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426
Phone: (213) 683-9100
Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
Email: joseph.lee@mto.com
minkee.sohn@mto.com
D&D RETAIL LLC: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against D&D Retail, LLC. The
case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. D&D Retail, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06272
(S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
D & D Retail LLC is a company that operates in the Construction
industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
D.R.I. ENTERPRISES: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against D.R.I. Enterprises,
Ltd. The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. D.R.I. Enterprises, Ltd., Case No.
1:23-cv-06275 (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
DRI Companies -- www.dricompanies.com -- is a leading construction
firm specializing in the installation of high-performing roofing
and waterproofing systems for its commercial and residential
homebuilding clients.[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
DANONE NORTH AMERICA: Jasper Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michele Jasper, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Danone North America Public
Benefit Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-07122 was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
July 19, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-06219-JGLC to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Danone North America -- https://www.danonenorthamerica.com/ -- is a
purpose-driven company and an industry leader in the food and
beverage category.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Francis Richard Greene
GREENE CONSUMER LAW
1954 1st St., #154
Highland Park, IL 60035
Phone: (312) 847-6979 x101
- and -
Spencer Sheehan
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Road Ste 412
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: (516) 268-7080
Fax: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Colleen Michelle Gulliver
Keara M. Gordon
Yan Grinblat
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Phone: (212) 335-4737
Email: keara.gordon@dlapiper.com
yan.grinblat@dlapiper.com
DAO ASIAN: Ping Lin Files Appeal in NY Appellate Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
PING LIN is taking an appeal from a court order in his lawsuit
entitled Ping Lin, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dao Asian Restaurant, Inc., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 700001/2015, in the Lower Court of New
York.
The case type is stated as Civil Action - General.
The appellate case is captioned Ping Lin, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, vs. Dao Asian Restaurant, Inc., et
al., Case No. 23-02627, in the Second Judicial Department of New
York Appellate Division, filed on July 12, 2023. [BN]
Defendants-Respondents DAO ASIAN RESTAURANT, INC., et al., are
represented by:
Kevin Kerveng Tung, Esq.
KEVIN KERVENG TUNG, PC
Queens Crossing Business Center
136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 3D
Flushing, NY 11354
Telephone: (718) 939-2911
DAVE & JOHNNY LTD: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dave & Johnny, Ltd.
The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Dave & Johnny, Ltd., Case No.
1:23-cv-05497 (E.D.N.Y., July 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Dave & Johnny, Ltd. -- https://daveandjohnny.com/ -- offers trendy,
high quality prom dresses designed for prom, homecoming, wedding,
and evening occasions. Shop maxi, mini, and black tie dresses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
DAVID GUTIERREZ: Walker Files Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stephen Walker v. David
Gutierrez et al, Case No. 2:22-cv-00176-Z-BR (N.D. Tex.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for
class certification.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 14, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DyBL5m at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
DELSEY LUGGAGE: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Delsey Luggage, Inc.
The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Delsey Luggage, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-06278 (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
DELSEY -- https://us.delsey.com/ -- is the second most distributed
luggage across the globe.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
DIALOG DIRECT: Tronka Sues to Recover Unpaid and Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Tronka, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DIALOG DIRECT, INC. d/b/a DIALOG DIRECT, a QUALFON
COMPANY and DMI GC HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01317-RJC (W.D.
Pa., July 21, 2023), is brought to recover overtime wages and
liquidated damages and as a class action pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
of 1968 ("PMWA"), and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection
Law ("PWPCL"), to recover unpaid wages, overtime wages, and other
applicable penalties.
Although Named Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members have
routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, Named
Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members have not been paid
overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Dialog Direct
knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Named Plaintiff and
the Putative Class Members for all hours worked each workweek and
the proper amount of overtime on a routine and regular basis during
the relevant time period. Named Plaintiff and the Putative Class
Members did not (and currently do not) perform work that meets the
definition of exempt work under the FLSA or Pennsylvania state law,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Dialog Direct in 2021 during the
relevant time period.
Dialog Direct is a marketing and customer engagement solution
provider focused on helping brands connect and engage with their
customers to generate leads, increase sales and provide superior
customer engagement solutions that create remarkable
experiences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Derrek W. Cummings, Esq.
Larry A. Weisberg, Esq.
WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C.
2704 Commerce Drive, Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17110-9380
Phone: (717) 238-5707
Fax: (717) 233-8133
Email: dcummings@weisbergcummings.com
lweisberg@weisbergcummings.com
DNC PARKS: Must File Class Cert Opposition in Vega Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA SOCORRO VEGA, v. DNC
PARKS & RESORTS AT ASILOMAR, INC., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00484-ADA-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley A. Boone
entered an order requiring the Defendants to file an opposition or
statement of Non-opposition to plaintiff's application to continue
deadline to reply to opposition to class certification motion.
1. The Defendants shall file an opposition or statement of non-
opposition to the Plaintiff's ex parte application no later
than
July 28, 2023;
2. Failure to comply with this order will be construed as a
statement of nonopposition to the Plaintiff’s ex parte
application; and
3. If the Defendants file an opposition to the ex parte
application, consistent with this order, the Plaintiff may
file
a reply pursuant to the Local Rules.
Following resolution of discovery issues pertaining to deposing the
Plaintiff's witnesses, the Defendants filed an opposition to the
motion on July 10, 2023.
The Plaintiff's reply brief is currently due July 24, 2023.
On July 13, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to
continue the deadline to file the Plaintiff's reply, and seeking
leave to take the depositions of the 36 witnesses who submitted
declaration in support of the Defendants' opposition to the class
certification motion, at least 12 of whom are putative class
members.
The application indicates the Plaintiff's meet and confer efforts
on this matter were stalled, that the Plaintiff has not been able
to schedule the depositions of any of the Defendants' declarants,
and that the Defendants have not agreed to permit the depositions
or a continuance.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 14, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/454LjRb at no extra charge.[CC]
DOLEX DOLLAR: De La Rosa Sanchez Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Gabriela De La Rosa Sanchez, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. DOLEX DOLLAR EXPRESS,
INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV08139 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 19, 2023, and
assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-05848.
The Complaint alleges seven causes of action which Plaintiff
pursues on a class-wide basis: failure to pay wages for all hours
worked at minimum wage in violation of Labor Code; failure to pay
overtime wages for daily overtime worked and/or failure to pay
overtime wages at the proper overtime rate of pay in violation of
Labor Code; failure to authorize or permit meal periods in
violation of Labor Code; failure to authorize or permit rest
periods in violation of Labor Code; failure to indemnify employees
or employment-related losses/expenditures in violation of Labor
Code; failure to timely pay all earned wages and final paychecks
due at time of separation of employment in violation of Labor Code;
and unfair business practices in violation of Business and
Professions Code Sections.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Daniel B. Chammas, Esq.
Min K. Kim, Esq.
FORD & HARRISON LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 237-2400
Facsimile: (213) 237-2401
Email: dchammas@fordharrison.com
mkim@fordharrison.com
DTLR INC: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DTLR, Inc. The case
is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. DTLR, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06212-JGLC
(S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
DTLR Holding, Inc. -- https://www.dtlr.com/ -- is an apparel &
fashion company.[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
DUDE PRODUCTS: Darnall Sues Over Mislabeled Wipe Products
---------------------------------------------------------
Josefina Darnall, George Wyant, Cheryl Rutkowski and Dexter Cobb,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DUDE
PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 2023LA000761 (Ill. 18th Judicial Cir. Ct.,
DuPage Cty., July 20, 2023), is brought on behalf of purchasers of
DUDE Wipes-brand flushable wipe products (collectively, "DUDE
Wipes") which are mislabeling because they are not flushable.
The Defendant markets and sells DUDE Wipes as "flushable" wipe
products. In fact, DUDE Wipes are not flushable, in that they do
not break apart or disperse in a reasonable period of time after
flushing, resulting in clogs or other sewage damage.
Flushable wipes are a personal hygiene product that serve as an
alternative to toilet paper. Flushable wipes are generally packaged
as small to medium-sized moistened pieces of cloth, which come
pre-cut into rectangles, folded, and wrapped for convenience. The
flushable wipe industry is growing at twice the rate of all other
restroom wipe products. For example, in 2018, flushable wipes
accounted for $2.1 billion in total sales.
Consumers understand that "flushable" is commonly defined and
understood to mean suitable for disposal by flushing down a toilet.
As a result, reasonable consumers expect that "flushable wipe"
products will disperse in a short amount of time after flushing and
therefore will not clog or cause other operational problems in
household sewage lines, septic systems, and other standard
wastewater equipment. To be suitable for flushing, any "flushable"
product must be able to quickly disintegrate into small pieces such
that it can pass through sewer systems without issue.
Contrary to Defendant's representations, DUDE Wipes are not, in
fact, flushable. DUDE Wipes do not break apart or disperse after
flushing. As such, Defendant engaged in widespread false and
deceptive advertising on its DUDE Wipes by claiming DUDE Wipes are
"flushable" (the "Flushability Claims"). Every package of DUDE
Wipes prominently claims that the product consists of "Flushable
Wipes," and the product packaging even includes a picture of a
cartoon toilet with the text "King of the Throne."
The Plaintiffs and Class Members purchased defective flushable
wipes designed, marketed manufactured, distributed, and sold by
Defendant as "flushable." Further, Plaintiffs and Class Members
relied to their detriment on Defendant's representation that DUDE
Wipes are "flushable." Plaintiffs and Class Members would not have
paid to purchase Defendant's DUDE Wipes--or would not have paid as
much as they did to purchase them--had they known that they are
not, in fact, "flushable." Plaintiffs and Class Members thus
suffered monetary damages as a result of Defendant's deceptive and
false representations.
The mislabeling of the DUDE Wipes renders the product completely
worthless. There is no value to consumers for purportedly
"flushable" wipes that are not actually flushable. Nevertheless,
DUDE Wipes are labeled and sold as an alternative to toilet paper,
and they command a significant price premium over non-flushable
wipes and traditional toilet paper. Thus, Plaintiffs and class
members have thus been hit with a costly double-whammy: a premium
purchase price for a worthless product, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased DUDE Wipes for their personal use.
DUDE Products, Inc. manufactures, sells, and/or distributes
DUDE-brand products, and is responsible for the advertising,
marketing, trade dress, and packaging of DUDE Wipes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
111 W. Jackson Street, Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 984-0000
Fax: (212) 686-0114
Email: malmstrom@whafh.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (847) 208-4585
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Phone: (313) 303-3472
Email: nsuciu@milberg.com
- and -
Frederick J. Klorczyk, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Fax: (212) 989-9163
Email: fkorczyk@bursor.com
- and -
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
Britany S. Scott, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ndeckant@bursor.com
bscott@bursor.com
EAGLE LEATHER: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eagle Leather, Inc.
The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Eagle Leather, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-06277 (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Eagle Leather Company -- https://eagleleather.com/ -- is the
premier destination for motorcycle gear, accessories, and a true
rider's shopping experience.[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
EAST SHORE SPECIALTY: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against East Shore Specialty
Foods, Inc. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. East
Shore Specialty Foods, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06342 (S.D.N.Y., July
21, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
East Shore Specialty Foods, Inc. -- https://www.eastshorefoods.com/
-- offers the most versatile Specialty Pretzels, Gourmet Mustards
and Old Fashioned Dessert Sauces on the market.[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
EDUCATION CREDIT: Bid to File Sur-Reply Tossed w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kincaid v. Education
Credit Mgt. Corp., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00863 (E.D. Cal., Filed
May 12, 2021), the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an order
denying without prejudice Defendants' request to file a sur-reply
and the Plaintiff's opposition.
-- The Defendants' request consists of a single paragraph and
states
the purpose of a sur-reply "would be to address issues not
addressed in the Defendants' opposition to the motion for
class
certification and which the Defendants believe are misleading
or
the Court would benefit from further information."
-- The Defendants fail to specifically identify any new evidence
or
argument the Plaintiff raised for the first time in her reply
brief or objections that might warrant a sur-reply. As such,
the
Court agrees with the Plaintiff that the Defendants have not
shown good cause to file a sur-reply.
The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.
Educational Credit provides financial counseling and education to
empower students to make better choices about their futures.[CC]
EKSTER INC: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ekster Inc. The case
is styled as Frank Senior, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Ekster Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06362
(S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ekster -- https://www.ekster.com/ -- is a scale-up that designs,
produces and markets smart leather goods with an innovative
touch.[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
EMAGIN CORP: Juan Monteverde Investigates Proposed Samsung Sale
---------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:
eMagin Corp. (NYSE: EMAN ), relating to its proposed sale to
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. Under the terms of the agreement, EMAN
shareholders are expected to receive $2.08 in cash per share they
own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/emagin-corp. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: FREQ ), relating to its
proposed merger with Korro Bio, Inc. Under the terms of the
agreement, FREQ shareholders are expected to own approximately 8%
of the combined company. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/frequency-therapeutics-inc. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Denbury, Inc. (NYSE: DEN ), relating to its proposed sale to
Exxon Mobil Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, DEN
shareholders are expected to receive $89.45 in cash per share they
own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/denbury-inc. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
Bunge Limited, Inc. (NYSE: BG ), relating to its proposed merger
with Viterra Limited. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/bunge-limited-inc. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
About Monteverde & Associates PC
We are a national class action securities and consumer litigation
law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders
and is committed to protecting investors and consumers from
corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have
significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and
Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by
recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr.
Monteverde, who leads the firm, has been recognized by Super
Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013 and
2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a
particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell
as a 2017-2020 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes
include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the
standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in
the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this
victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as
improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex
Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, over the years
the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds
for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.
If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
ENETI INC: Juan Monteverde Investigates Proposed Cadeler Sale
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:
Eneti, Inc. (NYSE: NETI), relating to its proposed sale to Cadeler
A/S. Under the terms of the agreement, NETI shareholders are
expected to receive 3.409 shares of Cadeler per share they own.
Click here for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/eneti-inc. It is free and there is
no cost or obligation to you.
American Equity Investment Life Holding Co. (NYSE: AEL), relating
to its proposed sale to Brookfield Reinsurance. Under the terms of
the agreement, AEL shareholders are expected to receive 0.49707
shares of Brookfield and $38.85 in cash per share they own. Click
here for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/american-equity-investment-life-holding-co.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Talaris Therapeutics Inc. (Nasdaq: TALS), relating to its proposed
merger with Tourmaline Bio, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement,
TALS shareholders are expected to own approximately 21.3% of the
combined company. Click here for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/talaris-therapeutics-inc. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Wireless Telecom Group, Inc. (NYSE: WTT), relating to its proposed
sale to Maury Microwave, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, WTT
shareholders are expected to receive $2.13 in cash per share they
own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/wireless-telecom-group-inc. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
About Monteverde & Associates PC
We are a national class action securities and consumer litigation
law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders
and is committed to protecting investors and consumers from
corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have
significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and
Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by
recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr.
Monteverde, who leads the firm, has been recognized by Super
Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013 and
2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a
particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell
as a 2017-2020 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes
include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the
standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in
the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this
victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as
improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex
Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, over the years
the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds
for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.
If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
ENZO BIOCHEM: Murray Suit Seeks Claims Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
James Murray, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Enzo Biochem, Inc, Enzo Clinical Labs, Inc, and Lab
Corporation of America Holdings, Case No. 2:23-cv-05102 (E.D.N.Y.,
July 5, 2023) accuses the Defendants of failing to properly secure
and safeguard personally identifiable information belonging to
Plaintiff and Class Members.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was
compromised during a cybersecurity incident that occurred on the
Defendants' computer network between April 4, 2023 and April 6,
2023. An investigation by the Defendants found that an unauthorized
actor accessed their system and certain files containing
Plaintiff's and Class Members' private data, such as names, dates
of service, and clinical test information, says the suit.
The Defendants admitted in a filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission that Social Security numbers belonging to
approximately 600,000 Class Members were illegally accessed during
the data breach. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
maintained the private information in a negligent manner by storing
confidential data on computer systems and networks that were
susceptible to cyberattack. The Defendants were allegedly aware of
this risk.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, seeks redress and claims for multiple violations
committed by the Defendants, including negligence, breach of
confidentiality, and violations of the New York Deceptive Trade
Practices Act.
Enzo Biochem, Inc and Enzo Clinical Labs, Inc are both for-profit
corporations principally based in New York and organized under the
laws of the State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul C. Whalen
768 Plandome Road
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (516) 426-6870
Google Fi: (631) 612-3905
E-mail: pcwhalen@proton.me
crodriguez@bm.net
FAY SERVICING: Rempel FDCPA Suit Remanded to New Jersey State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael A. Shipp of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey remands to state court the lawsuit styled BRENDAN
REMPEL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff(s) v. FAY SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 22-6960
(MAS) (TJB) (D.N.J.).
The matter comes before the Court upon its Dec. 8, 2022 Order to
Show Cause (the "December Order") regarding whether the Court has
subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to TransUnion
LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021).
Defendant Fay Servicing, LLC, filed a memorandum of law in support
of the Court's jurisdiction, and Plaintiff Brendan Rempel opposed.
The Court has considered the parties' submissions and decides the
matter without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 78.1.
The action arises out of Rempel's claims that Fay Servicing
violated the New Jersey Declaratory Judgment Act and the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").
On Feb. 23, 2022, Fay Servicing sent Rempel a "Notice of Intention
to Foreclose" Letter (the "Collection Letter"). The Collection
Letter provided that: (1) Rempel was in default; (2) Rempel owed
$75,702.46 to cure the default; (3) the alleged principal balance
of his debt was $922,819.03; and (4) any written requests should be
addressed to Fay Servicing. Rempel could not determine who the
creditor of the debt was nor which of the provided balances was the
amount of debt owed. As a result, Rempel alleges that Fay Servicing
knew or should have known that it had violated the FDCPA.
On Nov. 3, 2022, Rempel filed a putative class action in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County, against Fay
Servicing alleging that it used false, misleading, and deceptive
statements in its attempt to collect a residential debt from
Rempel. On Dec. 2, 2022, Fay Servicing timely removed this case to
this Court.
On Dec. 8, 2022, the Court ordered Fay Servicing to brief the Court
on subject-matter jurisdiction over the action pursuant to
TransUnion. On Dec. 28, 2022, Fay Servicing filed its memorandum of
law in support of the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction.
In response, Rempel argues that he does not "allege a physical or
monetary harm" but rather only that Fay Servicing's Collection
Letter contained misleading information. Further, Rempel argues
that he has only pled statutory damages under the FDCPA and is not
seeking restitution.
The Court agrees with Rempel insomuch as it finds that he does not
allege a concrete injury, and, thus, he does not have Article III
standing to bring his claims in this Court.
Judge Shipp finds that Rempel's injury is particularized because it
is individual and personal as it relates to an alleged debt he
owes. There is, however, no concrete injury alleged.
Instead, Fay Servicing relies on the possible foreclosure of
Rempel's alleged property as establishing that he suffered an
injury-in-fact.
The Court cannot adjudicate matters predicated on possible future
harms. Instead, Judge Shipp explains, there must be some actual
harm to establish standing. Accordingly, because there is no
concrete injury, Rempel lacks standing under Article III to have
this matter adjudicated in federal court.
Further, Judge Shipp finds that Fay Servicing failed to show that
Rempel seeking restitution damages establishes Article III
standing. In advancing its theory, Fay Servicing contends that the
Plaintiff's allegations extend beyond statutory relief because he
seeks restitution for the Defendant's "wrongdoing," and, therefore,
Rempel has Article III standing.
The Court disagrees that anytime a plaintiff seeks restitution, the
plaintiff has Article III standing. Importantly, Judge Shipp says,
Fay Servicing provides no relevant legal analysis to support this
conclusion, and the Court cannot independently find any persuasive
case law crediting this assertion.
For these reasons, Judge Shipp remands the matter to the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Order dated July 13,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/de6uja5d from
Leagle.com.
FG NEW AMERICA: Moglia Suit Balks at Merger Deal With Opportunity
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN MURRAY, v. JOSEPH MOGLIA, KYLE CERMINARA, LARRY SWETS, JR.,
NICHOLAS RUDD, ROBERT WEEKS, HASSAN BAQAR, and FG NEW AMERICA
INVESTORS, LLC, Case No. 2023-0737 (Del. Ch., July 20, 2023) is a
verified class action complaint asserting claims arising from
FGNA's July 20, 2021, merger with Opportunity Financial LLC for
breach of fiduciary duty claims against Director Defendants, FGNA's
Chief Executive Officer, FGNA's President, and FGNA's Chief
Financial Officer.
The Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of fiduciary against FG New
America Investors LLC, Moglia, Swets, and Cerminara in their
capacities as controlling stockholders of FGNA; and claims for
unjust enrichment against all Defendants.
The Controller Defendants took FGNA public as a shell company and
subsequently merged it with the private company Legacy OppFi in the
Merger. As a result, the Plaintiff and the Class were harmed due to
the impairment of their redemption rights prior to the Merger, says
the suit.
In addition, by virtue of material misstatements and omissions in
the Proxy, the Plaintiff and members of the Class could not
exercise their vote in an informed manner and approved the Merger
with Legacy OppFi based on false and misleading information. Prior
to the IPO, the Controller Defendants caused FGNA to issue
6,468,750 shares of FGNA Class B common stock to the Sponsor for
the nominal sum of $30,0001 (or less than $0.005 per share) and
quickly transferred 1,250,000 Founder Shares to FGNA's purportedly
independent directors and FGNA management to align their interests
with those of the Controller Defendants. Negotiations between FGNA
and Legacy OppFi culminated in a Business Combination Agreement,
which set the terms of the Merger, including a requirement that
FGNA have a minimum of $200 million cash following any redemptions
in order to pay cash consideration to Legacy OppFi members. Because
FGNA would only meet this minimum cash condition if FGNA’s
stockholders redeemed less than 18 percent of their shares,
Defendants had a strong incentive to discourage redemptions by
FGNA's public stockholders. Given Defendants' extensive financial
conflicts that were contingent upon closing a business combination
and, thus, minimizing redemptions, it was no surprise, then, that
after the Board approved the Merger, Defendants disseminated a
false and misleading Definitive Proxy Statement that omitted
material information as to the value of public stockholders’
investment in the Merger. The Proxy withheld critical information
from FGNA's public stockholders concerning the high dilution of
FGNA shares that would be exchanged in the Merger. While not
disclosed to public stockholders, the actual net cash FGNA would
contribute to the Merger based on the terms of the Business
Combination Agreement, even using the generous assumption that
there would be no redemptions, was less than $6.50. This was the
value of FGNA shares in connection with the Merger, and hence the
value the stockholders could reasonably expect to receive in
exchange for their shares upon close of the Merger, the suit
claims.
The Proxy also contained materially misleading representations
about Legacy OppFi's financial prospects, including financial
projections for Legacy OppFi that forecasted massive growth in
revenue and adjusted EBITDA. The Proxy Projections forecasted that
revenue would grow by 109% from $418 million in 2021 to $875
million in 2023, with adjusted EBITDA growing by 92% from $132
million in 2021 to $254 million in 2023. These Proxy Projections
were entirely unrealistic and had the effect of improperly
inflating the valuation of Legacy OppFi set forth in the Proxy and
supporting an inflated value of FGNA stockholders’ investment in
the Merger. By the redemption deadline, FGNA stockholders had
redeemed approximately 14.8 million Class A shares, leaving only
$91 million in cash to contribute to the Merger and to the cash
consideration required to be paid to Legacy OppFi members in
connection therewith. Given that this number fell well below the
$200 million minimum cash condition required pursuant to the terms
of the Business Combination Agreement, Defendants were forced to
renegotiate the Merger terms at the eleventh hour. On July 15,
2021, the day before the Merger vote and after the redemption
deadline Defendants announced a renegotiation of the Merger terms
that required several concessions that provided additional
consideration to Legacy OppFi members and lowered the minimum cash
condition to $83 million, the suit further alleges.
On July 16, 2021, FGNA held a special meeting of stockholders to
vote on the Merger. A majority of FGNA's shares voted in favor of
the Merger, which included the vote with shares held by Defendants,
and the Merger closed on July 20, 2021.
In March 2022, New OppFi became embroiled in litigation with the
California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (the
"CDFPI"). CDFPI alleged that New OppFi was engaging in an unlawful
predatory scheme by “making consumer loans that far exceed the
permissible rates of interest," which are capped at 36% interest
for most consumer loans.
As this negative news was revealed, New OppFi's stock price
plummeted, now trading at $1.99 as of July 12, 2023, with FGNA's
public stockholders left holding the bag, the suit added.
The Plaintiff Sean Murray first purchased FGNA shares on February
10, 2021, and he continued to hold FGNA shares through February 24,
2023, when he sold his shares at a substantial loss.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
Kelly L. Tucker, Esq.
Michael J. Barry, Esq.
Kelly L. Tucker, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
123 Justison Street, 7th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 622-7000
- and -
Maxwell R. Huffman, Esq.
Justin O. Reliford, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-4565
- and -
Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C.
Two Penn Center Plaza
1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1020
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 792-6676
FINANCIAL INDEMNITY: Court Awards $765K in Attys.' Fees and Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kea W. Riggs of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Mexico grants the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for fees and
costs in the lawsuit captioned HELEN BHASKER, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FINANCIAL INDEMNITY
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00260-KWR-JHR (D.N.M.).
In her Unopposed Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Class
Plaintiff's Petition for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement
of Litigation Expenses and Award of Incentive Fee to Named
Plaintiff, the Plaintiff requests approval of (1) attorneys' fees,
(2) costs, and (3) class representative incentive fees, to be paid
by the Defendant in these amounts:
* $711,150 in attorneys' fees, inclusive of gross receipts
tax;
* $53,500 in expenses or costs; and
* $25,000 in Class Representative incentive fee.
The Defendant does not object. Moreover, the requested amount of
attorneys' fees, costs, and Class representative fee was included
in the Class Notice, and no class member objected.
Generally, in calculating attorneys' fees in class actions, the
Tenth Circuit applies the percentage-of-the-fund method, which
awards class counsel a share of the benefit achieved for the class.
District courts consider 12 factors -- the Johnson factors -- in
determining the appropriate percentage, citing Gottlieb v. Barry,
43 F.3d 474, 482 & n.4 (10th Cir. 1994). Those factors include: the
time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the question
presented by the case, and the skill requisite to perform the legal
service properly.
Generally, Judge Riggs notes, cases in this district have awarded
amounts varying between 20 to 40 percent. Here, the Plaintiff
requests attorneys' fees in the amount of 1/3rd the gross benefits
provide to the class. The Court finds this request is supported by
the Johnson factors.
Considering all circumstances and weighing the relevant factors,
the Court concludes that the requested attorneys' fees are
reasonable and appropriate. Therefore, the Court awards $711,150 in
attorneys' fees, inclusive of gross receipts tax.
The Plaintiff requests a class representative incentive fee of
$25,000. Judge Riggs says the class representative endured eight
years of litigation. She was deposed for a day, responded to
written discovery, consulted with counsel, and passed over
settlement of her personal claims. She attended both mediations.
Judge Riggs finds the incentive fee is reasonable given all
circumstances.
The parties agree the Court should award expenses in the amount of
$53,500, which would be paid by the Defendant from funds earmarked
for the reimbursement of expenses. These expenses include filing
fees, travel expenses, costs associated with discovery.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 13, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5n956ztz from Leagle.com.
FLEET QUEST: Faces Scott Class Suit Over Illegal Labor Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAYVON SCOTT, YAZMINE WALTON, JOHN WARLICK, and SHERROD HUTCHIN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
FLEET QUEST LOGISTICS, LLC FLEET QUEST, L.L.C., SN TRANSPORTATION
LLC, NERMIN MUJANOVIC, SALIH MUJANOVIC, SANEL FAZLIC, and ARMIN
HIRKICH, Jointly and severally, Case No. 1:23-cv-00770 (W.D. Mich.,
July 20, 2023) challenges the lawfulness of the Defendants'
compensation practices as applied to the Class Members.
The Plaintiffs maintain that Defendants' absence of a written lease
agreement and misrepresentations regarding compensation violate the
Federal commercial transportation laws and regulations as set forth
under the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have induced Plaintiffs
and Class Members to drive directly and/or haul loads for
Defendants under the promise of being compensated at the rate of
fifty percent (50%) of the gross income for each load only to pay
the Plaintiffs and Class Members significantly less.
The Plaintiffs and Class Members are compensated as
owner-operators/contractors despite never entering any lease
agreement with Defendants to lease equipment. The Defendants make
several "charge-backs" from the Compensation of the Plaintiffs and
Class Members without clearly specifying all items that may be
initially paid for by the authorized carrier, but deducted from
their compensation at the time of payment or settlement, together
with a recitation as to how the amount of each item is to be
computed, in violation of the Truth in Leasing Act, say the
Plaintiffs.
The Defendants have allegedly refused to provide the Plaintiffs and
Class Members documentation relating to their compensation and the
unauthorized deductions from their compensation in violation of
Department of Transportation regulations. The Defendants have
allegedly fraudulently represented these amounts in order to
defraud Plaintiffs and Class Members of earned compensation.
Mr. Scott was hired to drive loads directly for the Defendants,
however, was treated as an own owner-operator who allegedly leased
a motor vehicle through the Defendants and to haul loads for the
Defendants. Notably, the Defendants never provided Mr. Scott with a
lease for equipment and/or operating agreement to haul loads.
Fleet Quest is a regulated motor carrier, primarily engaged in the
enterprise of providing transportation services to the shipping
public.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jack W. Schulz, Esq.
SCHULZ LAW PLC
645 Griswold St Ste 4100
Detroit, MI, 48226
Telephone: (313) 788-7446
E-mail: jack@michiganworkerlaw.com
FORT BELVOIR: Bid to Seal Documents Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chief Petty Officer JOHN
FISCHER and ASHLEY FISCHER, et al., v. FORT BELVOIR RESIDENTIAL
COMMUNITIES LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00286-RDA-LRV (E.D. Va.),
the Hon. Judge Lindsey Robinson Vaala entered an order granting in
part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to seal:
-- The redacted portions of the Plaintiffs' Exhibit A to the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification (filed under seal
as
Dkt. No. 127-1), shall remain under seal until further order
by
the Court.
-- The Defendants' Motion to Seal is granted in part and denied
in
Part. The Defendants must file, as a separate docket entry, a
publicly available version of Exhibit X to their Opposition to
the Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion that redacts only
pages 7-9 and pages 13-26 (i.e., the confidential settlement
agreements), as well as any private contact information for
the
individuals identified throughout Exhibit X (e.g., private
email
addresses, home or mailing addresses, and cell phone
numbers).
A copy of the Court's order dated July 14, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43NoLmZ at no extra charge.[CC]
FULFILLMENT AMERICA: Fails to Provide Notice of Mass Layoff
-----------------------------------------------------------
AURA SALAZAR, DAMARIS VENTURA, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. FULFILLMENT AMERICA, INC., JOHN BARRY
SR., JOHN BARRY JR., Case No. 1:23-cv-11625-LTS (D. Mass., July 20,
2023) alleges that the Fulfillment America failed to provide
sufficient notice of a mass layoff, in violation of the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act as well as failed to
timely pay workers' wages in violation of the Massachusetts Payment
of Wages Act.
The Plaintiffs worked at and for Fulfillment America's facility in
Billerica, Massachusetts as hourly production workers. The
Plaintiffs were hired and paid through Job Done. On December 31,
2022, many workers received a text message from Job Done stating
that Fulfillment America would no longer be working with Job Done
and the workers' last day of work was December 30, 2022, the
Plaintiffs allege.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all other workers who were laid off by Fulfillment
America between December 31, 2022, and January 8, 2023, who
suffered a loss of employment and/or did not receive full wages
owed at termination. The Plaintiffs and all others similarly
situated suffered a loss of employment and are entitled to damages,
including 60 days of pay and benefits, pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
section 2104(a), says the suit.
Ms. Salazar and Ms. Ventura formerly worked at Fulfillment America
until they were terminated, without warning, as part of a mass
layoff on December 31, 2022.
Fulfillment America maintains a fulfillment center in Billerica,
Massachusetts where products are warehoused, assembled, picked,
prepared, and shipped to local and national customers and
consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Hillary Schwab, Esq.
Osvaldo Vazquez, Esq.
FAIR WORK P.C.
192 South Street
Boston, MA 02114
Telephone: (617) 607-3260
E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com
oz@fairworklaw.com
- and -
Pablo Carrasco, Esq.
Thomas L. Smith, Esq.
JUSTICE AT WORK, INC.
33 Harrison Ave., Suite 501
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: (617) 599-3468
E-mail: pcarrasco@jatwork.org
tsmith@jatwork.org
GOLDCO DIRECT: Bid to Certify Classes Due March 15, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAN SUMMERTON, v. GOLDCO
DIRECT, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00238-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge
Stephen L. Crocker entered a preliminary pretrial conference
order:
1. Amendments to the pleadings: Sept. 1, 2023
2. Disclosure of all experts:
Proponent: Jan. 15, 2024
Respondent: Feb. 15, 2024
3. Discovery Cutoff: March 15, 2024
4. Motion & Brief to Certify Classes: March 15, 2024
Responses: April 12, 2024
Replies: April 26, 2024
5. Deadline for filing dispositive Sept. 27, 2024
motions:
6. Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures Jan. 31, 2025
and all motions in limine:
Objections: Feb. 14, 202
7. First Final Pretrial Conference: March 4, 2025
8. Trial: March 24, 2025
Goldco is a precious metals company offering guidance on
precious-metal IRAs as well as direct sales of gold and silver.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 14, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qd5u0n at no extra charge.[CC]
GOOGLE INC: Plaintiffs in Consumer Class Suit Seek Class Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Google RTB Consumer Privacy
Litigation, Case No. 4:21-cv-02155-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs
Christopher Valencia, John Kevranian, Terry Diggs, Kimberley
Woodruff, Rethena Green, Salvatore Toronto, and Tara Williams will
move the Court for an Order:
(i) certifying action as a class action,
(ii) appointing them as representatives of the class, and (
(iii) appointing Elizabeth Pritzker of Pritzker Levine LLP,
Lesley
Weaver of Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, Jay Barnes of Simmons
Hanly Conroy LLC, David Straite of DiCello Levitt LLP,
Nanci
Nishimura of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, and Yury A.
Kolesnikov of Bottini & Bottini, Inc. as class counsel,
with
Ms. Pritzker to serve as lead class counsel.
The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class consisting of all:
"Google account holders subject to a Google United States Terms
of
Service whose personal information was sold or shared by Google
in
its Real Time Bidding auctions after June 28, 2016."
The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following claims, all
arising under California law: breach of contract, breach of
confidence, invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion,
publication of private facts, and for violations of the California
Information Privacy Act (CIPA).
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 14, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OtKjk5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
Bethany Caracuzzo, Esq.
Caroline Corbitt, Esq.
PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
1900 Powell Street, Ste. 450
Emeryville, CA 94602
Telephone.: (415) 692-0772
Facsimile: (415) 366-6110
E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com
jkl@pritzkerlevine.com
bc@pritzkerlevine.com
ccc@pritzkerlevine.com
- and -
Lesley Weaver, Esq.
Anne K. Davis, Esq.
Joshua D. Samra, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
1330 Broadway, Suite 630
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 445-4003
Facsimile: (415) 445-4020
E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com
adavis@bfalaw.com
jsamra@bfalaw.com
- and -
Jason 'Jay' Barnes, Esq.
An Truong, Esq.
Jenny Paulson, Esq.
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 784-6400
Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
E-mail: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com
atruong@simmonsfirm.com
jpaulson@simmonsfirm.com
- and -
David A. Straite, Esq.
James Ulwick, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 784-6400
Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
E-mail: dstraite@dicellolevitt.com
julwick@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Nanci E. Nishimura, Esq.
Brian Danitz, Esq.
Karin B. Swope, Esq.
COTCHETT PITRE &
MCCARTHY, LLP
840 Malcolm Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
E-mail: nnishimura@cpmlegal.com
bdanitz@cpmlegal.com
kswope@cpmlegal.com
- and -
Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
7817 Ivanhoe Ave., Ste. 102
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858) 914-2001
E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com
HP COMMUNICATION: Violates Labor Laws, Burnison Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
Jon Burnison, on behalf of himself and all similarly aggrieved
employees v. HP Communications, Inc., a California corporation,
Nicholas L. Goldmann, an individual, and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case
No. 23STCV15645 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 5, 2023), accuses the
defendants of violations of the California Labor Code, the
California state common law, and the California Business and
Professions Code.
The Defendants are accused of engaging in the deliberate
misclassification of several employees, including the Plaintiff, to
avoid paying overtime and other wages. The Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees were treated as "exempt" and were not
paid at the proper rates for all hours worked. The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants purposely failed to accurately record
his actual working hours and those of other affected employees,
resulting in pay discrepancies. Their time sheets were
auto-populated with a 10-hour shift even if they frequently worked
more than 10 hours in a given shift. The Defendants allegedly told
the employees they could not make any changes to their timesheets,
and even if they did, their compensation would not be adjusted, the
Plaintiff asserts.
Furthermore, as a company policy, the affected employees were
restricted from discussing their wages and/or collectively
advocating for their rights. When Plaintiff made complaints about
his pay rate with his supervisor, John Horton, he was wrongfully
terminated shortly after for not following company policy, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all similarly aggrieved
employees, seeks damages, statutory and civil penalties, legal
costs, and other relief that the Court deems just and proper.
HP Communications, Inc. is a California corporation located at
13341 Temescal Canyon Road, Corona, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Elliot J. Siegel, Esq.
Julian Burns King, Esq.
Erum Siddiqui, Esq.
KING & SIEGEL LLP
724 S. Spring Street, Suite 201
Los Angeles, CA, 90014
Telephone: (213) 465-4802
E-mail: elliot@kingsiegel.com
julian@kingsiegel.com
erum@kingsiegel.com
HSBC BANK: Extension of Class Cert Bid Deadline Sought
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cheng v. HSBC Bank USA,
N.A., Case No. 1:20-cv-01551-BMC (E.D.N.Y.), the Defendant request
a brief extension of the remaining briefing deadlines related to
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
HSBC requests that its deadline to oppose the Plaintiff’s motion
for class certification (currently July 21, 2023) be extended
through July 28, 2023. HSBC is investigating the current scope of
the class, given the intervening time in this case, and Ms. Sheila
Shen, co-counsel for HSBC, is assisting with a trial starting on
July 18, 2023.
The Plaintiff requests, in turn, that its deadline to file a reply
(currently July 28, 2023) be extended through August 11, 2023. HSBC
has no objection.
HSBC offers saving and current account, investment and financial
services, online banking, mortgage and non-mortgage loan
facilities.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 17, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Qm672v at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew J. Soven, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
Cira Centre, Suite 800, 2929 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Telephone: (215) 252-9600
Facsimile: (215) 867-6070
E-mail: Andrew.Soven@hklaw.com
INDIANA PACKERS: Parties Seek Court Authorized Notice in FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TREMAINE RHINES,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals,
v. INDIANA PACKERS CORPORATION, Case No. 4:22-cv-00057-PPS-JPK
(N.D. Ind.), the Parties file a Joint Stipulation Regarding
Conditional Certification and Court Authorized Notice Pursuant to
29 U.S.C. section 216(b) seeking conditional certification under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of a collective of employees
for the purpose of sending notice only.
The Plaintiff brought this action individually and on behalf of the
following proposed FLSA collective:
"All current and former Associate Production employees, and/or
other job titles performing the same or similar job duties, who
worked for Indiana Packers Corporation, at any time in the last
three years."
The parties agreed to stipulate to a conditional FLSA collective of
Indiana employees with the Defendant reserving its right to seek
decertification of the FLSA collective at a later date if it finds
grounds to do so.
Indiana Packers produces a full-line of premium fresh, processed
and specialty pork products.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 14, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Y9Q5e2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq.
JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
Saint Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (612) 436-1800
Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com
- and -
Robert T. Dassow, Esq.
HOVDE DASSOW & DEETS, LLC
10201 N. Illinois Street, Suite 500
Indianapolis, IN 46290
Telephone: (317) 818-3100
Facsimile: (317) 818-3111
E-mail: rdassow@hovdelaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Richard P. Winegardner, Esq.
Colleen E. Schade, Esq.
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
11 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 236-1313
Facsimile: (317) 231-7433
E-mail: rwinegar@btlaw.com
colleen.schade@btlaw.com
INTELLIHARTX LLC: Fails to Secure Patient Private Info, Kelly Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS KELLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INTELLIHARTX, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-01338-JRK (N.D. Ohio, July 10, 2023), arises out of the
recent cyberattack and data breach resulting from Defendant's
failure to implement reasonable and industry standard data security
practices.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to address
Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private
Information that it collected and maintained, and for failing to
provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class
Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized
access by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type
of information was accessed.
In the Notice of Security Incident/Data Breach letters sent to
Plaintiff and Class
Members, the Defendant asserts that on February 2, 2023, it
discovered that its secure file transfer protocol provider was
subject to a data privacy event. Upon discovering the Data Breach,
the Defendant purports to have "promptly launched an investigation
to determine the nature and scope of the" Data Breach. However,
Defendant's investigation concluded₋₋on or about May 19,
2023--that Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information was
accessed in the Data Breach. In addition, the Defendant did not
begin to notify Plaintiff or Class Members of the Data Breach until
June 8, 2023, despite Defendant knowing on or about February 2,
2023 that unauthorized persons had accessed and acquired the
private, protected, personal information of Plaintiff and the
Class, says the suit.
Intellihartx, LLC is a healthcare revenue cycle company
headquartered in Findlay, OH. The company maintains the personally
identifiable information and protected health information of
patients of its clients. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Daniel Srourian, Esq.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 474-3800
Facsimile: (213) 471-4160
E-mail: daniel@slfla.com
ISS FACILITY: Garcia's Bid for Certain Discovery Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, Eureka Division, grants in
part and denies in part the Plaintiff's request to compel certain
discovery in the lawsuit styled CLAUDIA GARCIA, Plaintiff v. ISS
FACILITY SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-07807-RS (RMI) (N.D. Cal.).
Pending before the Court is a jointly-filed letter brief setting
forth a series of discovery disputes that boil down to the
Plaintiff's request to compel certain discovery. Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b),
the Court finds the matter suitable for disposition without oral
argument.
The lawsuit is a pre-certification putative class-action case
brought under the California Labor Code's wage and hour provisions,
and a representative action for alleged wage and hour violations
brought pursuant to Private Attorney General Act of 2004 ("PAGA").
In essence, the Parties discovery disputes boil down to the
Plaintiff's request to compel 14 categories of information.
However, Judge Illman says, given that the Defendants' portion of
the Letter Brief reflects their agreement to supplement their
discovery responses as to several of these categories (namely,
Interrogatory ("ROG") Nos. 1, 4-5, 7, 22, and 23; as well as
Requests for Production ("RFP") No. 32), the Plaintiff's request to
compel that information is, therefore, denied as moot.
The majority of the remainder of the discovery requests that the
Plaintiff requests to compel seek various information on a
statewide basis for all of Defendant ISS's non-exempt employees.
However, one exception is the Plaintiff's request to compel the
production of documents that support the Defendants' affirmative
defenses (RFP No. 41).
Judge Illman notes that the Defendants failed to address this
particular request in their portion of the Letter Brief. Because
Request for Production 41 clearly seeks documents within the
permitted scope of discovery -- that is, relevant and nonprivileged
information in the Defendants' custody and control, which supports
any of their forty affirmative defenses -- the Plaintiff's request
to compel any outstanding production responsive to RFP No. 41 is
granted.
As to the remainder of the Plaintiff's requests to compel, the
Court finds that her portion of the letter brief fails to set forth
a sufficient basis to justify compelling the production of nearly
all of the information subject to the request to compel. Indeed,
she generally lists a series of documents and information that she
wants without exerting any significant effort in justifying her
entitlement to the broad statewide discovery she seeks.
To resolve this issue, the Court will begin by noting that,
although in some cases a district court should allow discovery to
aid the determination of whether a class action is maintainable,
the plaintiff bears the burden of advancing a prima facie showing
that the class action requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 are
satisfied or that discovery is likely to produce substantiation of
the class allegations. Absent such a showing, a trial court's
refusal to allow class discovery is not an abuse of discretion,
Judge Illman opines, citing Mantolete v. Bolger, 767 F.2d 1416,
1424 (9th Cir. 1985).
Because the Plaintiff's portion of the letter brief has failed to
make this showing, Judge Illman finds that she has not yet
demonstrated an entitlement to the discovery she seeks.
In order for the Plaintiff to have a fair opportunity at class
certification, Judge Illman points out that some discovery is
warranted in order for it to be fairly determined whether or not
she can advance a prima facie showing that the class action
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 are satisfied or, at least, that
further discovery would be likely to produce substantiation of the
class allegations.
As to putative class-members' contact information, while voicing a
generalized disagreement with the necessity for privacy protection
measures, the Plaintiff has noted that Defendant ISS asserted that
it would produce "putative class member information through a
privacy optout notice" but has not done so.
The Defendants, on the other hand, contends that "the identity and
contact information of absent putative class members is protected
by a right to privacy" and that to the extent any discovery
relating to the identity and contact information of absent putative
members is permitted, such discovery should be conducted in
accordance with opt out procedures pursuant to Belaire-West
Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court, 149 Cal.App.4th 554, 561-62
(2007).
While it is true that the predominant practice among courts in the
Northern District of California is to allow pre-certification
discovery of putative class members' confidential contact
information subject to a protective order, without requiring a
Belaire-West notice, the Parties in this case have not entered into
such a protective order, Judge Illman observes. Furthermore, if
only for the sake of argument, Judge Illman is not entirely
convinced that the privacy concerns expounded in Belaire-West's
would be properly addressed even if the Parties in this case had
entered into a stipulated protective order.
Accordingly, for these reasons, Judge Illman holds that the
Plaintiff's request to compel the identity and contact information
of absent putative class members is granted subject to the
Belaire-West opt-out procedures.
The Parties are ordered to promptly meet and confer for the purpose
of implementing the appropriate procedures for the effectuation and
transmission of the opt-out notices such that Plaintiff can
promptly receive the identity and contact information of those
putative class members, who do not object to the disclosure of
their identity and contact information.
Perhaps, Judge Illman says, once the Plaintiff secures this
information, she will be better situated to either advance a prima
facie showing that the class action requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.
23 are satisfied, or to demonstrate that that the further discovery
she seeks would be likely to produce substantiation of her class
allegations. In the meantime, the remainder of the Plaintiff's
requests to compel are denied without prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 13, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yvhxthxr from Leagle.com.
JA SOLAR: S.D. New York Awards $4.2MM in Attys.' Fees in ODS Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York awards attorneys' fees in the amount
of $4.2 million and $178,970.61 in payment of litigation expenses
in the lawsuit entitled ODS CAPITAL LLC, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. JA SOLAR HOLDINGS
CO., LTD., BAOFANG JIN, and SHAOHUA JIA, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-12083-ALC (S.D.N.Y.).
The matter came on for hearing on July 13, 2023 (the "Settlement
Hearing") on Co-Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys'
fees and payment of Litigation Expenses, including awards to
Co-Lead Plaintiffs pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA").
This Order incorporates by reference the definitions in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of Jan. 23, 2023
(the "Stipulation"), and all capitalized terms not otherwise
defined here will have the same meanings as set forth in the
Stipulation.
There have been no objections to Co-Lead Counsel's request for
attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses.
Judge Carter awards Co-Lead Counsel, on behalf of all the
Plaintiffs' Counsel, attorneys' fees in the amount of $4,200,000,
plus interest at the same rate earned by the Settlement Fund and
$178,970.61 in payment of Litigation Expenses, plus accrued
interest. Co-Lead Counsel will allocate the attorneys' fees awarded
amongst the Plaintiffs' Counsel.
In making this award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid
from the Settlement Fund, the Court has considered and found that
the Settlement has created a fund of $21 million in cash that has
been paid into escrow pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, and
that numerous Settlement Class Members, who submit acceptable Claim
Forms will benefit from the Settlement that occurred because of the
efforts of counsel.
Judge Carter notes that the Action raised a number of complex
issues concerning falsity, reliance and scienter with respect to
the Amended Complaint and efforts surrounding the proposed second
amended complaint, as well as complicated issues with respect to
loss causation.
Had Co-Lead Counsel not achieved the Settlement, Judge Carter says
there would remain a significant risk that Co-Lead Plaintiffs and
the other members of the Settlement Class may have recovered less
or nothing from the Defendants.
Judge Carter also awards Co-Lead Plaintiffs ODS Capital LLC and
Altimeo Asset Management $60,000 each from the Settlement Fund as
reimbursement for their reasonable costs and expenses directly
related to their representation of the Settlement Class.
Any appeal or any challenge affecting this Court's approval
regarding any attorneys' fees and expense application will in no
way disturb or affect the finality of the Judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 13, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/293dh2f8 from Leagle.com.
JP CLEANING: Faces Espiritu Suit Over Breaches of Labor Laws
------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Espiritu, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. JP Cleaning &
Maintenance Service Inc., and Jorge Perez, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-05877 (S.D.N.Y., July 10, 2023) alleges claims against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and of
Articles 6 and 19 of the New York State Labor Law and their
supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations.
Plaintiff Espiritu was employed as a cleaning personnel at
Defendants' cleaning and maintenance services company from
approximately January 2018 to, through and including May 2018. He
regularly worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours a week
but he never received an overtime premium of one and one-half times
his regular rate of pay for those hours. In addition, the Defendant
also failed to provide accurate wage notices and accurate wage
statements denied Plaintiff their statutory right to receive true
and accurate information about the nature of their employment and
related compensation policies, the Plaintiff asserts.
Moreover, Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and to
recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, liquidated and
statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the FLSA, NYLL, and the NYLL's Wage
Theft Prevention Act.
Located at 30-23 89th Street East Elmhurst, New York, JP Cleaning &
Maintenance Inc. provides cleaning and detailing services for all
sorts of events. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0046
E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com
LADY JANE: Fails to Pay Stylists' Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE RYBARCZYK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. LADY JANE'S WINTER PARK FL, LLC, a Foreign Limited
Liability Company, LADY JANE'S ORLANDO - UCF FL, LLC., a Foreign
Limited Liability Company, LADY JANE'S ALTAMONTE SPRINGS, FL, LLC a
Foreign Limited Liability Company, LADY JANE'S HAIRCUTS FOR MEN
HOLDING COMPANY, LLC., a Foreign Limited Liability Company, and
CHAD JOHNSON, Individually, Case No. 6:23-cv-01367 (M.D. Fla., July
20, 2023) seeks to recover minimum and overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants required and/or
permitted the Plaintiff to work as a "hair stylist" and/or stylists
at their hair salons in excess of 40 hours per week but refused to
compensate them the FLSA-mandated time-and-a-half rate for hours in
excess of 40 per workweek. In fact, Defendants refused to
compensate the Plaintiffs at all for the hours they worked. The
Plaintiffs' only compensation was in the form of tips from salon
customers.
The Plaintiff further complains on behalf of herself, and a class
of other similarly situated current and former "hairstylist"
employees of the Defendants, that they are entitled to back wages
from the Defendants for hours/weeks of work for which they did not
receive at least the Florida minimum wage, in violation of Article
X, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution.
Accordingly, the Defendants requires hairstylists to sign an
Independent Contractor Agreement and to initial a document entitled
"What your LJ Contract Means." The Defendants' Agreement states
that hairstylists are responsible for agreeing to scheduled working
hours; making appointments; "conducting and controlling services;"
providing their own tools, equipment, and supplies; keeping the
"contracted workspace in a clean and sanitary manner;" reporting
all taxes resulting from services performed; and maintaining a
valid professional license. Lady Jane's charges clients for each
service based on menu of services and a minimum price per service.
The Defendants allegedly require each hairstylist to pay a daily
minimum dollar amount as "rent," a percentage of their service
sales as "rent," a percentage of their product sales as "rent," and
a nominal amount every day into a "product fund." The Defendants
have not and are not claiming hairstylists are classified as
"tipped employees" under the Act, says the suit.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a "Hair Stylist"
from November 2019 through December 2022, in Defendants' Winter
Park, Florida Hair Salon.
Lady Jane's offers a variety of services, including haircuts,
shaves, styling, and coloring.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noah E. Storch, Esq.
RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
10368 W. State Road 84, Suite 103
Davie, FL 33324
Telephone: (866) 344-9243
Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com
LIBERTY ONE: Ramirez Bid for Conditional Certification Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IVELISSE RAMIREZ, on
behalf of herself, FLSA Collective the Plaintiffs, and the Class,
v. LIBERTY ONE GROUP LLC, and LIBERTY ONE BROOKLYN LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-05892-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional collective certification and for
Court facilitation of notice.
-- Specifically, the Court grants the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification of a collective of cleaning workers
employed by the Defendants at 249 Varet Street within the
three
years prior to the filing of the Complaint.
-- The Court denies the Plaintiff's request for equitable tolling
of
the statute of limitations without prejudice as to its renewal
on
an individual basis.
The Plaintiff sued her former employers, Liberty One and Liberty
Brooklyn for violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
(the "FLSA"). In brief, she alleges that the Defendants failed to
pay her the wages she was due because of their unlawful policy of
time shaving.
The Plaintiff also brings claims (not relevant to this motion) for
pregnancy discrimination under the New York State and New York City
Human Rights Laws and for wage and notice violations under the New
York Labor Law (the "NYLL"). The Plaintiff now moves for
conditional certification of a collective action and related relief
under Section 216(b) of the FLSA.
The Plaintiff alleges that throughout her employment she was not
paid for all of the hours she worked, including overtime hours.
Liberty One is a real estate company that specializes in
acquisitions, investments, development, and management of New York
City properties, with Liberty Brooklyn a subsidiary of Liberty One
A copy of the Court's order dated July 14, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Dz3B1q at no extra charge.[CC]
MAXFORCE DELIVERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dafonseca et al. Say
------------------------------------------------------------------
ELVIS DAFONSECA, JOHN DREEN, AND DAVID CARRILLO, each individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated PLAINTIFFS v.
MAXFORCE DELIVERY SERVICE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:23-cv-05113-TLB (W.D. Ark., July 10, 2023), alleges that the
Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act by, among other things, failing to pay Plaintiffs
and other hourly-paid employees a lawful minimum wage for all hours
worked as well as lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.
The Plaintiffs worked for Defendant as movers and regularly worked
in excess of 40 hours per week throughout their tenure with
Defendant. However, they were not paid lawful minimum rate for
hours worked under 40 and lawful overtime rates for hours worked
over 40 in a workweek. In addition, Defendant also deducted amounts
from Plaintiffs' checks, for supposed business expenses incurred by
the Defendant, such as damage to the vehicles Plaintiffs used to
complete moves for Defendant’s clients and vehicle rental fees,
say the Plaintiffs.
MaxForce Delivery Service, LLC is a transportation company that
performs residential and commercial moves in Arkansas and
surrounding states. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lindsey C. Noe, Esq.
Chris Burks, Esq.
WH LAW - Fayetteville Office
1 Riverfront Place, Suite 745
North Little Rock, AR 72114
Telephone: (479) 888-4357
E-mail: lindsey@wh.law
chris@wh.law
MCKIBBON HOSPITALITY: Edwards Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mitchell Edwards, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. McKibbon Hospitality, LLC and Marriott Hotel Services,
Inc, Case No. 8:23-cv-01499 (M.D. Fla., Tampa Division, July 5,
2023) seeks all relief available under the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938.
The Plaintiff brings this class action after he and all others
similarly situated were misclassified as exempt under the FLSA by
the Defendants and were not paid proper overtime compensation. The
Defendants are joint-employers under the FLSA by virtue of their
rigorous control and unified operations.
The Plaintiff was employed as manager by the Defendants and
regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek.
Headquartered in Florida, McKibbon Hospitality manages hotels owned
and operated by Marriott Hotel Services, Inc.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noah E. Storch, Esq.
RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
10368 W. State Road 84, Suite 103
Davie, FL 33324-4241
Telephone: (866) 344-9243
Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com
MEI ZHOU: Fails to Pay Deliverymen's Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Marlon Vera, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in
the proposed FLSA Collective Action v. Mei Zhou Trading Inc., and
Gou Fu Hou, Case No. 1:23-cv-05531 (E.D.N.Y., July 20, 2023) seeks
to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the New York State Labor Law, and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention
Act.
From April 2021 to April 2023, Mr. Vera regularly worked six days
per week, 10 hours each day, for a total period of 60 hours each
week.
From April 2021 to March 2022, Mr. Vera was paid a flat weekly
salary of $650. From April 2022 to April 2023, Mr. Vera was paid a
flat weekly salary of $675. The Plaintiff's wages did not vary
regardless of how many additional hours the Plaintiff worked in a
week, the lawsuit alleges.
The Plaintiff was required to work in excess of 40 hours per week,
but never received an overtime premium of one and one-half times
his regular rate of pay for those hours. The Defendants also never
granted the Plaintiff with meal breaks or rest periods of any
length, the lawsuit claims.
The Plaintiff was employed as a deliveryman by the Defendants from
April 2021 to April 2023.
Mei Zhou is a beverage company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0046
E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com
MERCEDEZ-BENZ USA: Capazzi MMWA Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled, ROBERT CAPAZZI, individually, on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2023-CV-380681, was removed from the Superior
Court of Fulton County, Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia on July 5, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Georgia assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-02968-SEG to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's defective navigation systems
or units installed on its vehicles. It also claims violations for
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
Headquartered in Georgia, Mercedez-Benz USA, LLC manufactures and
sells automotive vehicles. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
S. Wade Malone, Esq.
Shaniqua L. Singleton, Esq.
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP
201 17th St. NW
Atlanta, GA 30363
Telephone: (404) 322-6000
Facsimile: (404) 322-6050
E-mail: wade.malone@nelsonmullins.com
shaniqua.singleton@nelsonmullins.com
MISSOURI: Prisoner Civil Rights Suit to Proceed Against Wilson Only
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled DAVID WILSON, et al., Plaintiffs v. ANNE L.
PRECYTHE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00869-NCC (E.D.
Mo.), Judge Henry Edward Autrey of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, holds that the case
will proceed against Plaintiff David Wilson only.
The matter comes before the Court on its own motion. Fourteen
inmates have filed a joint prisoner civil rights lawsuit under 42
U.S.C. Section 1983. For the reasons discussed here, the case will
proceed against Plaintiff David Wilson only. The remaining 13
Plaintiffs will be stricken from this case, and separate prisoner
civil rights cases opened for each of them.
The complaint in this case purports to be a "class action" brought
by 14 separate inmates incarcerated at the Missouri Eastern
Correctional Center in Pacific, Missouri: David Wilson, Chris
DeWeese, Demeyon Watie, Terrell Reed, LaJuan Hayes, Thomas May,
Dallas Conn, Adrian Shaw, Mark Powell, Willie Oliver, Joseph
Gorski, Quincy Baisden, LaAnthony Jones, and D'Andre Whitley.
The case is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and names as
defendants Anne L. Precythe, Warden Hancock, Major Minchue,
Lieutenant Jones, Lieutenant Hannewinkle, and Sergeant McDaniel.
The Defendants are accused of allowing the Plaintiffs to be
restrained with plastic zip-ties for an excessive amount of time
while the Correctional Emergency Response Team searched their
housing unit.
The Court does not permit multiple prisoners to join together in a
single lawsuit under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. There are several reasons for this.
First, Judge Autrey opines, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)
requires that if a prisoner brings a civil action or files an
appeal in forma pauperis, the prisoner will be required to pay the
full amount of a filing fee. Multiple filing fees cannot be
collected for one case filed by multiple plaintiffs. Thus, the
PLRA's requirement that a prisoner pay the full fee for filing a
lawsuit would be circumvented in a multiple-plaintiff case subject
to the PLRA. As such, Judge Autrey holds that the requirement of
Section 1915(b)(1) that each prisoner pay the full amount of a
filing fee requires individual prisoners to bring separate suits,
rather than file jointly under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20.
Second, courts have noted that the impracticalities inherent in
multiple-prisoner litigation militate against the permissive
joinder allowed by Rule 20.
Third, joinder of prisoners' claims under Rule 20 would allow
prisoners to avoid the risk of incurring strikes under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1915(g). That is, so long as one of the prisoners' claims
is viable, a strike cannot be imposed, because Section 1915(g)
requires that an entire action be dismissed to count as a strike.
Prisoners may not circumvent the PLRA penalties associated with
filing frivolous actions by joining claims under Rule 20.
Finally, to the extent that the Plaintiffs seek to bring this case
as a class action, the Court notes that it is well established that
a self-represented litigant cannot represent the rights, claims,
and interests of other parties in a class action lawsuit.
For these reasons, the Court will not allow the Plaintiffs to
proceed jointly in this action. The Court notes that Plaintiff
Wilson is the only Plaintiff to sign the complaint. Likewise, he is
the only signatory of the motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and the motion for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff
Wilson is also the only Plaintiff to submit a copy of his inmate
account statement. As such, the instant case will proceed as to
Plaintiff Wilson only.
With regard to the other 13 Plaintiffs, the Court will direct the
Clerk of Court to strike Plaintiffs Chris DeWeese, Demeyon Watie,
Terrell Reed, LaJuan Hayes, Thomas May, Dallas Conn, Adrian Shaw,
Mark Powell, Willie Oliver, Joseph Gorski, Quincy Baisden,
LaAnthony Jones, and D'Andre Whitley from this action, and to open
a new case for each of these separate Plaintiffs.
Judge Autrey says nothing in this Opinion, Memorandum and Order
should be construed as precluding the Plaintiffs from cooperating
to the extent that they are able, or as preventing consolidation of
their cases for trial if that becomes appropriate at a later date.
Accordingly, Judge Autrey ordered that:
(1) the Clerk of Court will strike Plaintiffs Chris DeWeese,
Demeyon Watie, Terrell Reed, LaJuan Hayes, Thomas May,
Dallas Conn, Adrian Shaw, Mark Powell, Willie Oliver,
Joseph Gorski, Quincy Baisden, LaAnthony Jones, and
D'Andre Whitley from this action;
(2) using the complaint filed in the instant case, the Clerk
of Court will open a new prisoner civil rights case for
Chris DeWeese, Demeyon Watie, Terrell Reed, LaJuan Hayes,
Thomas May, Dallas Conn, Adrian Shaw, Mark Powell, Willie
Oliver, Joseph Gorski, Quincy Baisden, LaAnthony Jones,
and D'Andre Whitley; and
(3) the Clerk of Court will file a copy of this Opinion,
Memorandum and Order in the new cases opened for Chris
DeWeese, Demeyon Watie, Terrell Reed, LaJuan Hayes, Thomas
May, Dallas Conn, Adrian Shaw, Mark Powell, Willie Oliver,
Joseph Gorski, Quincy Baisden, LaAnthony Jones, and
D'Andre Whitley.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion, Memorandum and Order dated
July 13, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/npfh7v95 from
Leagle.com.
MRS BPO LLC: Bateman Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAELA BATEMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MRS BPO, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-03669 (D.N.J., July 10, 2023) alleges claims against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
and the Protecting Consumers From Unjust Debt Collection Practices
Amendment Act of 2022.
Allegedly, the Defendant sent consumers multiple debt collection
text messages, even after the consumers asked Defendant to "STOP"
sending the messages on June 23, 2023. Accordingly, the Plaintiff
seeks relief for herself and all others similarly situated for
Defendant’s unlawful behavior. The Plaintiff incurred an alleged
debt arising out of residential utilities, to Verizon Wireless for
cable television services, says the suit.
MRS BPO, LLC is a New Jersey limited liability company with its
principal place of business located in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. The
company is engaged in collecting consumer debts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric H. Weitz, Esq.
Max S. Morgan, Esq.
THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC
1515 Market Street, #1100
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (267) 587-6240
Facsimile: (215) 689-0875
E-mail: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com
eric.weitz@theweitzfirm.com
- and -
John A. Love, Esq.
LOVE CONSUMER LAW
2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 330
Alpharetta, GA 30009
Telephone: (404) 855-3600
Facsimile: (404) 301-2300
E-mail: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com
MS AEROSPACE: Willimams Sues Over State Labor Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN WILLIAMS, on behalf of the State of California, and others
similarly situated and aggrieved, Plaintiff v. M.S. AEROSPACE INC.,
a Delaware Corporation; A.S. AEROSPACE, INC., a California
Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
23STCV1 6030 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 10, 2023)
seeks to recover civil penalties for the Defendant's alleged
violations of the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a hot heading technician
from in or around September 2022 through on or around November 3,
2022. Allegedly, the Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and
Aggrieved Employees for all hours worked, resulting in the
underpayment of minimum and overtime wages. Defendants failed to
compensate Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees for all hours worked
by virtue of, Defendants' automatic deduction and time rounding
policies, and failure to relieve employees of all duties/employer
control during unpaid meal periods or otherwise unlawful practices
for missed or improper meal periods.
With manufacturing facilities located in Sylmar, California, M.S.
Aerospace, Inc. and A.S. Aerospace, Inc. specialize in the
manufacturing of aerospace parts, including but not limited to,
parts for jet engines, rocket engines, and structural fasteners,
among other things. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
Jamie Serb, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, PC
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (866) 276-7637
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
E-mail: zach@crosnerlegal.com
jamie@crosnerlegal.com
MYSTIC LANDSCAPING: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Bernardo Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
Albertino Bernardo, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Timothy F. LeBlanc, Case No. 1:23-cv-11502-IT (D.
Mass., July 5, 2023) seeks damages and all other relief available
for Defendant’s violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Massachusetts Overtime Law.
The Plaintiff worked as a laborer for the Defendant's landscaping
and property services businesses operating under the names "Mystic
Landscaping" and "Mystic Property Services" respectively. The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay overtime rate
for the hours he worked more than 40 in his recurring seven-day
workweeks.
Defendant LeBlanc, a resident of Peabody, Essex County,
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, owns and operates Mystic Landscaping
and Mystic Property Services as a sole proprietor. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel W. Rice, BBO
HARRINGTON RICE & MAGLIONE LLC
738 Main Street
Hingham MA, 02043
Mobile: (781) 964-8377
E-mail: dwr@harringtonrice.com
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Bankr. Court Recommends Withdrawal of Reference
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned IN THE MATTER OF: KENNETH JOSEPH WOODARD,
Chapter 13, Debtor(s). KENNETH JOSEPH WOODARD, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff(s) v. NAVIENT
SOLUTIONS, LLC, and NAVIENT CREDIT FINANCE CORPORATION,
Defendants(s), Case No. BK 08-81442-TLS, Adv. No. A21-8023-TLS
(Bankr. D. Neb.), Chief Bankruptcy Judge Thomas L. Saladino of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nebraska issued a
Findings & Recommendations to the District Court recommending that
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska:
(1) grant the joint motion to withdraw the reference of the
adversary proceeding;
(2) withdraw the reference pursuant to Nebraska General
Rule 1.5(b); and
(3) proceed with final approval of the parties' class action
settlement.
The matter is an adversary proceeding filed to seek relief from the
Defendants' alleged violations of the discharge injunction of 11
U.S.C. Section 524 through the collection of discharged student
loan debt. It is one of several such actions filed in judicial
districts around the country on behalf of various classes of
borrowers challenging Navient's collection of allegedly discharged
debt.
The Court approved the formation of a class of litigants composed
of certain consumer education loan borrowers, who filed for
bankruptcy protection within the Eighth Circuit, received discharge
orders, and were subject to post-discharge collection efforts by
Navient. Not long thereafter, a bankruptcy court in California
certified a damages class covering educational loan borrowers, who
had received bankruptcy discharges within the Ninth Circuit and yet
were subject to Navient's efforts to collect the debt. That court
also certified a nationwide class for injunctive relief. Similar
cases remain pending in New York and Michigan.
The parties in these cases diligently participated in mediation and
extensive efforts to reach a mutually acceptable settlement of
their claims. Those efforts were successful, and the parties have
agreed to a settlement covering certain student loans to borrowers,
who received bankruptcy discharges throughout the United States
(excluding borrowers, who received bankruptcy discharges in
bankruptcy courts in the Fifth Circuit, as those borrowers obtained
relief in the settlement of the claims in the case of Crocker v.
Navient Sols., LLC, Case No. 15-35886 (DRJ), Adv. Pro. No. 16-03175
(DRJ), 2020 WL 5579607 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 2020)).
The parties to this case brought the settlement before this Court,
which entered an order granting preliminary approval on July 6,
2023.
The parties request the withdrawal of the reference to the
Bankruptcy Court and the entry of a final order approving the
settlement by a district court judge to avoid confusion and
possible future collateral attacks by ensuring proper
jurisdictional authority to enter an order that is binding beyond
the boundaries of the judicial district.
In this litigation, Navient argued that a bankruptcy court lacks
the authority to enforce discharge orders entered by other courts
for two reasons: first, because a bankruptcy discharge is codified
as an injunction in 11 U.S.C. Section 524, and second, because the
Bankruptcy Code contains no private right of action by which a
debtor can assert claims that a creditor has violated the debtor's
bankruptcy discharge.
Navient contended that because the remedy for violating an
injunction is a contempt order, only the court issuing the
discharge order can enforce it. Navient notes that while the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals has not addressed this question, a number
of other circuits have endorsed this position, citing Anderson v.
Credit One Bank, N.A., 884 F.3d 382 (2d Cir. 2018); Galaz v.
Katona, 841 F.3d 316, 322 (5th Cir. 2016); Jones v. CitiMortgage,
Inc., 666 F. App'x 766 (11th Cir. 2016); Green Pt. Credit, LLC v.
McLean, 794 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2015); Alderwoods Group., Inc. v.
Garcia, 682 F.3d 958 (11th Cir. 2012); Barrientos v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., 633 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2011); and Cox v. Zale Del.,
Inc., 239 F.3d 910 (7th Cir. 2001).
The Court did not adopt Navient's position, instead distinguishing
bankruptcy discharge injunctions from other types of injunctive
orders issued by federal courts and ruling that it has authority to
enforce discharge injunctions entered by other judges and other
courts. This decision is based on the grounds that a bankruptcy
discharge order is a national form order entered in every
bankruptcy case in which a debtor obtains a discharge. In contrast
to injunctions entered under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, a
Section 524 discharge injunction is not an individualized,
court-crafted injunction that can only be interpreted or enforced
by the court, which entered it.
To avoid future concerns about authority, as well as jurisdiction,
Judge Saladino recommends that the United States District Court for
the District of Nebraska grant the parties' motion and withdraw the
reference so the class can proceed without those concerns.
The Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court will process this recommendation
pursuant to the local court rules.
A full-text copy of the Court's Findings & Recommendations to the
District Court dated July 13, 2023, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/59yshd4u from Leagle.com.
NESTLE USA: S.D. California Refuses to Toss Falcone Consumer Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge M. James Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
lawsuit titled MARIE FALCONE, Plaintiff v. NESTLE USA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-723-L-DEB (S.D. Cal.).
Pending before the Court in this putative consumer class action
alleging deceptive product labeling is the Defendant's motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiff filed an
opposition, and the Defendant replied. The Court decided the motion
on the briefs without oral argument.
According to the operative complaint (Third Amended Class Action
Complaint), the Defendant is the world's largest food company and
is best known for its chocolate products. It purchases
approximately 414,000 tons of cocoa annually.
The Plaintiff regularly purchased the Defendant's products such as
semi-sweet morsels (regular and allergen free), mini semi-sweet
morsels, dark chocolate morsels, milk chocolate morsels, mini
marshmallows hot cocoa, rich milk chocolate hot cocoa, and Nesquik.
She claims the statements on product labels are deceptive because
they falsely lead consumers to believe that the products were
produced in accordance with environmentally and socially
responsible standards. This includes such references as, for
example, the "NESTLE(R) Cocoa Plan(TM)," "UTZ Certified,"
"Certified through UTZ," "Sustainably Sourced," and statements
purporting to "Support[] farmers for better chocolate" and "help
improve the lives of cocoa farmers."
According to the Plaintiff, the labels are deceptive because the
Defendant sources its cocoa from West African plantations, which
rely on child labor and child slave labor, contribute to
deforestation, and use other practices harmful to the environment.
She also claims that, according to the Defendant's own statements,
the child labor conditions have worsened rather than improved since
the inception of the "NESTLE(R) Cocoa Plan."
Ms. Falcone asserts that she purchased the Defendant's chocolate
products in reliance on the social and environmental benefits
prominently featured on the packaging and would not have purchased
them had she known the representations were misleading. She alleges
violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"),
and the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), on her own behalf, as well
as on behalf of a putative nationwide class. She seeks damages,
restitution, disgorgement of profits, and injunctive relief.
The Court has jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28
U.S.C. Section 1332(d). As a federal court sitting in diversity
over the Plaintiff's California state law claims, the Court applies
substantive law of California, as interpreted by the California
Supreme Court.
The Defendant moves for dismissal for failure to state a claim
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). It argues
that as a matter of law its labeling is not deceptive. The
Defendant requests the Court to consider the chart in the context
of the Defendant's website as it relates to the "NESTLE(R) Cocoa
Plan."
Judge Lorenz notes that on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion courts generally
may not consider material outside the complaint without converting
the motion to a motion for summary judgment, citing Khoja v.
Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 998 (9th Cir. 2018). An
exception to this rule are materials incorporated by reference into
the complaint. The Defendant claims that parts of its website are
incorporated by inclusion of the chart.
The Defendant argues that its Exhibit A contradicts the Plaintiff's
contention that the child labor problem had grown more severe and
instead shows that it improved the lives of cocoa farmers, thus,
negating the Plaintiff's claim of misleading advertising. The
Plaintiff does not object consideration of Exhibit A, but disputes
the Defendant's argument and objects resolving disputed factual
issues at the pleading stage.
The exhibit states that the "NESTLE(R) Cocoa Plan" was created in
2009 to make cocoa farming more sustainable and improve the lives
of farmers. At the same time, it admits that the Defendant's cocoa
is sourced through child labor, including "hazardous work." It does
not mention child slavery. The chart referenced in the Complaint
and included in the exhibit shows that the "child labor rate"
increased from 17% in 2017 to 23% in 2019.
Judge Lorenz finds that the Defendant's exhibit does not support
dismissal of the complaint. First, in addition to depicting the
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 the
Plaintiff's claim that the Defendant's advertising message of
sustainable cocoa production and support for cocoa farmers was
misleading, Judge Lorenz holds.
Second, even viewed in the context of the Defendant's Exhibit A,
the chart cited in the Complaint does not contradict the
Plaintiff's claim, Judge Lorenz finds. Consistent with the
Plaintiff's other allegations, the chart states that the child
labor rate increased. The Defendant's exhibit does not contradict
this expressly or implicitly, Judge Lorenz points out.
In light of this, Judge Lorenz holds that the Plaintiff has
plausibly alleged that the challenged statements were deceptive.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 13, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/8f5ky7un from Leagle.com.
NEVADA: District Court Directs Harris to File Complaint by Sept. 11
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ANTHONY HARRIS, et al., Plaintiffs v. STATE
OF NEVADA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00222-MMD-CLB (D.
Nev.), Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada directed Plaintiff Anthony Harris to
submit a complaint on or before Sept. 11, 2023.
On May 30, 2023, Plaintiffs Anthony Harris, Tavete Letoi, Rafael
Bonet, Jeffrey Cabalan, Harry Puapuaga, Jerry Meas, and Keith
Tillman, all inmates in the custody of the Nevada Department of
Corrections, submitted a document titled "Motion for Initiation and
for Clarification/Instruction of Court."
According to the Motion, the Plaintiffs are Asian Americans and
Pacific Islanders, who seek information about how they can file a
class action regarding racial discrimination they suffered while
incarcerated at Ely State Prison.
But, Judge Baldwin notes, no Plaintiff has filed a complaint and
either paid the required filing fee or filed an application to
proceed in forma pauperis. So the Court provides the following
general information to facilitate the proper initiation of
civil-rights actions by these pro se litigants.
Judge Baldwin notes that pro se litigants have the right to plead
and conduct their own cases personally. But pro se litigants have
no authority to represent anyone other than themselves. This means
pro se litigants cannot seek to certify a case as a class action
themselves; they must be represented by counsel. But there is no
right to appointed counsel in civil-rights actions. And the Court
will appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants only in
"exceptional circumstances."
For an inmate to apply for in forma pauperis status, the inmate
must submit all three of the following documents to the Court: (1)
a completed Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis for Inmate,
which is pages 1-3 of the Court's approved form, that is properly
signed by the inmate twice on page 3; (2) a completed Financial
Certificate, which is page 4 of the Court's approved form, that is
properly signed by both the inmate and a prison or jail official;
and (3) a copy of the inmate's prison or jail trust fund account
statement for the previous six-month period. Judge Baldwin says in
forma pauperis status does not relieve an inmate of his obligation
to pay the filing fee, it just means that he can pay the fee in
installments.
The Court will grant each Plaintiff an opportunity to file a
complaint and either pay the full $402 filing fee or file a fully
complete application to proceed in forma pauperis. But only
Plaintiff Anthony Harris is permitted to proceed in this action at
this time. If any other Plaintiff wishes to proceed with his
claims, he must file a complaint with the Court, under a new case
number, and either pay the full $402 filing fee or file a fully
complete application to proceed in forma pauperis.
For these reasons, Judge Baldwin ordered that Plaintiff Anthony
Harris will submit a complaint to this Court on or before Monday,
Sept. 11, 2023.
Judge Baldwin further ordered that by Sept. 11, 2023, Mr. Harris
will either pay the full $402 filing fee or file a fully complete
application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three required
documents: a completed application with the inmate's two signatures
on page 3, a completed financial certificate that is signed both by
the inmate and the prison or jail official, and a copy of the
inmate's trust fund account statement for the previous six-month
period.
Plaintiffs Tavete Letoi, Rafael Bonet, Jeffrey Cabalan, Harry
Puapuaga, Jerry Meas, and Keith Tillman are dismissed without
prejudice from this action.
Judge Baldwin cautions Mr. Harris that this action will be subject
to dismissal without prejudice if he fails to timely comply with
this order.
If either Tavete Letoi, Rafael Bonet, Jeffrey Cabalan, Harry
Puapuaga, Jerry Meas, or Keith Tillman wishes to proceed with his
claims, Judge Baldwin directs each inmate to file his own complaint
with the Court, under a new case number, and either pay the full
$402 filing fee or file a fully complete application to proceed in
forma pauperis.
Judge Baldwin orders the Clerk of the Court to send to Plaintiffs
Anthony Harris and Tavete Letoi, Rafael Bonet, Jeffrey Cabalan,
Harry Puapuaga, Jerry Meas, and Keith Tillman each the approved
form for filing a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 complaint, instructions
for the same, and courtesy copies of the initiating document (ECF
No. 1-1) and General Order No. 2021-05.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 13, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ykszpdhe from Leagle.com.
NEXTGEN LEADS: Faces Powell Class Suit Over Pre-Recorded Robocalls
------------------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA POWELL, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. NEXTGEN LEADS, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00272-KD-M (S.D. Ala., July
20, 2023) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its
insurance services, in part, by using pre-recorded telemarketing
calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Ms. Powell's cellular telephone number is (251)-XXX-3395. That
number is not associated with a business. She has no prior
relationship with the Defendant and did not consent to receive
calls from them. Despite that, Ms. Powell received pre-recorded
telemarketing calls from NextGen on July 7, 2023.
Accordingly, the call was clearly pre-recorded because there was a
pause before the recording played and the robot started speaking,
and the robot had a generic monotone voice. The Plaintiff responded
to the pre-recorded message and told them that she was not
interested in their insurance services. However, the Plaintiff
received four more calls from the Defendant later that day, the
Plaintiff contends.
The Plaintiff and all members of the Classes have been harmed by
the acts of the Defendant, including invasion of their privacy,
annoyance, waste of time, the use of their cell phone battery, and
the intrusion on their cellular telephone that occupied it from
receiving legitimate communications.
The Plaintiff proposes the following Class definitions:
Pre-Record Class: All persons in the United States who,
(1) within four years prior to the commencement of this
litigation until the class is certified (a) received one
or more calls on their cellular telephone (b) from or on
behalf of NextGen services, (c) sent using the same, or
substantially similar, pre-recorded message used to
contact the Plaintiff.
National Do Not Call Registry: All persons in the United
States whose, (a) telephone numbers were on the National
Do Not Call Registry for at least 30 days, (b) but
received more than one telephone solicitation
telemarketing call from or on behalf of NextGen (c)
within a 12-month period, (d) from four years prior the
filing of the Complaint.
Excluded from the Classes are counsel, the Defendant, and any
entities in which the Defendant has a controlling interest, the
Defendant's agents and employees, any judge to whom this action is
assigned, and any member of such judge's staff and immediate
family.
NextGen Leads provides marketing, lead generation and technology
services to the insurance industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Matthew Stephens, Esq.
METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY,
STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C.
2201 Arlington Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 939-0199
Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
E-mail: mstephens@mtattorneys.com
ONPOINT COMMUNITY: Fact Discovery Must be Completed by Sept. 15
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Granados v. OnPoint
Community Credit Union, Case No. 3:21-cv-00847 (D. Or., Filed June
3, 2021), the Hon. Judge Michael H. Simon entered an order on
motion for extension of discovery & PTO deadlines as follows:
(1) Fact discovery to be completed by: Sept. 15, 2023
(2) Simultaneous exchange of opening Sept. 29, 2023
expert reports are due by:
(3) Simultaneous exchange of rebuttal Oct. 30, 2023
expert reports are due by:
(4) Expert discovery to be Nov. 27, 2023
completed by:
(5) Motion for class certification Dec. 15, 2023
is due by:
(6) Opposition to class certification Jan. 22, 2024
is due by:
(7) Reply in support of motion Feb. 5, 2024
for class certification is
due by:
The Defendant is a community-owned financial institution.[CC]
PRECISION FRANCHISING: Court Dismisses Shavin's NCWHA Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James C. Dever, III, of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina, Southern Division, dismisses
with prejudice the Plaintiff's claims under the North Carolina Wage
and Hour Act in the lawsuit titled ABRAHAM SHAVIN, individually and
for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRECISION FRANCHISING,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 7:23-CV-822-D (E.D.N.C.).
On April 1, 2023, Plaintiff Abraham Shavin filed an "FLSA
Collective and Class Action Complaint," individually and for others
similarly situated, against Precision Franchising, Inc., alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and North
Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA").
On June 5, 2023, Precision moved to dismiss the NCWHA claims for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and
filed a memorandum in support. On June 14, 2023, Shavin responded
in opposition. On July 3, 2023, Precision replied.
Precision moves to dismiss Shavin's NCWHA claims as expressly
exempted by Section 95-25.14(a) of the NCWHA or, alternatively,
preempted by the FLSA. Shavin acknowledges the NCWHA's exemption
provision and responds that he only alleges the NCWHA claims in the
alternative if the Court finds that Precision is exempt from the
FLSA. He concedes that it may be appropriate to limit his claims to
the FLSA if the Defendant admits that the FLSA applies to it.
In Precision's reply, it expressly stipulates as to the coverage of
the FLSA. Precision states that it will be bound to its concession
as it relates to FLSA coverage and will not seek to argue that it
is exempt from FLSA coverage.
In light of Precision's stipulation that it is covered under the
FLSA and Shavin's recognition that his NCWHA claims are exempt or
preempted under the FLSA if Precision stipulates to FLSA coverage,
the Court grants Precision's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
NCWHA claims.
In sum, the Court grants the Defendant's motion to partially
dismiss, and dismisses with prejudice the Plaintiff's NCWHA claims
and all class allegations relating to the NCWHA claims.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 13, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/34ynmunj from Leagle.com.
SANTA CLARA, CA: UNIFYSCC Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as UNIFYSCC, an
unincorporated California association on behalf of employees in
Santa Clara County; TOM DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; MARIA RAMIREZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated; and ELIZABETH BALUYUT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SARA H. CODY, in her official capacity as the Santa Clara County
Public Health Officer; JAMES WILLIAMS, in his official capacity as
the County Counsel of Santa Clara County; JEFFREY SMITH, in his
official capacity as the County Executive of Santa Clara County;
and SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Case No. 5:22-cv-01019-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs move the Court for an order:
1. Certifying pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule
23(b)(1)(a) and (b)(3)the following Class:
"All individuals who:
a) work or worked for the County and/or are or were subject
to
its vaccine policies and orders, including the Risk Tier
System;
b) were forced by the County to choose between taking the
vaccine to maintain their jobs and/or their employment-
related benefits or being placed on unpaid leave;
c) are, or have been, classified as working in high risk jobs
pursuant to the County's Risk Tier System; and
d) received, or will receive, a religious exemption from the
County between August 5, 2021 and September 27, 2022;"
2. appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and
3. appointing Advocates for Faith and Freedom and Wolf
Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz LLP as Co-Class Counsel.
The Plaintiffs UnifySCC, Tom Davis and Maria Ramirez filed this
action on February 18, 2022, alleging claims against the Defendants
Sara H. Cody, James Williams, Jeffrey Smith and Santa Clara County
for:
(1) Violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment
to the United States Constitution (42 U.S.C. section 1983);
(2) Violation of California's Fair Employment and Housing Act
(FEHA);
(3) Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (42
U.S.C. section 1983); and
(4) Deprivation of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. section 1983
(Monell).
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 14, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QhnYYn at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rachele R. Byrd, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
750 B Street, Suite 1820
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 239-4599
Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
E-mail: byrd@whafh.com
- and -
Robert H. Tyler, Esq.
Mariah Gondeiro, Esq.
ADVOCATES FOR FAITH & FREEDOM
25026 Las Brisas Road
Murrieta, CA 92562
Telephone: (951) 600-2733
Facsimile: (951) 600-499
E-mail: btyler@faith-freedom.com
mgondeiro@faith-freedom.com
SCRANTON CARDIOVASCULAR: Ferguson Sues Over Unprotected Health Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY FERGUSON, individually and on behalf of situated, Plaintiff
v. all others similarly SCRANTON CARDIOVASCULAR PHYSICIAN SERVICES,
LLC d/b/a GREAT VALLEY CARDIOLOGY, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-01112-MEM (M.D. Pa., July 5, 2023) alleges claims against
the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, and for violations of common
law, the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act.
Allegedly, the Defendant failed to employ reasonable and
appropriate measures to protect against unauthorized access to
patients' sensitive personal information. Despite the Defendant's
duty to safeguard these information, Plaintiffs' and other
patients' information was allowed to be accessed and exposed to an
unauthorized third party during a data breach of Defendant’s
computer network which occurred between February 2, and April 14,
2023, but which the Defendant did not disclose until on or about
June 12, 2023, says the suit.
Scranton Cardiovascular Physician Services, LLC is a healthcare
provider located in Scranton, Pennsyalvania. The company provides
healthcare services to patients across Luzerne, Lackawanna, and
Wayne Counties.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
jamisen@lcllp.com
nickc@lcllp.com
SEA LIMITED: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 17
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP informs investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Sea Limited (NYSE: SE) securities between April
23, 2022 and May 15, 2023. Sea Limited, together with its
subsidiaries, provides digital entertainment, e-commerce, and
digital financial services in Asia, Latin America, and
internationally.
For more information, submit a form, email Aaron Dumas, Jr., or
give us a call at (800) 350-6003.
What is this Case About: Sea Limited (SE) Misled Investors
Regarding its Financial Prospects
According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
failed to disclose that: (i) Sea Limited overstated its ability to
manage the growth of its user base and loan book while enhancing
its profitability; (ii) Sea Limited's expansion to a broader user
base and growing loan book rendered the Company significantly more
vulnerable to higher credit losses; and (iii) as a result, the
Company was likely to book a significant increase in loan revenues,
which would have a significant impact on Sea Limited's earnings.
On May 16, 2023, Sea Limited announced its financial results for
the first quarter 2023, including that first-quarter earnings feel
significantly short of expectations due to a sharp increase in loan
loss reserves. The Company advised that "[o]ur provision for credit
losses increased by 120.5% to US$177.4 million in the first quarter
of 2023 from US$80.5 million in the first quarter of 2022,
primarily driven by expansion to a broader user base and the growth
of our loan book." The Company also disclosed that its previous
Chief Investment Officer had left his role to join the Company's
Board of Directors. On this news, the Company's ADS price fell
$15.62 per ADS, or over 17%, to close at $72.45 per ADS on May 16,
2023.
What Now: Similarly situated shareholders may be eligible to
participate in the class action against Sea Limited. Shareholders
who want to act as lead plaintiff for the class must file their
motion with the court by September 17, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the
case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no
action, you can remain an absent class member. For more
information, click here.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.
To be notified if a class action against Sea Limited settles or to
receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing,
sign up for Stock Watch today.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact:
Aaron Dumas, Jr.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com
https://www.facebook.com/RobbinsLLP/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/robbins-llp/ [GN]
SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Class Certification Bid Due April 5, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tsolumba v. SelectQuote
Insurance Services, Case No. 5:22-cv-00712 (N.D. Ohio, Filed May 3,
2022), the Hon. Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan entered a scheduling
order as follows:
-- Non-expert discovery: Dec. 4, 2023
-- Expert reports for the party bearing Dec. 29, 2023
the burden of proof:
-- Responsive expert reports: Feb. 1, 2024
-- Expert discovery: Feb. 22, 2024
-- Dispositive motions: April 5, 2024
-- Motion for class certification: April 5, 2024
The nature of suit Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment.
Selectquote provides insurance agent and broker services. The
Company offers auto and home, life, and medical insurance.[CC]
STAND LLC: Fails to Pay Cooks' Minimum & OT Wages, Ramirez Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARINA RAMIREZ, on behalf of the State of California, and others
similarly situated and aggrieved v. THE STAND, LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company; THE STAND PASADENA, LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company; THE STAND NEWPORT BEACH, LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
Case No. 23STCV17089 (Cal. Super., July 20, 2023) sues the
Defendants for failing to compensate the Plaintiff and Aggrieved
Employees for all hours worked, resulting in the underpayment of
minimum and overtime wages.
The Defendants allegedly failed to compensate the Plaintiff and
Aggrieved Employees for all hours worked by virtue of, Defendants'
automatic deduction and time rounding policies, and failure to
relieve employees of all duties/employer control during unpaid meal
periods or otherwise unlawful practices for missed or improper meal
periods.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee
with a job title of kitchen cook, cook, BOH cook or a similar title
from June 2019 through January 17, 2023.
The Stand is a casual dining restaurant chain.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
Jamie Serb, Esq.
Brandon Brouillette, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, PC
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (866) 276-7637
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
E-mail: zach@crosnerlegal.com
jamie@crosnerlegal.com
bbrouillette@crosnerlegal.com
STEM INC: Faces Foley Securities Suit Over Misleading Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
SAM FOLEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. STEM, INC. f/k/a STAR PEAK ENERGY TRANSITION
CORP., JOHN CARRINGTON, ERIC SCHEYER, WILLIAM BUSH, MICHAEL D.
WILDS, MICHAEL C. MORGAN, ADAM E. DALEY, ALEC LITOWITZ, DESIRÉE
ROGERS, and C. PARK SHAPER, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-03424
(N.D. Cal., July 10, 2023) asserts claims for relief against Stem
and certain of the Company’s current and former directors and
officers under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
Allegedly, many statements in the Registration Statement presented
Legacy Stem as an attractive merger target. In addition to
disclosing that Stem provides its customers with energy storage
systems sourced from leading original equipment manufacturers, the
Registration Statement disclosed that Stem enters into long-term
agreements to provide software-enabled services to operate the
energy storage systems. Moreover, Plaintiff Foley claims that
Stem's Registration Statement gave the misleading impression that
its long-term agreements to provide AI-driven services to its
customers would result in a substantial, recurring revenue stream,
providing significant growth and earnings, and that its unique
AI-driven approach to energy storage management differentiated it
from competitors, says the suit.
Headquartered in California, Stem is a provider of energy storage
systems. In addition to selling hardware sourced from original
equipment manufacturers, the Company purports to provide its
customers "on-going software-enabled services to operate the energy
storage systems" through its Athena artificial intelligence
platform. Its common stock and warrants trade in an efficient
market on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbols
"STEM" and "STEM.WS." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam E. Polk, Esq.
Jordan Elias, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com
jelias@girardsharp.com
-and -
Paul D. Malmfeldt
MALMFELDT LAW GROUP P.C.
120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2000
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 606-8625
E-mail: pdm@malmfeldt.com
- and -
Brian J. Schall, Esq.
THE SCHALL LAW FIRM
2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 301-3335
E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com
THREE WISHES: N.D. California Stays Harville Consumer Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, grants the Defendant's
motion to stay and stays the lawsuit captioned LYDIA HARVILLE,
Plaintiff v. THREE WISHES FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:22-cv-04774-EJD (N.D. Cal.).
Before the Court is the Defendant's Motion to Stay Case pending
Ninth Circuit decisions. The Court finds this motion suitable for
decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule
7-1(b).
The Plaintiff brings this class action against Three Wishes seeking
redress for the brand's allegedly deceptive practices in labeling
and marketing the amount of protein on its cereal packages and
unlawfully fortifying its cereal. Three Wishes uses plant-based
proteins in its cereal products, such as proteins derived from
chickpea, pea, and tapioca. The Plaintiff alleges that, on average,
plant-based proteins are only 85% digestible. Three Wishes' cereal
packaging states that it contains 8 grams of protein per serving on
its front label.
According to Harville, the cereals' labels are false or misleading
because they do not include statements of the corrected amount of
protein calculated using the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino
Acid Score ("PDCAAS") and expressed in %DV, which factors in the
quality of the protein source and digestibility of the protein in
calculating the amount of protein in a food. Using the PDCAAS
method would purportedly result in calculation of protein that is
lower than the 8 grams advertised on the label. The Plaintiff also
alleges that the cereals are unlawfully fortified "snack products"
and, therefore, the cereals' nutrition labels contain "deceptive
and misleading claims." The complaint alleges violations of the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (the "CLRA"), false
advertising, and common law fraud and/or misrepresentation.
Three Wishes moved to dismiss the complaint asserting, in part,
that Harville's claims are expressly or impliedly preempted by the
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act ("FDCA"). After moving for
dismissal, Three Wishes also moved to stay the case pending the
Ninth Circuit's decisions in Nacarino v. Kashi Company, No.
22-15377 ("Nacarino"), Brown v. Kellogg Company, No. 22-15658
("Brown"), and Davidson v. Sprout Foods, Inc., No. 22-16656
("Davidson"). All three appeals address the preemption issues
raised by Three Wishes in this action.
Judge Davila notes that the power to stay proceedings is incidental
to the power inherent in every court to control disposition of the
cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for
counsel, and for litigants, citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S.
248, 254 (1936). A stay is appropriate where the moving party
demonstrates (1) there is a "fair possibility" of "hardship or
inequity," (2) it would not result in "undue delay," or (3) where
the court finds it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest
course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it,
pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the
case.
Turning to the first Landis factor, Three Wishes argues that it
would suffer "hardship or inequity in being required to go forward"
by expending time and resources litigating the action. 299 U.S. at
254-55. Three Wishes asserts that the Ninth Circuit's decisions
will determine the viability of three of Harville's five theories
of liability, and Three Wishes would, therefore, suffer hardship in
proceeding to litigate theories of liability depending on the
outcome of the Davidson decision.
However, Judge Davila opines, hardship may nonetheless occur where
a denial of stay would cause both parties to incur significant
expenses on litigation that may be rendered moot, citing Vance v.
Google LLC, No. 5:20-CV-04696-BLF, 2021 WL 534363, at *5 (N.D. Cal.
Feb. 12, 2021). Harville disagrees, contending that discovery will
overlap with the claims that will be unresolved by the appeals.
Even so, Judge Davila says, both parties would expend additional
resources litigating liability theories that may be preempted.
Moreover, continuing litigation also poses potential for
inconsistent rulings and resulting confusion. For these reasons,
the Court finds that this factor weighs slightly in favor of
granting a stay.
Second, Three Wishes argues that Harville will not suffer prejudice
or be unduly delayed by a stay while the appeals are pending. Three
Wishes points out that the stay is not open-ended. Both appeals
have been briefed and Nacarino/Brown has been argued before the
Ninth Circuit.
The Plaintiff asserts, among other things, that these decisions
will not be concluded within a reasonable time in relation to the
urgency of the claims presented to the Court.
The Court recognizes that there could be some harm to the
Plaintiff's ability to litigate this suit by staying the case
before discovery. Accordingly, this factor weighs slightly against
granting the motion.
Finally, the Court finds that the third Landis factor weighs
heavily in favor of granting a stay. The third factor considers the
orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or
complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be
expected to result from a stay.
Although the appeals do not address every theory of liability
raised by Harville, Judge Davila finds that the Ninth Circuit's
decisions will nonetheless provide guidance to the Court.
For these reasons, Judge Davila grants Three Wishes' motion and
stays the case. The parties are ordered to file status reports
regarding the status of the proceedings before the Ninth Circuit
every 180 days. This Order does not preclude any party from moving
to lift the stay before the appeals are resolved.
This Order terminates ECF No. 17. Three Wishes may re-notice the
motion to dismiss once the stay is lifted.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 13, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5n77na5f from Leagle.com.
TRADINGVIEW INC: Faces Crumwell Suit Over Website Accessibility
---------------------------------------------------------------
DENISE CRUMWELL, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. TRADINGVIEW, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-05918 (S.D.N.Y., July 10, 2023) arises out of the
Defendant's violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the
New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York State Human
Rights Law.
Plaintiff Crumwell alleges that the Defendant's website,
www.tradingview.com, is not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. She asserts that the Defendant's
website denied her and other blind or visually-impaired people to
have access to its products and services.
TradingView, Inc. operates the TradingView online retail store
throughout the US. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
TRUSSWAY MANUFACTURING: Faces Flores Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
LORENZO FLORES and SIMBA FLORES on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TRUSSWAY MANUFACTURING,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-02509 (S.D. Tex., July 10, 2023)
arises out of the recent targeted cyberattack against Defendant
that allowed a third party to access Defendant's computer systems
and data, resulting in the compromise of highly sensitive personal
information. Plaintiffs alleges claims against the Defendant for
negligence, breach of implied contract, negligence per se, breach
of fiduciary duty, invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action lawsuit on behalf of those
similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding
of Class Members' Private Information that it collected and
maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice
to Plaintiffs and other Class Members that their Private
Information had been subject to the unauthorized access of an
unknown third party or precisely what specific type of information
was accessed.
Headquartered in Houston Texas, Trussway is a manufacturer of floor
trusses, roof trusses, and pre-assembled door and window openings.
It was founded in 1972 and has over 1,000 employees. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
E-mail: raina@turkestrauss.com
sam@turkestrauss.com
UPPERLINE HEALTH: Discloses Personal Info to Meta, Doe Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UPPERLINE HEALTH, INC. d/b/a UPPERLINE HEALTH INDIANA,
Case No. 1:23-cv-01261-RLY-TAB (S.D. Ind., July 20, 2023) seeks to
address Defendant's alleged illegal practice of disclosing the
confidential personally identifying information and/or protected
health information of the Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members
to third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta,
Google, LLC, Microsoft Corp., StackAdapt, CallRail, and possible
others.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant embedded pixels from
Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and others into its Website and Online
Platforms, surreptitiously forcing the Plaintiff and Class Members
to transmit intimate details about their medical treatment to third
parties. Among the pixels Defendant embedded into its Website and
Online Platforms is the Facebook Pixel. By default, the Meta Pixel
tracks information about a visitor's device, including their IP
address, and the pages viewed.
When configured, the Meta Pixel can track much more, including a
visitor's search terms, button clicks, and form submissions.
Additionally, the Meta Pixel can link a visitor's website
interactions with an individual's unique and persistent Facebook
ID, allowing a user's health information to be linked with their
Facebook profile. The Meta Pixel was present on Defendant's Website
from at least January 28, 2021, to April 3, 2023, the Plaintiff
says.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff and Class Members were never aware that
their confidential communications with their healthcare provider
would be intercepted and transmitted to Facebook or that their use
of Defendant's Website was not private. The Plaintiff and Class
Members never authorized the Defendant to transmit their
confidential communications to Facebook, Google, or other third
parties, nor did they authorize the Disclosure of their private
information.
The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and bring causes of
action for negligence, invasion of Privacy, breach of fiduciary
duty, violation of the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, and
Violation of the Indiana Wiretapping Act.
The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Indiana, where she
intends to remain, with a principal residence in Kokomo in Howard
County. She is a former patient of UHI's Kokomo clinic, located at
2130 W Sycamore St., Suite 150, Kokomo, Indiana 46901.
UHI operates a for-profit network of podiatry clinics in over a
dozen locations across the state, including in Anderson, Carmel,
Columbus, Fishers, Franklin, Indianapolis (two locations), Jasper,
Kokomo, Muncie, Noblesville, Richmond, Seymour, and Tipton,
Indiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Mary Kate Dugan, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
mdugan@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Andrew E. Mize, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
amize@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina Borelli, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS, LLP
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com
raina@turkestrauss.com
VELOCITY COMMERCIAL: Breaches Mortgage Contracts, Cranston Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cranston Services, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others so
similarly situated v. Velocity Commercial Capital LLC, U.S. Bank
National Association, as indenture trustee for VCC 2022-MC1 Trust,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00273-MSM-PAS (D.R.I., July 5, 2023) accuses the
Defendants of breaching their mortgage contracts with the
Plaintiff, in violation of the State of Rhode Island General Laws.
The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of itself and all
real property owners or former real property owners wherein the
Defendants failed to adhere to RIGL when attempting and conducting
foreclosures and mortgagee's sales. The Plaintiff and members of
the class seek actual, exemplary, punitive, and monetary damages,
restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other relief as
provided by the state law.
Velocity Commercial Capital, LLC is a commercial mortgage lender
with headquarters at 30699 Russell Ranch Road, Suite 295, Westlake
Village, CA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Corey J. Allard, Esq.
50 Power Road, 2nd Floor
Pawtucket, RI 02860
Telephone: (401) 338-6381
E-mail: collard@allardlaw.com
VELODYNE LIDAR: Securities Class in Moradpour Gets Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEYSAM MORADPOUR, et al.,
v. VELODYNE LIDAR, INC., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-01486-SI (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Illston entered an order granting the
Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and to Appoint
Class Representatives and Class Counsel:
"All persons who purchased Velodyne securities between July 2,
2020
and March 17, 2021, inclusive and were damaged thereby. Excluded
from the Class are the Defendants and members of their immediate
families, the officers and directors of the Company, at all
relevant times, and members of their immediate families, the
legal
representatives, heirs, successors or assigns of any of the
foregoing, and any entity in which the Defendants have or had a
controlling interest."
In addition, the Court appoints Lead the Plaintiff Diane Smith as
Class Representative. The Court appoints Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC as
Class Counsel.
Velodyne specializes in sensor and software lidar solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 14, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3q14ug3 at no extra charge.[CC]
VISA INC: Loses Appeal in ATM Fee Price-Fixing Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Katie Arcieri, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Visa Inc.
and Mastercard Inc. lost an appeal tied to claims they fixed the
price of ATM fees after the US Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit sided with a lower court in its 2021 decision to
grant class certification to a group of ATM owners and customers.
"The district court's legal analysis is brief but materially
correct," the appeals panel said in a July 25 opinion. "The court's
certification order does not rest on an incorrect legal standard.
And we discern no substantive inadequacy or other legal error in
the district court's evidentiary assessment." [GN]
WARREN SERVICES: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ana Maria Quizhpi a/k/a Ana Maria Mizhquiri, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. WARREN SERVICES INC. (D/B/A
Whistle Clean by Warren Services), WHISTLE CLEAN LAUNDRY CENTER,
INC. (D/B/A East Hampton Laundry), WHISTLE CLEAN SOUTHAMPTON, INC.
(D/B/A Southampton Laundry), and Robert J. Warren, Case No.
2:23-cv-05511 (E.D.N.Y., July 20, 2023) alleges that the Defendants
engage in pattern and practice of failing to pay its employees,
including the Plaintiff, minimum and overtime wages, in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law as well as
violations of the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the
New York Commissioner of Labor codified at N.Y. COMP. CODES R. &
REGS.
The Plaintiff regularly worked 50-94 hours per week, but the
Defendants did not provide her the required overtime compensation.
Every week, the Defendants unlawfully deducted her wages for
unknown reasons and not to the benefit of the Plaintiff. The
Plaintiff's rate of pay did not vary even when she was required to
stay later or work a longer day than her usual schedule, the
lawsuit claims.
The Plaintiff was employed as a laundromat worker at the East
Hampton Laundry located at 497 Montauk Hwy, Amagansett from June
2008, until May 30, 2023.
Warren Services operates a cleaning service business including
laundry, estate cleaning, carpet cleaning, upholstery cleaning,
move in - move out cleaning, and construction cleanups.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan Pu-Folkes, Esq.
Parham Zahedi, Esq.
PU-FOLKES LAW GROUP
79-02 Roosevelt Avenue
Jackson Heights, NY 11372
Telephone: (718) 205-5353
E-mail: Bryan@pufolkeslaw.com
Parham@pufolkeslaw.com
ZEROCATER INC: Fails to Pay Timely Wages, Campbell Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Campbell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Zerocater, Inc, Case No. 1:23-cv-05742 (S.D.N.Y., July
5, 2023) seeks damages and other relief over Defendant's violations
of the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff worked as an onsite specialist for the Defendant from
approximately July 2018 to February 2021. His job responsibilities
included manual labor, but he was paid every other week for the
duration of his employment with the Defendant. Under New York Law,
companies must pay their manual workers on a weekly basis, except
if they are granted an express authorization to pay on a
semi-monthly basis by the New York State Department of Labor
Commissioner. The Defendant has not received such authorization.
The Plaintiff claims he was injured for half of each biweekly pay
period as he did not receive his pay in a timely fashion.
Consequently, he also lost the time value of his money.
The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff on a timely basis, in
violation of the(NYLL). Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all
manual workers employed by the Defendant in New York State over the
last six years, demands liquidated damages, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs,
says the suit.
Zerocater, Inc is a Delaware corporate catering corporation based
in San Francisco, California. It employs hundreds, if not
thousands, of manual workers in New York State. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 695-3282
Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
E-mail: Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com
*********
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 ***