/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230814.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, August 14, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 162 Headlines 191 AVENUE: Cuautle Seeks Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages 3D SYSTEMS: Class Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Prelim OK ABB/CON-CISE OPTICAL: Court Tosses Bid to Strike Class Allegations ADCO PRODUCTS: Fails to Provide Proper Overtime, Clarke Says ADP SCREENING: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 14, 2024 AES GROUP: Bid for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply OK'd AHRC HEALTH: Onate Bid to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal Nixed ALASKA AIRLINES: Filing for Bid to Certify Class Due Oct. 11, 2024 ALDEYRA THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Sept. 29 ALPHABET INC: Faces Copyright Lawsuit Over Stolen Data Used by AI AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Consolidated Anti-trust Suit in NY Court ANTHEM CO: Joint Bid on Continued Sealing Denied w/o Prejudice ANTHONY GREGOR: Filing for Class Status Bid Due May 17, 2024 ARAMARK SERVICES: $460K Deal in Billups-Larkin Suit Has Prelim. OK BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Kelley Suit Over Shareholders' Losses BP EXPLORATION: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Alizadeh BELO Suit C3 AI INC: Faces Reckstin Family Trust Suit in California Court CAPPAERT MANUFACTURED: Becks Alleges Mass Layoff Without Notice CARGILL MEAT: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Sept. 15 COMES INVESTMENTS: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Lopez Says CPA GLOBAL: Court Modifies Class Certification Deadlines CROSS RIVER: Greenfield's Bid to Dismiss Counterclaim OK'd in Part DESERT FIRE: Certain Attorneys' Fees & Costs in Laube Suit Granted EQONEX LTD: Rosen Law Named as Lead Counsel in Zhao Securities Suit ESSILORLUXOTTICA: Faces Class Action Over Eyewear Price-Fixing FIRST ADVANTAGE: Court Tosses Wilson Bid for Class Certification FIRST CHOICE: Faces Molina Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime FORDHAM UNIVERSITY: Conley Sues Over COVID-19 Tuition Fee Refunds GALVESTON COUNTY, TX: Dismissal of Booth Suit as Moot Recommended GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Supplemental Reply GENERAL MOTORS: Seeks August 15 Extension to File Class Cert Bid GEORGIA: District Court Dismisses Raby v. Reaves Without Prejudice GLAD PRODUCTS: Court Junks Bid to Dismiss Peterson Class Suit HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Charging Ports IMMUNITYBIO INC: Faces Salzman Suit in California Court INVESTORPLACE MEDIA: Hill Seeks Injunctive Relief for TCPA Breach J RITTER: Bid to Remand Hunter Class Suit to Superior Court Denied JONES LANG: Ramirez Suit Remanded to San Francisco Superior Court KINDER MORGAN: Faces Pedersen, Leutloff ERISA-Related Class Suit L'OREAL USA: Court Narrows Claims in Zimmerman Class Action LANSING COMMUNITY: Heinig et al. Sue Over Data Protection Violation LASING COMMUNITY: Fails to Protect Private Info, Alexander Claims LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 25 MADE BY JOHNNY: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Hall Sues Over Hotel Room Rates' False Ads MG LLC: James Seeks Damages and Injunctive Relief Over TCPA Breach NATIONSBENEFITS LLC: S.W. Suit Moved From Missouri to Florida NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT: Bid to Toss Jackson Suit Terminated as Moot NEW WINCUP: Franklin Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometrics NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Turner Loses Bid to Remand Suit to State Court NUTRIEN LTD: Grayson's Bid to File for Settlement Approval Cont'd ONIX GROUP: Faces Haynie Suit Over Alleged Data Breach PENSION BENEFIT: Garrison Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Boykin Suit Over Undisclosed Car Vent Clips PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Deutsch Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Secure Private Info, Gilson Claims REALPAGE INC: Breaches Antitrust Laws, Lauder and Meredith Allege RUGSUSA LLC: Engages in Deceptive Sales Practices, Korda Alleges RV WORLD: Greenhill Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Hours SAVOI LATIN BISTRO: Fails to Pay Overtime Premiums, Gonzalez Says SIRH LLC: Dale and Masters Seek Unpaid Minimum Wages and Tips STIFEL NICOLAUS: E.D. Missouri Denies Bid to Stay Krupka Class Suit TESLA INC: Liaison & Interim Class Counsel Named in Lamontagne Suit UNITED AIRLINES: N.D. California Allows Hughes to Amend Complaint VBIT TECHNOLOGIES: McKellar Named Lead Plaintiff in Pelham Suit VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Oct. 2 VISION SOLAR: N.J. Court Dismisses Landy's 1st Amended Complaint WALBRIDGE ALDINGER: Faces Gray Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Hours WEBSTER BANK: Jenkins Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Discrimination WESTERN EXPRESS: Halluni Seeks Back Pay and Damages Under FLSA WESTSIDE 309: Compelled to Produce Demanded Docs in Chang Suit WHITE BIRCH: Faces Guevara Suit Over Laborers' Unpaid Wages ZANDER GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged ERISA Violations ********* 191 AVENUE: Cuautle Seeks Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Alvaro Macoto Cuautle, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 191 AVENUE A INC. (D/B/A NY GRILL & DELI), AHMED ALZENDANI AKA MIKE, and ZANDAN ZINDANI AKA DANNY, Case No. 1:23-cv-06029 (S.D.N.Y., July 13, 2023) seeks all relief available under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a delivery worker but was also required to work as stockman and baker, which are considered "non-tipped duties". The Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week without appropriate minimum wage and overtime pay for the hours that he worked. 191 Avenue A Inc. is a domestic corporation that owns, operates, or controls a deli named "NY Grill & Deli" located at 191 Avenue A, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 3D SYSTEMS: Class Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Prelim OK --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re 3D Systems Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-02383-NGG-TAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis entered an order adopting Judge Taryn A. Merkl's Report and Recommendation (R&R) in full. -- The court notes only that evenly dividing the $21,500 incentive award five ways results in $4,300 per recipient. With the exception of this one minor modification. -- The Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary settlement approval is granted. -- The court also enters the attached order preliminarily approving a class action settlement, directs the parties to issue notice as outlined in Judge Merkl's R&R, and appoints The Rosen Law firm as class counsel for the purposes of settlement. -- Lastly, the court schedules a final settlement hearing for November 21, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4D South. The case is a securities class action against 3D Systems brought by a putative class of investors in the company's stock. The Plaintiffs filed the operative Amended Complaint on September 13, 2021. On December 19, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed with the court a copy of a proposed settlement agreement, along with a motion for entry of an order preliminarily approving settlement and establishing notice procedures. The court referred this motion to Magistrate Judge Taryn A. Merkl on December 22, 2022. Magistrate Judge Merkl issued the annexed R&R on June 5, 2023, recommending that the court: (1) grant the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary settlement approval; (2) enter the proposed order preliminarily approving the class action settlement; (3) direct the parties to issue notice as proposed; (4) appoint The Rosen Law Firm as class counsel for purposes of settlement; and (5) schedule a final settlement hearing for a specific date, time, and place. No party has objected to Judge Merkl's R&R and the time to do so has passed. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made false or misleading statements and material omissions in several of the company's public filings issued during the Class Period, which ultimately led to the fall of 3D Systems' stock price and investor losses. Specifically, the Plaintiffs point to quarterly reports filed with the SEC on May 6, 2020, August 5, 2020, and November 5, 2020, each attesting to the effectiveness of the company's internal control over financial reporting. 3D Systems subsequently issued press releases on February 23, 2021, and March 1, 2021, each indicating that the company's annual report for the 2020 fiscal year would be delayed on account of "certain internal control deficiencies." 3D Systems is a 3D printing and digital manufacturing company that "sold 3D printers, materials used for 3D printing, printer software, and on-demand printing services." A copy of the Court's order dated July 19, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YdLveP at no extra charge.[CC] ABB/CON-CISE OPTICAL: Court Tosses Bid to Strike Class Allegations ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICIA MACCHIAVELLO, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, v. ABB/CON-CISE OPTICAL GROUP LLC, Case No. 7:22-cv-08468-VB (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti entered an order denying the motion to dismiss or to strike Plaintiff's class allegations. -- By August 2, 2023, the Defendant shall file an answer to the complaint. -- By separate Order, the Court will schedule an initial conference. -- The Clerk is instructed to terminate the motion. The Defendant argues that the Court, in its discretion, should strike the Plaintiff's class allegations, as the Plaintiff cannot meet Rule 23's commonality and predominance requirements, and each claim raises numerous individualized inquiries that would otherwise defeat a class certification motion. The Court disagrees. The Court said, "The motion to strike is premature because it is based on grounds that are not "separate and apart from the issues that will be decided on a class certification motion." And the Defendant has not demonstrated "it would be impossible to certify the alleged class regardless of the facts the Plaintiffs may be able to obtain during discovery." The Plaintiff Patricia Macchiavello brings this putative class action against her former employer, the Defendant ABB/CON-CISE Optical Group LLC, alleging violations of New York Labor Law (NYLL) Section 191(1)(a), which requires that manual workers, like the Plaintiff, be paid their wages on a weekly basis. The Plaintiff worked as a shipping and receiving clerk at the Defendant's New York location from November 2021 to July 2022. The Defendant manufactures and distributes eye care products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 19, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47714ZP at no extra charge.[CC] ADCO PRODUCTS: Fails to Provide Proper Overtime, Clarke Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Antwaine Clarke, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Adco Products Inc, Case No. 2:23-cv-11648-SJM-KGA (E.D. Mich., July 12, 2023) seeks overtime pay, liquidated damages, and all other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant Adco Products Inc since approximately September 9, 2020 as a non-exempt, hourly employee. As a non-exempt employee, Plaintiff is entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked, calculated at a rate of 1.5 times his regular pay rate. Under the FLSA, remuneration in any form must be included in the regular rate calculation, unless it is established that certain payments must be excluded. Throughout his employment, Plaintiff has earned shift differential pay, in addition to his base rate of pay. Therefore, his total remuneration covers not only his base hourly pay but also any shift differentials. However, Adco Products failed to incorporate the shift differential pay and other non-discretionary remuneration into its hourly employees' regular hourly rate calculation, which is considered a prima facie violation of the FLSA, says the Plaintiff. Adco Products Inc. is a Delaware corporation with principal place of business located at 4401 Page Ave., Michigan Center, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and – Kevin J. Stoops SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com - and – Jonathan Melmed Laura Supanich MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 824-3828 E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com lms@melmedlaw.com ADP SCREENING: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 14, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PEDRO LUIS RAMOS, III, v. ADP SCREENING AND SELECTION SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00610-VAB (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Victor A. Bolden entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Initial disclosures due by: July 21, 2023 -- Amended pleadings due by: August 4, 2023 -- Damages analysis due by: November 3, 2023 -- Designation of expert witnesses for Feb. 2, 2024. any issues on which the parties bear the burden of proof due by: -- Depositions of expert witnesses March 8, 2024 for any issues on which the parties bear the burden of proof shall be completed by: -- Designation of expert witnesses for April 12, 2024 any issues on which the parties do not bear the burden of proof due by: -- Depositions of expert witnesses for May 17, 2024. any issues on which the parties do not bear the burden of proof shall be completed by: -- All discovery shall close by: May 17, 2024 -- If, after the close of discovery, May 24, 2024 the parties wish to meet with a Magistrate Judge to discuss settlement, the parties may jointly file such a request by: -- Any Class Certification motion shall June 14, 2024 be filed by: -- Any opposition to a motion for class July 19, 2024 certification shall be filed by: and -- Reply shall be filed by: August 9, 2024 -- Dispositive motions shall be due by: Oct. 4, 2024 -- Joint trial memorandum shall be due Nov. 1, 2024 by: -- Trial ready date: Dec. 9, 2024 ADP Screening provides background screening services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OBg1uP at no extra charge.[CC] AES GROUP: Bid for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Moynihan v. AES Group USA, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-11889 (D. Mass., Filed Nov. 09, 2022), the Hon. Judge William G. Young entered an order granting assented motion for extension of time to file response/reply as to motion to certify class. The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act. AES is a supplier of medical & industrial mechanical equipment & construction solutions.[CC] AHRC HEALTH: Onate Bid to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal Nixed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Onate v. AHRC Health Care, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-08292-LGS-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna G. Schofield entered an order denying without prejudice renewal request for approval to file certain documents under seal in connection with the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to file the Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification publicly with redactions where references are made to purportedly confidential information. AHRC is an organization serving people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in New York City. A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OCQRwQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason s. Giaimo, Esq. MCLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP 260 MADISON AVENUE New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 448–1100 Facsimile: (212) 448–0066 E-mail: jgiaimo@mclaughlinstern.com ALASKA AIRLINES: Filing for Bid to Certify Class Due Oct. 11, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRYSTAL KRUEGER, an individual on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. ALASKA AIRLINES, INC., an Alaska Corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-01777-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John C. Coughenour entered an order declining the parties request for a scheduling conference. Rather, the Court adopts the parties' proposal to defer setting cut-off dates for discovery and dispositive motions, along with a trial date, and establishes the following class certification deadlines: -- Motion to Certify Class: Oct. 11, 2024 -- Opposition to Motion to Certify Class: Nov. 11, 2024 -- Reply in Support of Motion to Nov. 22, 2024 Certify Class: -- Noted Date on Motion to Certify Class: Nov. 22, 2024 Alaska Airlines is a major American airline headquartered in SeaTac, Washington, within the Seattle metropolitan area. A copy of the Court's order dated July 19, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YhHBBB at no extra charge.[CC] ALDEYRA THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Sept. 29 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Holzer & Holzer, LLC informs investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Aldeyra Therapeutics, Inc. ("Aldeyra" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ALDX). The lawsuit alleges Aldeyra made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies, including: (i) the ADX-2191 new drug application ("NDA") did not include adequate and well-controlled investigations and thus failed to show substantial evidence of ADX-2191's effectiveness; (ii) as a result, the FDA was unlikely to approve the ADX-2191 NDA in its current form; and (iii) accordingly, the Company had overstated ADX-2191's clinical and/or commercial prospects. If you bought shares of Aldeyra between March 17, 2022 and June 20, 2023, and you suffered a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey Holzer, Esq. cholzer@holzerlaw.com or Joshua Karr, Esq. at jkarr@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's website at https://holzerlaw.com/case/aldeyra/ to learn more. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is September 29, 2023. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021 and 2022, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content.  CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] ALPHABET INC: Faces Copyright Lawsuit Over Stolen Data Used by AI ----------------------------------------------------------------- J.L., C.B., K.S., P.M., N.G., R.F., J.D. and G.R., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALPHABET INC., GOOGLE DEEPMIND, and GOOGLE LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-03440-LB (N. D. Cal., July 11, 2023) alleges claims against the Defendants for, among other things, negligence, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, copyright infringement, and for violations of the California Unfair Competition Law and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants illegally accessed restricted, subscription-based websites to take the content of millions without permission and infringed at least 200 million materials explicitly protected by copyright, including previously stolen property from websites known for pirated collections of books and other creative works. Without this mass theft of private and copyrighted information belonging to real people, communicated to unique communities for specific purposes, and targeting specific audiences, many of Google's AI products including Bard would not exist. The Defendants continue to feed their AI products stolen data through regular updates with new personal and protected information scraped from internet users without any consent, say the Plaintiffs. One of the Plaintiffs, J.L. accuses the Defendants for misappropriating his award-winning non-fiction book by taking and copying the book in full without her knowledge or consent to train "Bard" and the Company's other AI Products. The copyrighted work that Defendants misappropriated and otherwise infringed reflects over a decade of Plaintiff J.L.'s investigative journalism and work, including novel insights on a topic few have researched and written about in as much detail. As a result of Defendants' large scale theft of copyrighted materials, all of Plaintiff J.L.'s work and unique insights as reflected in the book are now available for "free" on Bard, says the suit. Headquartered in Mountain View, CA, Alphabet Inc. is a technology conglomerate holding company and one of the world’s largest technology companies by revenue. It is the parent company of Google LLC, which operates the divisions known as Google AI and Google DeepMind that are dedicated to artificial intelligence and the development of the AI products such as Bard. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Yana Hart, Esq. Tiara Avaness, Esq. Valter Malkhasyan, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com tavaness@clarksonlawfirm.com vmalkhasyan@clarksonlawfirm.com - and - Tracey Cowan, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 95 3rd St., 2nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 E-mail: tcowan@clarksonlawfirm.com - and - Timothy K. Giordano, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 590 Madison Ave., 21st Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 E-mail: tgiordano@clarksonlawfirm.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Consolidated Anti-trust Suit in NY Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- American Airlines Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2023, that on December 5, 2022, and December 7, 2022, two private party plaintiffs filed putative class action antitrust complaints against American and JetBlue in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging that American and JetBlue violated U.S. antitrust law in connection with the previously disclosed NEA. These actions were consolidated on January 10, 2023. The private party plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on February 3, 2023. On February 2, 2023, and February 15, 2023, private party plaintiffs filed two additional putative class action antitrust complaints against American and JetBlue in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, respectively. On May 12, 2023, and May 24, 2023, respectively, the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York was consolidated with the other actions, and the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On June 23, 2023, the private party plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint. American Airlines Group Inc. is an airline holding company based in Texas. ANTHEM CO: Joint Bid on Continued Sealing Denied w/o Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Learing v. Anthem Companies, Inc., Case No. 0:21-cv-02283 (D. Minn., Filed Oct. 14, 2021), the Hon. Judge Jerry W. Blackwell entered an order denying without prejudice the parties' joint motion regarding continued sealing. The Court said, "The justification offered for sealing, that the documents are identified as confidential pursuant to a protective order, is insufficient for continued sealing." The Court directs the parties to refile their joint motion for continued sealing within days after the District Judge issues orders on the underlying motion for summary judgment and motion to certify class. The motion for continued sealing shall provide a reasoned justification for sealing and shall address the extent to which the District Judge cited or relied upon information contained in the documents at issue in ruling on the motion for summary judgment and motion to certify class. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act involving denial of overtime compensation. Anthem is a health benefits company.[CC] ANTHONY GREGOR: Filing for Class Status Bid Due May 17, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY GREGOR, et al., v. ANTHONY GREGOR, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-03999-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered a scheduling order as -- Any motion to amend the pleadings or to July 31, 2023 join additional parties shall be filed by: -- Any motion for class certification shall be May 17, 2024 filed by: -- All discovery shall be completed by: May 17, 2024 -- Any proposed protective order or July 23, 2023 clawback agreement shall be filed with the Court by: -- Primary expert reports Jan 31, 2024 (party with the burden) must be produced by: -- Rebuttal expert reports must be Feb. 29, 2024 produced by: -- Document production shall be Jan. 29, 2024 completed by: -- Expert depositions shall be May 17, 2024 completed by: A copy of the Court's order dated July 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qb2wto at no extra charge.[CC] ARAMARK SERVICES: $460K Deal in Billups-Larkin Suit Has Prelim. OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chief District Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants preliminary approval to the $460,000 class action settlement in the lawsuit titled TIARA BILLUPS-LARKIN, Plaintiff v. ARAMARK SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-06852-RS (N.D. Cal.). In 2021, the Plaintiff filed this putative wage and hour class action against Defendant Aramark Services, Inc., in state court (Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda) alleging violations of California law. She raises a number of wage and hour claims, including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, and failure to reimburse business expenses. Several of the allegations stemmed from work conditions appearing to have arisen due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Defendant, thereafter, removed, and the parties proceeded with informal discovery and engaged in private mediation. The parties have arrived at a settlement agreement, under which Aramark will pay a gross amount of $460,000 to resolve these claims. From this gross amount, the Plaintiff proposes to deduct up to $161,000 for attorney fees, up to $15,000 in costs, a $15,000 service award, and $25,000 in settlement administration costs. In addition, $20,000 has been designated as the "PAGA Net Settlement Amount," and, pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code Section 2699(i), 75% will be paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA"). This leaves $229,000 for the Class, which is to be divided proportionally among the roughly 745 members based on their respective number of workweeks and pay periods worked. The Plaintiff estimates that Class members will receive, on average, about $308 each. In exchange, the Class members will release all claims that were raised in this action or that could have been raised along "the same alleged facts, legal theories or statutory violations." The Plaintiff now moves for preliminary certification of a Settlement Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). Upon review of the Plaintiff's motion, Judge Seeborg finds that the proposed Settlement Class meets the criteria for certification under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, the proposed Settlement Agreement appears fair, adequate, and reasonable. Looking first to the Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) requirements, all are met here, Judge Seeborg holds. The proposed settlement further satisfies Rule 23(e). The Settlement Agreement further presents no obvious deficiencies, Judge Seeborg says. The Plaintiff proposes ceilings of $161,000 and $15,000 for attorney fees and costs, respectively. Finally, the PAGA payment, while small, is also reasonable, Judge Seeborg says. Thus, the proposed PAGA payment is reasonable and fair, and LWDA will have an opportunity to address its concerns with the payment, if any, in advance of final approval. Judge Seeborg concludes that the Plaintiff has demonstrated that the proposed Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, and that the Settlement Class may be certified under Rule 23. As such, the motion is granted. The following Settlement Class is certified: All current and former non-exempt employees who worked for Defendants for the Corrections line of business at any time between Dec. 19, 2016, and Dec. 15, 2022, in the State of California. Plaintiff Tiara Billups-Larkin is preliminarily appointed as the Class representative for the purposes of settlement; and Jonathan M. Lebe and Zachary Gershman of Lebe Law, APLC, are preliminarily appointed as Class Counsel for the same. The Settlement Agreement as submitted by the Plaintiff is preliminarily approved, Judge Seeborg holds. Phoenix Settlement Administrators is appointed as the Settlement Administrator. Judge Seeborg also holds that the proposed Class Notice and the notice procedures outlined by the parties are approved, and notice will be disseminated to the Settlement Class members pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Settlement Class members will have forty-five days after the date on which the Settlement Administrator mails the Class Notice to opt-out, submit a dispute, or object to the Settlement, as described in the Settlement Agreement and the Class Notice. A final hearing is scheduled for Thursday, Dec. 7, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. As soon as practicable, the parties will file on the public docket a final implementation schedule reflecting the correct dates for each of these events as well as a briefing schedule for (1) the motion for final approval and (2) any motion for attorney fees and costs. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 17, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4cbdc5m3 from Leagle.com. BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Kelley Suit Over Shareholders' Losses ----------------------------------------------------------------- Grover J. Kelley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Baxter International, Inc., Joseph E. Almeida, James K. Saccaro, and James W. Borzi, Case No. 1:23-cv-04497 (N.D. Ill., July 12, 2023) seeks compensation and damages over the Defendants’ violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant Baxter International, Inc. of deceiving its investors, including him, about the company's true financial health and earnings, resulting in significant shareholder losses. Baxter is a Delaware healthcare corporation primarily focusing on products designed to treat kidney disease and other chronic and acute medical conditions. Its principal executive offices are located at One Baxter Parkway, Deerfield, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas R. Lange, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1111 Summer Street, Suite 403 Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: (203) 992-4523 E-mail: nlange@zlk.com - and – Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 55 Broadway, 4th Floor New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com BP EXPLORATION: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Alizadeh BELO Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lance M. Africk of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit captioned HAMID ALIZADEH v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL. SECTION I, Case No. 22-3159 (E.D. La.). Defendants BP Exploration & Production, Inc., and BP America Production Company (collectively, "BP") filed the motion. Plaintiff Hamid Alizadeh has not filed a response to the motion and the deadline for doing so has passed. The lawsuit is a case arising from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. On Jan. 11, 2013, U.S. District Judge Carl J. Barbier approved the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement ("MSA"), which includes a Back-End Litigation Option ("BELO") allowing certain class members who follow procedures outlined in the MSA to sue BP for later-manifested physical conditions. Individuals, who worked as clean-up workers in response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill are members of the class covered by the MSA. Pursuant to the MSA, a later-manifested physical condition is a physical condition diagnosed after April 16, 2012, which is claimed to have resulted from exposure to oil or other hazardous substances used in connection with the response activities. Mr. Alizadeh alleges that he suffers from chronic health conditions, including B-cell lymphoma, caused by exposure to oil and dispersants while working in the response to the oil spill from April to October 2010. According to the complaint, during this time, he worked as a clean-up worker approximately 80 hours per week in Lafitte, Grand Isle, and throughout the Barataria Basin of the Gulf of Mexico. He alleges he was directly in contact with oil, dispersants, and other harmful substances. On June 8, 2017, he was diagnosed with B-cell lymphoma. BP does not dispute that Alizadeh was a clean-up worker after the oil spill or that he is a member of the class covered by the MSA. BP does dispute the fact of his alleged B-cell lymphoma diagnosis, as permitted under Section VIII(G)(3)(a)(i) of the MSA. BP moves for summary judgment on the theory that Alizadeh cannot prove legal causation. Specifically, BP argues that he cannot meet his burden of proving through expert testimony that his health conditions were caused by exposure to oil and dispersants during the spill response. Although plaintiffs in BELO lawsuits need not prove BP's fault, they must prove causation, Judge Africk notes, citing In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mex., on April 20, 2010, MDL No. 10-2179, Rec. Doc. 13733 (E.D. La. Nov. 26, 2014) (Barbier, J.), et al. To date, Alizadeh has not indicated that he has retained an expert, who will testify on his behalf at trial. He also has not disclosed to BP any expert reports in compliance with the Court's May 31, 2023 deadline. The only evidence before the Court with respect to his medical condition is a 2017 medical report from Nia Terezakis, M.D., at Skin Diagnostics Group, PC, diagnosing Alizadeh with "Bcell lymphoma, consistent with follicle center cell type." As BP points out, this report does not discuss causation at all, so it does not create a genuine dispute about whether Alizadeh's B-cell lymphoma was caused by exposure to toxic substances during the spill response. Applying the Fifth Circuit's standard, Judge Africk finds that Alizadeh has failed to present a genuine issue of material fact or present any evidence that would support the allegation that his injuries were caused by exposure to oil and dispersants while he worked in response to the spill. For these reasons, Judge Africk holds that the motion for summary judgment is granted and Alizadeh's claims are dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Order & Reasons dated July 17, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5ctw87e6 from Leagle.com. C3 AI INC: Faces Reckstin Family Trust Suit in California Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Baker Hughes Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 19, 2023, that on or around February 15, 2023, the lead plaintiff and three additional named plaintiffs in a putative securities class action styled "The Reckstin Family Trust, et al., v. C3.ai, Inc., et al.," No. 4:22-cv-01413-HSG, filed an amended class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Baker Hughes and C3 formed a partnership, BHC3. It names certain of C3 AI's current and/or former officers and directors, certain underwriters for the C3 AI initial public offering and the company, and its President and CEO (who formerly served as a director on the board of C3 AI). It alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the IPO and the subsequent period between December 9, 2020, and December 2, 2021, during which BHH LLC held equity investments in C3 AI. The action seeks unspecified damages and the award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees. Baker Hughes Company is an energy technology company based in Texas. CAPPAERT MANUFACTURED: Becks Alleges Mass Layoff Without Notice --------------------------------------------------------------- ERIKA BECKS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CAPPAERT MANUFACTURED HOUSING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-CV-442-HTW-LGI (S.D. Miss., July 11, 2023), arises out of the Defendant's alleged violation of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. In early November 2022, Cappaert employed approximately 200 people at its facility in Vicksburg, MI. However, on or about November 25, 2022, Plaintiff Becks and approximately 75 other employees were informed that their employment was terminated effective immediately. Moreover, Plaintiff, and all other employees who suffered an employment loss as a result of the mass layoff were not provided with 60-day advance notice as required by the WARN Act, says the suit. Cappaert is manufacturing company that produces manufactured homes. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William "Jack" Simpson, Esq. LANGSTON & LOTT, PLLC. 100 South Main Street Post Office Box 382 Booneville, MS 38829-0382 Telephone: (662) 728-9733 Facsimile: (662) 728-1992 E-mail: jsimpson@langstonlott.com CARGILL MEAT: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Sept. 15 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER VILLA and SUSAN DAVIDSON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, Case No. 3:22-cv-01321-RDM (M.D. Pa.), the Parties file a joint motion for extension of the class certification motion deadlines as follows: -- The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their class certification motion and supporting brief would be extended from July 31, 2023, to September 15, 2023; -- The deadline for the Defendants opposition would be extended from August 31, 2023, to October 13, 2023; and -- The deadline for the Plaintiffs reply would be extended from September 15, 2023, to October 27, 2023. Cargill Meat provides safe protein products and food ingredients. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 18, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qhOFBt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 The Defendant is represented by: Elizabeth A. Malloy, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 1650 Market Street, Suite 2800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 665-4792 COMES INVESTMENTS: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Lopez Says --------------------------------------------------------- Michele Lopez, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Comes Investments, Inc.; Joseph Comes; Jill Comes; Eric Broeker; Doe Corporation 1-10; John Doe 1-10, Case No. 4:23-cv-00236-SHLSBJ (S.D. Iowa, July 13, 2023) alleges the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Minnesota wage and hour laws. The Plaintiff worked as a delivery driver for the Defendants' Pizza Hut store located at 201 E College Dr., Suite D, Marshall, MN 56258 from approximately 2020 until 2021. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants failed to adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their delivery-related expenses, thereby failing to pay them the legally mandated minimum wages for all hours worked. Comes Investment, Inc. owns and operates Pizza Hut stores in Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Its principal place of business is at 2045 Grand Avenue, West Des Moines, IA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Newkirk, Esq. NEWKIRK ZWAGERMAN LAW FIRM 521 E. Locust Street, Suite 300 Des Moines, IA 50309 Telephone: (515) 883-2000 E-mail: tnewkirk@newkirklaw.com - and – Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 8044 Montgomery Rd., Suite 515 Cincinnati, OH 45236 Telephone: (513) 202-0710 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com CPA GLOBAL: Court Modifies Class Certification Deadlines -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRAINCHILD SURGICAL DEVICES, LLC, a New York limited liability company, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. CPA GLOBAL LIMITED a foreign entity formed under the laws of the Island of Jersey, Channel Islands, Case No. 1:21-cv-00554-RDA-LRV (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Lindsey R. Vaala entered an order modifying class certification deadlines set in the Court's June 23, 2023 Order as follows: Current Date New Date CPA Global to produce documents July 14, 2023 July 19, 2023 for Yves Sibre The Plaintiff's Supplemental/ July 17, 2023 July 24, 2023 Rebuttal Expert Reports Due The Defendants' Supplemental Aug. 2, 2023 Aug. 21, 2023 Responsive Expert Reports Due Last Day to Complete Expert Aug. 8, 2023 Aug. 31, 2023 Witness Depositions It is furthered ordered that the final pretrial conference currently scheduled for August 17, 2023, is cancelled and will be rescheduled by the District Judge following the resolution of the Plaintiff's forthcoming class certification motion. By Aug. 7, 2023, the parties shall submit a proposed briefing schedule for the Plaintiff's class certification motion and any summary judgment motions. CPA Global provides intellectual property and legal support services. A copy of the Court's order the Plaintiff's motion dated July 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44LokuE at no extra charge.[CC] CROSS RIVER: Greenfield's Bid to Dismiss Counterclaim OK'd in Part ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's motion to dismiss counterclaim in the lawsuit styled JULIA GREENFIELD, Plaintiff v. CROSS RIVER BANK, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-09296-MMC (N.D. Cal.). Before the Court is Plaintiff Julia Greenfield's Motion, filed March 20, 2023, "to Dismiss Defendant Cross River Bank's Counterclaim and Dismiss or Strike Its Second Answer." Defendant Cross River Bank ("CRB") has filed opposition, to which Greenfield has replied. In the Second Amended Class Action Complaint ("SAC"), Greenfield asserts against CRB a single claim, namely, a claim that CRB violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA") by denying an application submitted by Greenfield for a loan under the Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP"), without providing an "adverse action notice" that was specific enough to accurately notify her of the true reason for the denial. In response to the operative complaint, CRB filed an Answer, which includes sixteen affirmative defenses, and three Counter-claims. Each of the counterclaims, titled, respectively, "Fraud," "Unfair Competition in Violation of CA Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq," and "Negligent Misrepresentation," is based on an allegation that Greenfield submitted two "fraudulent" PPP loan applications to CRB. In support of its Counter-Claims, CRB alleges that, under the PPP, self-employed individuals were eligible to apply for PPP loans, which loan amount depended on the 'net profit amount' disclosed on the applicant's 2019 IRS Form 1040 Schedule C; if the net profit amount was over $100,000, however, it was to be reduced in calculating the loan size to $100,000. CRB alleges that Greenfield applied for a PPP loan in August 2020, stating on her application, and in an attached Schedule C, that her business's net income in 2019 was $99,000. CRB approved that application, which, unbeknownst to CRB, allegedly contained a "false" net profit figure. Thereafter, CRB alleges, Greenfield applied for a second PPP loan, again stating on her application, and attaching the same Schedule C, that her business's net income in 2019 was $99,000. CRB denied the second application, after conducting an investigation that allegedly "detected the fraud." Thereafter, Greenfield applied for and obtained forgiveness of the first loan, after which the Small Business Administration ("SBA"), the federal agency that oversaw the PPP, repaid CRB the amount it had loaned to Greenfield. There is no dispute that CRB's claims require a showing that Greenfield made a materially false statement of fact. The parties disagree, however, as to whether CRB has alleged sufficient facts to support a finding that Greenfield's statement as to her business's 2019 net income was materially false. The Court agrees with Greenfield that the requisite showing has not been made. Although, ordinarily, the Court would afford leave to amend, the Court finds such leave would be futile in the instant case, given CRB's acknowledgment that it does not know what Greenfield's 2019 net profit was. Accordingly, CRB's Counter-Claims will be dismissed, and on the current record, such dismissal will be without leave to amend. Ms. Greenfield also seeks an order dismissing or striking portions of the Answer. Ms. Greenfield interprets Paragraph 17 of the Answer as a denial of part of the second sentence in Paragraph 17 of the SAC, namely, her allegation that CRB "approved SBA forgiveness," and, citing 15 U.S.C. Section 636m, argues such purported "denial" should be disregarded, on the ground that the SBA would only have paid CRB the amount to be forgiven if CRB had approved Greenfield's request. In response, CRB does not appear to disagree with Greenfield's interpretation of the above-quoted answer, but argues the statements therein "bear on the facts of this matter" and thus, the motion to strike should be denied at this point. The Court agrees. Accordingly, the "denial" contained in Paragraph 17 of the Answer will not be stricken. In the Prayer, CRB seeks to recover its attorney's fees pursuant to all applicable laws. Greenfield argues fees are not available under the applicable law, and, consequently, the request for fees should be stricken or dismissed. The sole law under which Greenfield seeks relief is the ECOA. Said Act, however, only authorizes an award of attorney's fees to a prevailing plaintiff, not to a prevailing defendant, Judge Chesney opines. Accordingly, the Defendant's prayer for attorney's fees will be stricken. Ms. Greenfield argues that nine of the sixteen affirmative defenses are based on the asserted fraud allegations in the Counter-Claims, specifically, the First ("Unclean Hands"), Second ("Fraud"), Third ("Pari Delicto"), Fifth ("Legitimate Reason"), Sixth ("Fault of Others"), Twelfth ("Estoppel"), Thirteenth ("Equitable Estoppel"), Fifteenth ("Unjust Enrichment"), and Sixteenth ("Plaintiff's Intentional Acts"), and that said affirmative defenses should be stricken for the same reasons the Counter-Claims are subject to dismissal. In its opposition, CRB states no disagreement with Greenfield's interpretation of the basis for the above-referenced affirmative defenses; rather, CRB argues that its Counter-Claims are sufficiently alleged, and, consequently, that the subject affirmative defenses are as well. As set forth here, however, Judge Chesney says the Counter-Claims are, on the current record, subject to dismissal without leave to amend, and, accordingly, the First, Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Twelfth, Thirteenth, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth Affirmative Defenses will be stricken. Ms. Greenfield argues that two affirmative defenses, specifically, the Tenth ("15 U.S.C. Section 1691e(e)") and the Fourteenth ("Failure of Conditions"), are not adequately pleaded, in in that, according to Greenfield, CRB has not alleged any facts in support of those two affirmative defenses, thereby, failing to provide Greenfield with fair notice as to the basis of such defenses. In its opposition, CRB asserts the basis for the two affirmative defenses is "the fraud allegations" set forth in the Counter-Claims. As discussed, however, the fraud allegations are subject to dismissal. Accordingly, Judge Chesney holds, the Tenth and Fourteenth Affirmative Defenses will be stricken. Ms. Greenfield also argues that four of the remaining affirmative defenses are not affirmative in nature, specifically, the Fourth ("No Adverse Action"), the Seventh ("No Standing"), the Eighth ("No Punitive Damages"), and the Ninth ("Compliance With Applicable Laws"), and, consequently, should be stricken. Here, Judge Chesney notes, Greenfield has the burden to prove that an adverse action was taken against her, that, if CRB violated the ECOA, it acted maliciously, wantonly, oppressively or with reckless disregard for the law, thus, entitling her to an award of punitive damages, and that CRB failed to provide her with an ECOA-compliant notice of its adverse action. Accordingly, the Fourth, Eighth, and Ninth Affirmative Defenses will be stricken. With regard to the Seventh Affirmative Defense, however, by which CRB asserts Greenfield lacks standing, the Court notes that the instant action was removed and, consequently, CRB, not Greenfield, bears the burden of proving she has standing. Accordingly, the Seventh Affirmative Defense will not be stricken. For the reasons stated here, Judge Chesney holds that Greenfield's motion is granted in part and denied in part, as follows: 1. To the extent the motion seeks dismissal of the Counter-Claims, the motion is granted, and the Counter-Claims are dismissed; 2. To the extent the motion seeks an order striking the "denial" in Paragraph 17 of the Answer, the motion is denied; 3. To the extent the motion seeks an order dismissing or striking the prayer for attorney's fees set forth in the Answer, the motion is granted; 4. To the extent the motion seeks an order striking the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Twelfth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth Affirmative Defenses, the motion is granted; and 5. To the extent the motion seeks an order striking the Seventh Affirmative Defense, the motion is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 17, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyhmrb4s from Leagle.com. DESERT FIRE: Certain Attorneys' Fees & Costs in Laube Suit Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, MEGAN LAUBE, et al., Plaintiffs v. DESERT FIRE LLC, et al., Defendants, Civ. No. 6:22-cv-00378-AA (D. Or.), Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Eugene Division, grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees. The motion is granted for Plaintiffs Megan Laube and Kenza Minkler for all fees and costs incurred prior to Aug. 12, 2022. Plaintiffs Megan Laube and Kenza Minkler filed the action on March 9, 2022, later joined by others, alleging violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Laube and Minkler accepted offers of judgment from the Defendants and now seek an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The Plaintiffs worked as dancers at Silver Dollar Club in Eugene, Oregon. They asserted four causes of action against the Defendants Desert Fire LLC, dba Silver Dollar Club, and the club's owner, Damon Shrader. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants misclassified them as "independent contractors" and unlawfully charged them fees to work and forced them to tip other employees to subsidize regular payroll. After discovery and depositions, on June 23, 2022, the Defendants offered judgment to Minkler in the amount of $11,000 plus reasonable attorney's fees and costs. On Aug. 12, 2022, they offered judgment to Laube in the amount of $35,000 plus reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Both Minkler and Laube represent that the offered amounts exceeded both of their damages models. They accepted their respective offers. Both offers state, in relevant part, that the offer was made individually to Minkler or Laube, respectively, and "exclusive of reasonable costs and fees incurred by Plaintiff on or before the date of this Offer," and that "the entitlement to and amount of potentially recoverable reasonable costs and fees incurred on or prior to the date this offer was made, if any, will be determined by the Court upon application by Plaintiff." By letter, the parties represented to the Court that all Plaintiffs had accepted offers of judgment or had otherwise been dismissed from the case and that there were no purported class members who would be opting-in to the action. On March 8, 2023, consistent with the Plaintiffs' acceptance of the Defendants' offers, or by stipulated dismissal, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, and closed the case, notwithstanding resolution of reasonable attorney fees, if any. Now, Plaintiffs Laube and Minkler state that they are entitled to reasonable attorney's fees in the amount of $45,984.80 and costs of $7,258.50. This is $43,260 from Carpenter Zuckerman and $2,724 from S. Amanda Marshall, LLC. Additionally, they are seeking $7,258.50 in costs for the filing fee ($402) service of process fees ($220), PHV application fees ($600), and deposition related costs and fees ($6,036.50). The Defendants respond that in filing a motion for fees incurred for Plaintiffs Laub and Minkler, the Plaintiffs' lawyers request attorney's fees incurred through February 2023 -- six months after Aug. 12, 2022, the later date of the two accepted offers. Based on the plain text of the offers of judgment, they assert that Plaintiffs Laube and Minkler cannot recover for those fees incurred after the offers of judgment were made, and certainly not, by this motion, for other Plaintiffs following Laube and Minkler's acceptance of their offers. The Defendants also point out several billing entries, claiming that those entries are redundant, repetitive, or excessive, and therefore, not reasonable. Judge Aiken opines that Plaintiffs Laube and Minkler accepted offers of judgment plainly and expressly limited fees to those accrued before the date of the offer. Despite the Plaintiffs' arguments to the contrary, there was no ambiguity in the language of the offers of judgment and there is no other cause to deviate from the plain terms of the parties' agreements. Accordingly, Judge Aiken excludes all hours accrued after Aug. 12, 2022, from the attorney fee calculation, which includes hours claimed for the further litigation of these attorney fee motions. Because she has already determined that Plaintiffs Laube and Minkler are not entitled to recover fees incurred after Aug. 12, 2022, Judge Aiken does not address the Defendants' objections to billing entries incurred after that date. She has reviewed the record, the Defendants' objections, the Plaintiffs explanations and clarifications in their Reply brief, and considered the 12 factors identified in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983), particularly the customary fee; the amount involved and the results obtained; the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; and awards in similar cases. Accordingly, she finds that the Plaintiff has provided enough evidence form which she can make a fair evaluation of the reasonableness of the time expended and the nature and need for the service. For those reasons, Judge Aiken grants in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs for Plaintiffs Megan Laube and Kenza Minkler for all fees and costs incurred prior to Aug. 12, 2022, and otherwise denies in accordance with her Opinion and Order. A full-text copy of the Court's July 5, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2z7cenb7 from Leagle.com. EQONEX LTD: Rosen Law Named as Lead Counsel in Zhao Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Gregory H. Woods of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York appoints lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the lawsuit styled LOUIS ZHAO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EQONEX LIMITED, BINANCE GROUP, BIFINITY UAB, JONATHAN FARNELL, DANIEL LING, ALMIRA CEMMELL, YU HELEN HAI, AND ZHAO CHANGPENG, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-03346-GHW (S.D.N.Y.). The securities class action has been filed against Defendants Eqonex Limited, Binance Group, Bifinity UAB, Jonathan Farnell, Daniel Ling, Almira Cemmell, Yu Helen Hai, and Zhao Changpeng alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), on April 21, 2023, a notice was issued to potential class members of the action informing them of their right to move to serve as lead plaintiff within 60 days of the date of the issuance of said notice. On June 20, 2023, Plaintiff Bin Li ("Movant") moved the Court to appoint him as Lead Plaintiff and to approve his selection of The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., as Lead Counsel. The Court finds that the Movant has the largest financial interest in this action and prima facie satisfies the typicality and adequacy requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Pursuant to Section 27 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21D(a)(3)(B) of the Exchange Act, Judge Woods appoints the Movant as Lead Plaintiff for the class as he has the largest financial interest in this litigation and otherwise satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The Movant's choice of counsel is approved and accordingly, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., is appointed as Lead Counsel. The Lead Counsel, after being appointed by the Court, will manage the prosecution of this litigation. Lead Counsel is to avoid duplicative or unproductive activities and is vested by the Court with the responsibilities that include the following: (1) to prepare all pleadings; (2) to direct and coordinate the briefing and arguing of motions in accordance with the schedules set by the orders and rules of this Court; (3) to initiate and direct discovery; (4) prepare the case for trial; and (5) to engage in settlement negotiations on behalf of Lead Plaintiff and the Class. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 19. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 17, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/muzuyw9v from Leagle.com. ESSILORLUXOTTICA: Faces Class Action Over Eyewear Price-Fixing -------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims eyewear industry kingpin EssilorLuxottica and 48 other subsidiaries, manufacturers, retailers and fashion houses have conspired to artificially inflate the price of eyewear products by as much as 1000 percent. The 38-page antitrust lawsuit says EssilorLuxottica -- an Italian-French corporation and the world's largest conglomerate in the eyewear industry -- is the "instigator and primary enforcer" of a price-fixing conspiracy in the American eyewear market. Also in on the alleged scheme are many of the country's most popular eyewear brands, including co-defendants Costa Del Mar, Oakley, Bulgari, Chanel, Dolce & Gabbana, Versace, Giorgio Armani, Michael Kors, Prada, Ralph Lauren, Tiffany & Co. and Christian Dior. In violation of federal and state law, EssilorLuxottica and its host of co-defendants -- who together control a supermajority of the leading eyewear brands in the U.S. and more than 80 percent of the prescription eyeglasses and sunglasses markets -- have entered into illegal, anticompetitive agreements to "exercise strategic control over the price and supply of eyewear" in the American consumer market, the suit alleges. "The eyewear over which EssilorLuxottica exercises price-fixing ability is not worth the price consumers pay," the filing reads. "Some have estimated that the mark-up on consumer eyewear runs as high as 1000 percent." To manipulate and inflate product prices to supra-competitive levels, EssilorLuxottica relies on exclusive, multi-year licensing agreements with prominent fashion houses and sales agreements with competing manufacturers, owners or license-holders in the eyewear market, the case contends. As the complaint tells it, the conglomerate's licensing agreements with leading fashion houses "in effect give EssilorLuxottica price-setting authority for the eyewear of each of these popular brands." The terms of its multi-year sales agreements with competitors similarly defer pricing decisions for sales through retail outlets to EssilorLuxottica, the filing relays. Additionally, the eyewear behemoth controls the prices of several of its own brands -- such as Ray-Ban, Oakley and Costa Del Mar -- and imposes restrictions on third-party retailers to prevent them from marketing these proprietary brands at a discounted rate, the lawsuit explains. "The discount restrictions ensure that no matter the retailer, whether beholden to EssilorLuxottica directly or by contract, the artificial price inflation remains," the suit says. Through its vision benefits subsidiary and co-defendant EyeMed, EssilorLuxottica has also entered into anticompetitive agreements with thousands of eyecare providers in the U.S. to deceptively "channel" millions of patients into buying the conglomerate's "over-priced eyewear," the case claims. According to the complaint, EyeMed "mandates and financially incentivizes" its providers to sell EssilorLuxottica eyewear to consumers. In addition, EyeMed's webpages only market eyewear retail outlets owned by the corporation, such as LensCrafters, Target Optical and Glasses.com, the filing states. The lawsuit stresses that, at the end of the day, EssilorLuxottica is believed to exercise control over "more than 80 percent of American optometrists." "EssilorLuxottica's anticompetitive and unfair acts and omissions lead American eyewear consumers to believe that they have a choice of fairly priced eyewear among over two dozen of the most well-known (and ostensibly competitive) brands. But the American consumer eyewear market is fixed. EssilorLuxottica and the Defendants described above engage in price-fixing schemes for their collective financial gain, deceiving consumers into purchasing eyewear products at supra-competitive prices from EssilorLuxottica's Retail Outlets and Third-Party Sellers. As LensCrafters' founder E. Dean Butler said of EssilorLuxottica: 'If that's not a monopoly, I don't know what is.'" The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who has purchased any non-contact-lens eyewear product of a brand owned or licensed by EssilorLuxottica, or for which EssilorLuxottica has a sales agreement, including any of the defendants' brands. [GN] FIRST ADVANTAGE: Court Tosses Wilson Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRYSTON WILSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others, v. FIRST ADVANTAGE BACKGROUND SERVICES CORP., Case No. 5:21-cv-06071-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of: "All individuals who were the subject of one or more Consumer Reports that included language indicating that there was a "Conviction Found" when that consumer did not have a criminal conviction from May 3, 2019, through the conclusion of this matter." The Plaintiff's proposed class also fails to avoid individual issues predominating because the class is not limited by a common procedure. Instead, the proposed class includes class members whose reports were created and scored using different methods. The case arises from purported violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act 15 U.S.C. sections 1681 et seq. the Defendant has a contractual relationship with Walmart. The relationship is governed by a Statement of Work document. The SOW provides that the Defendant shall prepare background reports for Walmart, use Walmart's Eligibility Matrix to score the criminal record information in a report and to score the report, and send notices for Walmart. The Plaintiff asserts just one cause of action against the Defendant: Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. sections 1681 et seq. First Advantage provides background checks and screening services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 18, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rWaXJs at no extra charge.[CC] FIRST CHOICE: Faces Molina Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mario Molina, Luis Alonso Aldana, and Walter Alexander Ulloa, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FIRST CHOICE PL, INC., VERONICA AZULAI, and RON MAIMON AZULAI, Case No. 1:23-cv-05349 (E.D.N.Y., July 13, 2023) seeks equitable and legal relief for the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as machine operator, driver, and plumber respectively. The Defendants allegedly failed to pay its employees the standard overtime rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. First Choice PL, Inc. is a domestic corporation offering residential and commercial plumbing and heating services to its clients. It is headquartered at 199-04 Romeo Court, Hollis, NY. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicole Grunfeld, Esq. KATZ MELINGER PLLC 370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 460-0047 E-mail: ndgrunfeld@katzmelinger.com FORDHAM UNIVERSITY: Conley Sues Over COVID-19 Tuition Fee Refunds ----------------------------------------------------------------- COOPER CONLEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORDHAM UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-05962-VM (S.D.N.Y., July 11, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's breach of contract. This is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who paid tuition and/or fees to attend Fordham University for in-person and on-campus services, instruction, and access for the semesters or terms affected by Coronavirus Disease 2019, including the Spring 2020 semester, and had their course work moved to online only learning and failed to receive the services for which they paid for. Allegedly, Fordham has breached its agreement with its students like Plaintiff by (1) failing to provide students with on-campus, in-person services like access to campus, its labs, its libraries, its technologies, classroom instruction, and all the other specific campus-based services, and (2) retaining the full amount of tuition and fees paid by students. Accordingly, the Fordham's practice of failing to provide reimbursements for tuition and Mandatory Fees despite the materially different product that it provided, and the reduced benefits associated with the fees violates generally accepted principles of business conduct, says the suit. Founded in 1841, Fordham University is a private university in New York, New York that offers numerous major fields for undergraduate students, as well as numerous graduate programs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Alesandro, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com GALVESTON COUNTY, TX: Dismissal of Booth Suit as Moot Recommended ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, AARON BOOTH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GALVESTON COUNTY, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-00104 (S.D. Tex.), Magistrate Judge Andrew M. Edison of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division, recommends that the motions to dismiss filed by the Galveston County Magistrate Judges, the Galveston County District Court Judges, the Criminal District Attorney for Galveston County, and Galveston County be granted and the case dismissed as moot. Plaintiff Booth brings this putative class action to challenge the bail procedures in Galveston County. This Court previously denied motions to dismiss by each of these Defendants. Subsequently, it certified a class consisting of "all people who are or will be detained in Galveston County jail on felony and state-jail felony charges because they are unable to pay secured bail set at magistration," and issued a preliminary injunction. Both the class certification order and the preliminary injunction were appealed to the Fifth Circuit. While those appeals were pending, some significant events occurred, including the passage of Texas Senate Bill 6 addressing bail reform and the Fifth Circuit's en banc opinion in Daves v. Dallas County, 22 F.4th 522 (5th Cir. 2022) (en banc). The three-judge panel handling the class certification appeal decided that the jurisdictional questions raised by Daves and the mootness and potential alteration of the description of the class raised by the Senate Bill impact this appeal. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit vacated without prejudice the class certification order and remanded the case back to this Court for consideration of the jurisdictional questions (including mootness) in the first instance and then, if jurisdiction remains, determination in the first instance of whether an appropriate class remains for certification. Following remand, Judge Edison gave Booth an opportunity to amend his complaint. The Second Amended Complaint is now the operative pleading. The Defendants each moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, and Judge Edison heard oral arguments on Feb. 27, 2023. Following the hearing on the Defendants' motions, Judge Edison received supplemental briefing from the parties. On March 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit issued a second en banc decision in Daves ("Daves II"), a case in which a number of plaintiffs challenged Dallas County's bail procedures. It held in Daves II that plaintiffs' claims became moot as a result of the passage of Senate Bill 6 ("S.B. 6"), legislation that went into effect in September 2021, imposing uniform minimum procedural requirements on bail practices throughout the Lone Star State. In Daves II, the Fifth Circuit also addressed the abstention doctrine, holding that Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and its progeny "require federal courts to abstain from revising state bail bond procedures on behalf of those being criminally prosecuted, when state procedures allow the accused adequate opportunities to raise their federal claims." In light of Daves II, Judge Edison asked the parties to provide full briefing on how the Fifth Circuit's discussion of mootness and abstention impacts this case. The parties provided robust briefing on whether and how Daves II impacts this case. Judge Edison have now had the opportunity to consider the voluminous briefing in the case, the parties' oral arguments, and the law. The Defendants advance a number of reasons why this action should be dismissed, but only one merits discussion: mootness. Right, wrong, or otherwise, the Fifth Circuit's holding in Daves II forecloses any further consideration of the claims in this matter. Although the end of Booth's criminal case did not render his claims moot, Judge Edison says the Fifth Circuit has clearly held that the passage of S.B. 6 rendered pre-S.B. 6 bail-practice-challenges moot. Booth attempts to avoid this inevitable result with two arguments: (1) that he has sufficiently alleged deficient post-S.B. 6 procedures, and (2) that his Sixth Amendment right-to-counsel claim distinguishes this case from Daves. Neither argument carries the day. Judge Edison agrees that Booth has alleged deficient post-S.B. 6 procedures. But Booth overlooks the fact that he has not been subject to bail proceedings since years before the advent of S.B. 6, which calls into question his ability to pursue this litigation for ongoing injunctive relief as an injured party, much less class representative. Because Booth was not magistrated after the implementation of S.B. 6, he lacks a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Without a personal stake in this controversy, Booth is not entitled to a fair opportunity to present and contest evidence of S.B. 6's implementation. Judge Edison concludes that he is required to abide by Fifth Circuit precedent, and the Fifth Circuit has spoken loudly and clearly. The proper vehicle to pursue claims that Galveston County's bail practices suffer from constitutional deficiencies today is a new lawsuit objecting to post-S.B. 6 bail proceedings by an individual who was subject to post-S.B. 6 practices. For these reasons, Judge Edison recommends that the Defendants' motions to dismiss be granted and the case dismissed as moot. The Clerk will provide copies of this Memorandum and Recommendation to the respective parties who have 14 days from receipt to file written objections under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and General Order 2002-13. Failure to file written objections within the time period mentioned will bar an aggrieved party from attacking the factual findings and legal conclusions on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's July 5, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5yteyfjw from Leagle.com. GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Supplemental Reply ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IN RE: GENERAL MOTORS CORP. AIR CONDITIONING MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION, Case No. 2:18-md-02818-MFL (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for leave to file a supplemental reply brief in support of their motion for class certification, responding to the Defendant General Motors LLC's supplemental brief filed pursuant to this Court's June 15, 2023 order. In order to assess the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and the question of whether the Defendant General Motors LLC waived any right to arbitrate the Plaintiffs' claims, this Court stated that "it would be helpful to understand when General Motors first learned of the existence of the Arbitration Provisions." The Court thus ordered the Plaintiffs to file a supplemental brief "identifying any evidence as to when General Motors first learned of the Arbitration Agreements," and permitted General Motors to respond to that brief. The Plaintiffs' brief followed the Court's instructions and identified evidence that GM first learned of relevant arbitration provisions when the Plaintiffs produced their dealership documents in June 2018. GM's response, however, did not address the question the Court asked. Instead, GM argued that whether it waived its right to arbitrate against the named Plaintiffs is "irrelevant" and avoided any discussion of when it first learned of arbitration provisions in the Plaintiffs' dealership agreements. GM's response shifted its focus to potential arbitration provisions that it might be able to enforce against absent class members, while admitting it did not know if any existed. The Plaintiffs request that the Court grant the Plaintiffs leave to file the attached supplemental reply brief in support of their motion for class certification. General Motors is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan. A copy of the Court's order dated July 19, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YeOFPk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Annika K. Martin, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th fl. New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 E-mail: akmartin@lchb.com - and - Bryan L. Clobes, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 1101 Market St., Suite 2650 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 864-2800 E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com - and - E. Powell Miller, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 West University, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48306 Telephone: (248) 841-2201 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com - and - Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC 1109 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (610) 200-0580 E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com GENERAL MOTORS: Seeks August 15 Extension to File Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOM RILEY, et al., v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 6:22-cv-00499-RBD-EJK (M.D. Fla.), GM asks the Court to enter an order granting a two-week extension of the deadline to oppose class certification, to and including August 15, 2023. The requested extension will not prejudice any party or unduly delay the resolution of this action, which is currently set for the June 2024 trial term, the Defendant contends. On December 21, 2022, the Court granted the parties' joint motion for a two-month extension of the class-related deadlines set in this Court's original Case Management Order. General Motors is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 18, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DCQyvG at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Jonathan S. Klein, Esq. Archis A. Parasharami, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 263-3000 Facsimile: (202) 263-3300 E-mail: jklein@mayerbrown.com aparasharami@mayerbrown.com - and - Justin B. Weiner, Esq. BUSH SEYFERTH PLLC 100 W. Big Beaver Road Suite 400 Troy, MI 48084 Telephone: 248-822-7851 E-mail: weiner@bsplaw.com GEORGIA: District Court Dismisses Raby v. Reaves Without Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ Senior District Judge C. Ashley Royal of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Macon Division, dismisses without prejudice the lawsuit styled JODY RABY, RICKEY H. THOMAS, Plaintiffs v. ANGELA REAVES, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-231-CAR-MSH (M.D. Ga.). The Plaintiffs, who are both state prisoners proceeding pro se, have filed a civil complaint seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. They have requested that the Court certify this suit as a class action under Rule 23(b). However, Judge Royal notes, a prerequisite for a class action suit is a finding by the Court that the representative party or parties can fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Judge Royal explains that it is well established that a pro se plaintiff cannot be an adequate class representative. In other words, the authorization to litigate one's own case pro se under 28 U.S.C. Section 1654 does not extend to the representation of the interests of others. Accordingly, pro se prisoners are not permitted to proceed with a class action lawsuit. Furthermore, Judge Royal says, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 requires that a prisoner bringing a civil action be responsible for the Court's filing fee. For the reasons stated here and as it does not appear that the applicable statutes of limitations would bar the Plaintiffs' claims from refiling, Judge Royal holds that this civil action is dismissed without prejudice. Each Plaintiff, if he chooses to do so, may file their own separate complaint in which he asserts only claims personal to him and not on behalf of or in conjunction with fellow prisoners. Each Plaintiff, upon the refiling of his complaint, must also either pay the filing fee or submit a complete motion to proceed in forma pauperis that includes the statutorily required certified account statement. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 17, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2uxztbvv from Leagle.com. GLAD PRODUCTS: Court Junks Bid to Dismiss Peterson Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK PETERSON, v. THE GLAD PRODUCTS COMPANY, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00491-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thomas S. Hixson entered an order denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss: The Court said, "It would be premature to dismiss the claim for injunctive relief based on the language in the SAC. Accordingly, the Court finds it premature to dismiss Peterson's claim for injunctive relief based on the exact language in his Prayer for Relief. In sum, the Court concludes Peterson has established standing to seek injunctive relief." Mr. Peterson brings this putative class action against The Glad Products Company and The Clorox Company concerning the labeling on the Defendants' Glad (TM) "Recycling" bags. The Defendants manufacture and sell a line of Glad (TM) trash bags named "RECYCLING." The Products' front label includes the word "RECYCLING" in all capital letters, next to an image of a blue trash bag. Peterson filed this case on February 2, 2023, and filed the operative First Amended Complaint on April 19. He seeks to represent two classes defined as: -- Nationwide Class "All residents of the United States who, within the applicable statute of limitations periods, purchased the Products for purposes other than resale; and -- California Subclass "All residents of California who, within four years prior to the filing of this Complaint, purchased the Products for purposes other than resale." Mr. Peterson brings seven causes of action: (1) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code sections 17200, et seq. (on behalf of the California Subclass); (2) violation of California's False Advertising Law, id. section 17500, et seq. (on behalf of the California Subclass); (3) violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code section 1750, et seq. (on behalf of the California Subclass); (4) breach of warranty (on behalf of the Nationwide and California Subclasses); (5) fraudulent inducement/intentional misrepresentation (on behalf of the Nationwide and California Subclasses); (6) negligent misrepresentation (on behalf of the Nationwide and California Subclasses); and (7) unjust enrichment/restitution (on behalf of the Nationwide and California Subclasses). A copy of the Court's order dated July 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KmcoaO at no extra charge.[CC] HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Charging Ports --------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Printz, writing for The Detroit Bureau, reports that Hyundai Motor Group has been sued in a federal class-action complaint by owners of the Hyundai Ioniq 5 and Ioniq 6, Kia EV6, and Genesis GV60 EVs for alleged problems with the charging port overheating during Level 2 charge sessions. According to Hyundai Motor Group, a Level 2 charger can enable a complete charge for its electric vehicles in five to seven hours. Owners implicated in the lawsuit, however, assert that the Level 2 charger overheats in as little as 30 minutes of charging due to a flaw in the charge connection itself. Owners claim the charger becomes too hot to touch. When that occurs, the charging rate drastically drops to 28 amps, far lower than its advertised 48-amp maximum. In some cases, charging halts. Once the charger cools down, it will resume charging at its regular rate, but by that time, time and energy have already been expended. Owners claim that when this overheating occurs, they experience substantially longer charging times or are completely unable to add further charge to the vehicle's battery pack. Addressing the problem Hyundai Motor Group has been aware of an issue with its EV charging ports and Level 2 charging, and the Hyundai Ioniq 5 has 133 owner complaints for the 2022 Hyundai Ioniq 5 filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (or NHTSA), 93 of them due to electric issues where the vehicle isn't charging correctly. In the complaints, owners explain they're told by Hyundai dealers tell customers it's an issue with the Integrated Control Charing Unit, or ICCU. Customers are told they need a new one, but the part is back-ordered. Hyundai knows its ICCUs slow the vehicle's charging rate as temperature increases. The company issued a software update, but it's clearly not enough. Owners report that after the update, their vehicles reportedly take 10 or more hours to fully charge using the Level 2 charger. According to one owner, a 2023 Hyundai Ioniq 5 will only charge its battery up to 5% per hour, requiring 20 hours to fully recharge. NHTSA steps in On June 8, 2023, NHTSA opened an investigation into the 2022 Hyundai Ioniq 5's electric system. The investigation currently covers 39,559 Ioniq 5 EVs sold from the 2022 model year. "Many consumers report a loud pop noise followed by a warning displayed in their dashboard and immediately experience a loss of motive power that ranges from a reduction to a complete loss of motive power," NHTSA states. "The Office of Defects Investigation learned from Hyundai that the failure is related to the ICCU (Integrated Control Charing Unit) that is responsible for powering both the HV (Hybrid Vehicle) battery and the LV (low voltage) 12V battery. Preliminary review indicates over-current within the ICCU can damage transistors in the LDC (DC-to-DC converter) resulting in the inability to recharge the 12V battery." The ongoing investigation is too new to provide answers to frustrated owners. This led a group of Hyundai Motor Group EV owners to file the class action lawsuit. Hagans Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is representing the plaintiffs in this complaint, which was filed on July 26 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. What's alleged The lawsuit covers those who leased or purchased a Hyundai Ioniq 5, Hyundai Ioniq 6, Genesis GV60 or Kia EV6, saying the vehicles violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, as well as the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, and state consumer protection laws. The EVs are built using Hyundai's E-GMP EV architecture. All incoroporate the ICCU in question. "Hyundai and Kia prominently advertised vehicle charging times between five to seven hours, depending on vehicle make, with use of a Level 2 home charger," the law firm states on its website. "In reality, vehicle charging ports frequently overheat in as little as 30 minutes, causing the charging session to unexpectedly and repeatedly fail. Owners report a protracted and burdensome charging process." "Not only do Hyundai, Kia, and Genesis continue to sell vehicles that are clearly incapable of performing as advertised, they also issued a software patch which substantially worsens charging rates and widens the gap between what they promised and what they delivered," said Steve Berman, managing partner at Hagens Berman and the attorney leading the case. "Car owners rely on them to drive to work, drop off their kids at school and get to doctor's appointments. Unexpectedly finding a car with an uncharged battery in the morning causes serious disruption to people's lives and could have dire consequences in an emergency," he added. "These aren't hybrids. The battery charge is essential, and we believe the state of these EVs is simply unacceptable." [GN] IMMUNITYBIO INC: Faces Salzman Suit in California Court ------------------------------------------------------- ImmunityBio, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K for the current report ended July 20, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2023, that on June 30, 2023, a putative securities class action complaint, captioned "Salzman v. ImmunityBio, Inc. et al.," No. 3:23-cv-01216-BEN-WVG, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the company and three of its officers and/or directors, asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. Stemming from the company's disclosure on May 11, 2023, that it had received an FDA complete response letter stating, among other things, that it could not approve the company's Biologics License Application for its product candidate, "AnktivaTM" (N-803) in combination with BCG for the treatment of patients with BCG-unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer with carcinoma in situ with or without "Ta" or "T1" disease, in its present form due to deficiencies related to its pre-license inspection of the company's third-party contract manufacturing organizations, the complaint alleges that the defendants had previously made materially false and misleading statements and/or omitted materially adverse facts regarding its third-party clinical manufacturing organizations and the prospects for regulatory approval of the BLA. ImmunityBio, Inc. is a biotechnology company based in California. INVESTORPLACE MEDIA: Hill Seeks Injunctive Relief for TCPA Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courtney Hill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Investorplace Media, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-111 (W.D.N.C., July 12, 2023) seeks injunctive relief and statutory damages over the Defendant's violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff brings this class action after Investorplace Media continued to send him text messages to advertise, promote, and/or market its services even after opting out of its solicitations. The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of illegal conduct resulting in invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. Investorplace Media is a corporation with principal office located in Baltimore, MD. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Wilkerson, Esq. THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM 11 N. Market Street Asheville, NC 28801 Telephone: (828) 258-2991 Facsimile: (828) 257-2767 E-mail: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com - and – Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com J RITTER: Bid to Remand Hunter Class Suit to Superior Court Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, HUNTER J. CHURCH, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J RITTER LAW P.C., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 23-1709 (MAS) (RLS) (D.N.J.), Judge Michael A. Shipp of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. Defendant FedChex Recovery, LLC, opposed the motion, the Plaintiff replied, and the Defendant filed a sur-reply. Judge Shipp has considered the parties' submissions and decides the matter without oral argument under Local Civil Rule 78.1. The Plaintiff originally initiated this action in New Jersey Superior Court, Mercer County, asserting Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). He brought this suit as a class action on behalf of all persons to whom a letter was mailed which was dated on or after Feb. 19, 2022. In the fall of 2017, while the Plaintiff was a student at Bergen County College, he purchased two books from the college's bookstore Years later, he received correspondence from Jonathan Ritter, Esq.'s law firm dated Feb. 22, 2022. The letterhead stated that the Ritter Firm was hired by the Defendant to collect a debt owed to the Bergen Bookstore arising from his purchase of the two textbooks. Specifically, the correspondence stated that the Defendants sought to collect $466.77 from the Plaintiff, consisting of two debts with a combined principal amount of $171.78 and another $299.99 in unexplained "fees." According to the correspondence, the Plaintiff had 30 days to dispute the debt in writing. As he received the correspondence on Feb. 28, 2022, the 30-day window closed on March 30, 2022. The Plaintiff spent $7.38 to send a written dispute by mail on March 21, 2022. The Ritter Firm received the dispute on March 23, 2022. Though he sent his dispute during the 30-day window, the Plaintiff received a follow-up correspondence on March 23, 2022 (mailed on March 21) alleging that he failed to respond to the previous notice. The follow-up correspondence also appeared to be from Attorney Ritter but was "mailed without any meaningful attorney involvement." The Plaintiff did not receive a response regarding his written dispute letter but received an email correspondence a month later from the Ritter Firm stating, "please be advised that we have closed out your file with our office. Thank you." The Plaintiff alleges that the email correspondence he received left him confused, anxious, and upset as to his rights, what his liability might be for the debt, and, if liable, what amount he might be legally obligated to pay. Thus, he brings a myriad of allegations under the FDCPA such as: (1) the Defendants harassed him by seeking to collect on the debt; (2) the Defendants used false, deceptive, or misleading representations in the collection correspondence; (3)the Defendants falsely represented that the collection correspondence were from an attorney; and (4) the Defendants inconsistently communicated with Plaintiff during the 30-day validation period. On Feb. 23, 2023, the Plaintiff filed suit in Superior Court. On March 27, 2023, the Defendant filed a notice of removal from Superior Court. The Plaintiff then filed the instant motion, and the Defendant filed a response in opposition. The Plaintiff replied to the Defendant's opposition arguing that it failed to show that this Court has federal subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs claims because it failed to show Article III standing. The Defendant filed a sur-reply arguing that this Court does have subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs claims. Judge Shipp finds that the Plaintiff alleges that he spent $7.38 to send his written dispute of the debt to the Ritter Firm because of the notice he received. Though $7.38 is a relatively insignificant monetary loss, federal courts, including courts in this Circuit, have held that any monetary harm is sufficient to satisfy the "injury-in-fact" requirement for purposes of Article III standing. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' monetary harm constitutes an "injury in fact" sufficient for conferring Article III standing to the extent he seeks to argue that Ritter Law's original written debt-collection communication was deceptive and prompted him to respond with a written dispute that cost him $7.38 in postage fees. For these reasons, Judge Shipp holds that the Defendant has proven Article III standing based on the Plaintiff's alleged $7.38 loss in postage fees. As such, the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is denied. An appropriate order will follow. A full-text copy of the Court's July 5, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/2xet472z from Leagle.com. JONES LANG: Ramirez Suit Remanded to San Francisco Superior Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California remanded the case, JAVIER RAMIREZ, as an individual and on behalf of all employees similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC., an Illinois Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-02824-HSG (N.D. Cal.), to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco. Judge Gilliam has considered the Parties' Joint Stipulation to Remand Case to State Court. Having considered the Joint Stipulation, he granted the Parties' Joint Stipulation. All deadlines, dates, and events presently on calendar are vacated. The Parties will bear their own respective attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the removal and subsequent remand. The Clerk is directed to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's July 5, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/6astrrh7 from Leagle.com. Lilit Tunyan -- ltunyan@tunyanlaw.com -- Artur Tunyan -- atunyan@tunyanlaw.com -- TUNYAN LAW, APC, Glendale, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff JAVIER RAMIREZ. KINDER MORGAN: Faces Pedersen, Leutloff ERISA-Related Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kinder Morgan, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21, 2023, that on February 22, 2021, Kinder Morgan Retirement Plan A participants Curtis Pedersen and Beverly Leutloff filed a purported class action lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The named plaintiffs were hired initially by the ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) in the late 1970s. Following a series of corporate acquisitions, plaintiffs became participants in pension plans sponsored by the Coastal Corporation (Coastal), El Paso Corporation (El Paso), and by virtue of the company's acquisition of El Paso in 2012 and its assumption of certain of El Paso's pension plan obligations. The lawsuit, which was filed initially in federal court in Michigan and then transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Civil Action No. 4:21-3590), alleges that the series of foregoing transactions resulted in changes to plaintiffs' retirement benefits which are now contested on a purported class-wide basis in the lawsuit. The complaint asserts six claims that fall within three primary theories of liability. Claims I, II, and III all seek the same plan modification as to how the plans calculate benefits for former participants in the Coastal plan. These claims challenge plan provisions which are alleged to constitute impermissible "backloading" or "cutback" of benefits. Claims IV and V allege that former participants in the ANR plans should be eligible for unreduced benefits at younger ages than the plans currently provide. Claim VI asserts that actuarial assumptions used to calculate reduced early retirement benefits for current or former ANR employees are outdated and therefore unreasonable. The complaint alleges that the purported class includes over 10,000 individuals. Kinder Morgan, Inc. is an infrastructure company based in Texas. L'OREAL USA: Court Narrows Claims in Zimmerman Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LYNN ZIMMERMAN, v. L'OREAL USA, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-07609-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood s. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part motion to dismiss: -- Specifically, the Plaintiff's claims based on the identified unpurchased products are dismissed without leave to amend, and the Plaintiff's claims based on the unidentified unpurchased products are dismissed with leave to amend. -- The Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 21 days of this order. -- The Court further sets a case management conference on August 22, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. Ms. Zimmerman filed this putative class action alleging that the Defendant misleadingly advertises the sunscreen benefits of some of its cosmetic products. The Plaintiff alleges that she purchased L'Oreal Infallible Fresh Wear 24HR Foundation on multiple occasions from local retailers. The Plaintiff further alleges that the foundation's front label statements claiming it provides "Up to 24HR Breathable Texture, "Up to 24H Fresh Wear," and "Sunscreen Broad Spectrum SPF 25" led her to believe that the foundation provided 24 hours of sunscreen protection. The Plaintiff also challenges the labels of products she did not purchase, including all cosmetics sold by the Defendant whose front labels contain a 24-hour durational statement alongside an SPF statement. L'Oreal manufactures and markets cosmetic products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 17, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QnfNKg at no extra charge.[CC] LANSING COMMUNITY: Heinig et al. Sue Over Data Protection Violation ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ayden Heinig, Ashton Chapin, Kyashya Richardson, and Gabriel Banish, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Lansing Community College (LCC), Case No. 1:23-cv-00742 (W.D. Mich., July 12, 2023) accuses the Defendant of failing to properly secure and safeguard their private information from cybercriminals. Between December 25, 2022 and March 15, 2023, LCC became the subject of a data breach wherein an unauthorized party accessed the private information, including names and Social Security numbers, of the Plaintiffs and Class Members. LCC notified the affected individuals about the incident on or about June 30, 2023. The Plaintiffs and Class Members were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and several other forms of personal, social, and financial harm because of the data breach. LCC failed to properly monitor its systems and implement sufficient data security practices regarding the personal data belonging to the Plaintiffs and Class Members, resulting in the data breach, says the suit. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class, assert claims for breach of contract, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. Founded in 1957, LCC is a community college located in Michigan that serves its students both in-person and online. It is considered one of the best community colleges in Michigan. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W Monroe St., Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gkliner@milberg.com - and – Mason A. Barney Tyler J. Bean SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com LASING COMMUNITY: Fails to Protect Private Info, Alexander Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAQUARIOUS ALEXANDER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LANSING COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00741 (W.D. Mich., July 11, 2023) alleges claims against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and for violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act. The class action arises out of the recent targeted cyberattack and data breach on the Defendant's network that resulted in unauthorized access of highly sensitive data between December 25, 2022 and March 15, 2023. The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard approximately 757,832 individuals' personally identifiable information. Lansing Community College is an institution of higher education located in Lansing, MI. LCC is one of the largest community colleges in Michigan, enrolling approximately 17,700 students annually. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Emily E. Hughes, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Dr., Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com ssa@millerlawpc.com eeh@millerlawpc.com LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 25 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Attention Lordstown Motors Corp. ("Lordstown") (OTC Other: RIDEQ) shareholders: The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased between August 4, 2022 and June 26, 2023. If you suffered a loss on your investment in Lordstown, contact us about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost or obligation to you. https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/lordstown-class-action-submission-form/?prid=42817&wire=3 ABOUT THE ACTION: According to the complaint, defendants repeatedly made and/or caused Lordstown to make false and/or misleading statements about Lordstown's relationship with Hon Hai Technology Group ("Foxconn") suggesting, or in some instances, representing that Foxconn was working cooperatively with Lordstown when in fact, the partnership had stalled soon after the execution of a joint venture agreement and quickly soured. DEADLINE: September 25, 2023 Aggrieved Lordstown investors only have until September 25, 2023 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] MADE BY JOHNNY: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Made By Johnny Group, Inc. The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Made By Johnny Group, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06558 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Made By Johnny Group, Inc. -- https://madebyjohnny.com/ -- offers women's Clothing in Compton, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ian Piasecki, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (347) 745-0445 Email: ipiasecki@mizrahikroub.com MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Hall Sues Over Hotel Room Rates' False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------ Todd Hall and George Abdelsayed, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Marriott International, Inc., Case No. 37-2023-00029578-CU-BT-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., July 13, 2023) alleges the Defendant of violating the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the False Advertising Law, and the Unfair Competition Law of the state of California. The Plaintiffs bring this class action against the Defendant Marriott for misleading consumers regarding its hotel room rates. Marriott allegedly amassed hundreds of millions of dollars over the last decade from its deceptive practices involving false bargain and bait advertising, say the Plaintiffs. Marriott is a hotel and lodging corporation headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland. It owns, franchises, and manages hotels across the United States, including approximately 60 hotel properties located in the San Diego area. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Lilach Halperin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com lilach@consumersadvocates.com - and – Robert Teel, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. TEEL 1425 Broadway, Mail Code: 20-6690 Seattle, WA 98122 Telephone: (866) 833-5529 Facsimile: (855) 609-6911 E-mail: lawoffice@rlteel.com - and – L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com MG LLC: James Seeks Damages and Injunctive Relief Over TCPA Breach ------------------------------------------------------------------ Anthony James, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. MG LLC d/b/a Tranzact, Case No. 1:23-cv-22581-RNS (S.D. Fla., July 12, 2023) accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by repeatedly making telemarketing calls to his residential telephone number which was previously registered on the National Do Not Call Registry. The Plaintiff brings this class action after he received telemarketing calls from the Defendant MG LLC on numerous occasions. Under the TCPA, making multiple telemarketing calls to a residential number registered on the National Do Not Call Registry is prohibited. The Defendant's actions have harmed Plaintiff and all members of the Class as their privacy has been violated. Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief preventing MG LLC from engaging in similar practices in the future, says the Plaintiff. MG LLC is a Delaware limited liability company based in New Jersey that makes telemarketing calls into the Southern District of Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Geoffrey J. Moul, Esq. MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP 1114 Dublin Road Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 488-0400 Facsimile: (614) 488-0401 E-mail: moul@mmmb.com NATIONSBENEFITS LLC: S.W. Suit Moved From Missouri to Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Greg Kays of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division, grants the parties' joint motion for transfer of venue in the lawsuit captioned S.W., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONSBENEFITS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00351-DGK (W.D. Mo.). The lawsuit is a putative class action arising from the Defendants alleged unauthorized disclosure of the Plaintiff's Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health Information. The parties stipulate to transfer because certain Plaintiffs filed substantially the same lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida on May 4, 2023 (whereas this case was filed on May 23, 2023), thirteen similar cases were subsequently filed in the Southern District of Florida, and the parties anticipate two other similar cases will be transferred to the Southern District of Florida soon. The parties also wish to consolidate the cases pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42. Given this information, the parties represent that transferring this case would promote the interests of justice and enhance the convenience to witnesses, access to relevant documents and sources of proof, availability of process, and trial efficiency. Considering these factors, the Court finds transfer to the Southern District of Florida is proper. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to transfer this case. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 17, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8kycmt from Leagle.com. NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT: Bid to Toss Jackson Suit Terminated as Moot ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned Sheryl Jackson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. Nationwide Retirement Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-3499 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Michael H. Watson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, terminates as moot the motion to dismiss. The Court has preliminarily approved the Rule 23 class action settlement in this case. Because the case has settled, the Court rules that the motion to dismiss is terminated as moot. If the Court does not finally approve the settlement, the Defendants may move to reinstate the motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 17, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5skv2ef from Leagle.com. NEW WINCUP: Franklin Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometrics ---------------------------------------------------------------- SONYA FRANKLIN, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW WINCUP HOLDINGS, INC, Defendant, Case No. 2023LA000716 (Ill. Cir., 7th Judicial, Dupage Cty., July 11, 2023) seeks statutory damages and other equitable relief under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act for the Defendant's unlawful biometric scanning and storage practices. The Plaintiff and class members have not been notified where their fingerprints are being stored, for how long Defendant will keep the fingerprints, and what might happen to this valuable information. In addition, Defendant did not obtain Plaintiff's or class members' written consent to record, collect, obtain, and/or store Plaintiff’s and class members' biometric data, says the suit. New Wincup Holdings, Inc. is a foreign, for-profit corporation that produces disposable utensils and containers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberto Luis Costales, Esq. William H. Beaumont, Esq. BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC 107 W. Van Buren, Suite 209 Chicago, IL 60605 Telephone: (773) 831-8000 E-mail: rlc@beaumontcostales.com whb@beaumontcostales.com NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Turner Loses Bid to Remand Suit to State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled Judy Turner v. Northrop Grumman Corporation, et al., Case No. CV 23-3756 PA (PDx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Percy Anderson of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denies the Plaintiff's Motion for Order Remanding Action to State Court. Defendants Northrop Grumman Corporation and Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation (collectively, "Defendants") filed an Opposition to the Motion to Remand, and the Plaintiff filed a Reply. Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7-15, the Court finds that this matter is appropriate for decision without oral argument. The Plaintiff commenced this wage and hour class action in Los Angeles County Superior Court on Feb. 28, 2023, and served the Defendants on April 18, 2023. The Plaintiff asserts four causes of action on behalf of herself and certain current and former employees of the Defendants: (1) failure to timely pay final wages at termination; (2) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (3) violation of California Business and Professions Code; and (4) civil penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act. The "proposed Class" is defined as: "All persons who worked for any Defendant in California as an employee at any time during the period beginning four years and 178 days before the filing of the initial complaint in this action and ending when notice to the Class is sent." On May 17, 2023, the Defendants filed a Notice of Removal, alleging that this Court possesses diversity jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). The Court then ordered the Defendants to show cause in writing why this action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, explaining that the "Defendant's Notice of Removal appears to be deficient because it contains unsupported assumptions regarding the amount in controversy" ("Order to Show Cause"). The Plaintiff subsequently filed her Motion to Remand, contending that the allegations in the Notice of Removal regarding the amount in controversy are insufficient to establish CAFA jurisdiction. The Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of various court orders and pleadings from other cases. The Defendants do not oppose the Plaintiff's request. Hence, the Court grants the Plaintiff's request. In their response to the Court's Order to Show Cause, the Defendants request that the Court take judicial notice of a letter from the Plaintiff to the California's Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") and the Defendants, entitled "Amended Notice of Labor Code Violations and PAGA Penalties," case number LWDA-CM-935294-23 ("PAGA Notice"). The PAGA Notice is referenced in the Complaint. The Plaintiff does not object to the Defendants' request. Therefore, the Court grants the Defendants' request. Additionally, the Plaintiff asserts evidentiary objections to certain statements in the Declarations of David Mullins, filed in support of the Defendants' Notice of Removal and Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause. Mr. Mullins' Declarations contain statements about the number of employees at NGSC, as well as the employees' hourly wages and pay periods. His statements are made based on his personal knowledge in his capacity as a Human Resources Manager at Defendant Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation ("NGSC"), as well as his review of "business records and data that NGSC maintains in the regular course of its business." The Plaintiff contends that Mr. Mullins lacks personal knowledge and that his statements are hearsay because the Defendants did not produce NGSC's business records. Judge Anderson opines that the Defendants are not required to provide actual business records as evidence of the amount in controversy. Accordingly, the Court overrules the Plaintiff's objections to the statements in Mr. Mullins' Declarations to the extent the Court relies on those statements in ruling on the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. According to the Declaration of David Mullins, a Human Resources Manager at NGSC, "there were approximately 38,074 employees in California employed by NGSC" between Feb. 28, 2022, and Feb. 28, 2023 (the year before the Plaintiff filed her Complaint). Additionally, those employees worked a total of at least 26 pay periods during that time frame, "amounting to over 989,924 pay periods collectively." Using this information, the Defendants calculate the wage statement penalty for the first of the 26 pay periods for each of the 38,074 employees ($50 × 38,074 = $1,903,700), and for the subsequent 25 pay periods for each of the 38,074 employees ((25 × 38,074) × $100 = $95,185,000). Thus, the Defendants calculate the amount in controversy for the Plaintiff's second cause of action at $97,088,700, far above the $5 million jurisdictional threshold. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants unreasonably assume a 100% violation rate in their calculation of the amount in controversy for the wage statement claim. Judge Anderson notes that similar to Townsend v. J.B. Hunt Transp. Servs. Inc., No. 23-55044, 2023 WL 2301438, at *1 (9th Cir. Mar. 1, 2023), the Complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and "the Class" are entitled to an "aggregate penalty not exceeding four thousand dollars ($4,000) per employee." The PAGA Notice also suggests that all of the putative class members employed by the Defendants between Feb. 28, 2022, and Feb. 28, 2023, are entitled to the maximum wage statement penalties. Moreover, the Defendants calculate the amount in controversy using a penalty less than the $4,000 maximum ($2,550 per employee). The Court concludes that the Defendants have demonstrated that the amount in controversy, for just the Plaintiff's second cause of action, exceeds CAFA's jurisdictional requirement. For all of these reasons, the Court finds that the Defendants have satisfied their burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, as required for subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA. The Court, therefore, denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 17, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mrx7fdtv from Leagle.com. NUTRIEN LTD: Grayson's Bid to File for Settlement Approval Cont'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BOBBY GRAYSON, III, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, Plaintiff v. NUTRIEN, a Colorado corporation; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC., an unknown business entity; WESTERN FARM SERVICE, INC., an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00986-ADA-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California continues the Plaintiff's deadline to file his motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement will be continued approximately 14 calendar days from the previously set date. The Parties have reached a class-wide settlement which, if approved by the Court, will resolve the action in its entirety. On Feb. 24, 2023, the Parties filed a Joint Notice of Settlement and Stipulation to Withdraw the Pending Motions. On March 7, 2023, the Court entered an Order Granting Joint Stipulation to Withdraw Pending Motions. On March 9, 2023, the Court entered a Minute Order setting the deadline for the Plaintiff to file a motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement no later than April 7, 2023 and vacating all other pending dates and matters. On April 7, 2023, pursuant to the Parties' joint stipulation, the Court entered an Order continuing the deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement to May 5, 2023. On May 8, 2023, pursuant to the Parties' joint stipulation, the Court entered an Order continuing the deadline for the Plaintiff to file a motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement to June 2, 2023. On June 5, 2023, pursuant to the Parties' joint stipulation, the Court entered an Order continuing the deadline for the Plaintiff to file a motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement to June 30, 2023. The Parties have finalized the long-form settlement agreement and all exhibits thereto, and the moving papers with respect to Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement, and now only await signature by the Defendants on the long-form settlement agreement. They seek an order continuing the deadline to file the motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement by approximately 14 calendar days to July 14, 2023. Subject to the Court's approval, the parties stipulated to an order by the Court that the Plaintiff's deadline to file his motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement will be continued approximately 14 calendar days from the previously set date of June 30, 2023, to July 14, 2023. Having reviewed the Parties' Joint Stipulation, Judge McAuliffe so ordered. A full-text copy of the Court's July 5, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2myk6ben from Leagle.com. Edwin Aiwazian -- edwin@calljustice.com -- Arby Aiwazian -- arby@calljustice.com -- Joanna Ghosh -- joanna@calljustice.com -- Annabel Blanchard -- annabel@calljustice.com -- LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC, Glendale, California, Attorneys for the Plaintiff. Graham M. Helm -- graham.helm@ogletree.com -- Katherine A. Manuel -- katherine.manuel@ogletree.com -- OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., San Francisco, CA, Evan R. Moses -- evan.moses@ogletree.com -- Christopher W. Decker -- christopher.decker@ogletree.com -- OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., Los Angeles, California, Attorneys for Defendants NUTRIEN LTD. (erroneously sued as "NUTRIEN") NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC., and WESTERN FARM SERVICE, INC. ONIX GROUP: Faces Haynie Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------ Angela Haynie, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Onix Group, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-02689-KSM (E.D. Pa., July 13, 2023) alelges the Defendant of failing to adequately protect highly sensitive data belonging to its employees and healthcare clients, in violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Onix who was among over 319,500 individuals whose personal data, including personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI), were compromised in a malicious ransomware attack and subsequent data breach carried out by cybercriminals. The data breach occurred from March 20, 2023 through March 27, 2023. However, Onix only notified the affected individuals, including Plaintiff, about the incident two months later on May 26, 2023, says the Plaintiff. Onix also failed to explain whether it paid the ransomware demand and how long the investigation took. Furthermore, the Defendant also did not confirm whether it had taken remedial measures to ensure the protection of the PII and PHI of its clients and employees. The Plaintiff and Class Members seek damages, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and costs, injunctive relief, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper, the suit added. Onix is a major healthcare and real estate development firm based in Kennett Square, PA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. Lauren KW Brennan, Esq. Jordan M. Sartell, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com - and – James Evangelista, Esq. EVANGELISTA WORLEY LLC 500 Sugar Mill Road, Suite 245A Atlanta, GA 30350 Telephone: (404) 205-8400 Facsimile: (404) 205-8395 E-mail: jim@ewlawllc.com - and – Jennifer Czeisler, Esq. JKC LAW, LLC 269 Altessa Blvd. Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (516) 457-9571 E-mail: Jennifer@jkclawllc.com PENSION BENEFIT: Garrison Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------- LISA GARRISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PENSION BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC; THE BERWYN GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 0:23-cv-02071-KMM-DTS (D. Minn., July 11, 2023) arises from the Defendants' negligent failure to implement and maintain reasonable cybersecurity procedures that resulted in a data breach of its systems, which was discovered in May or June 2023. In connection with the data breach, the Defendants failed to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected personally identifiable information. Plaintiff Garrison alleges claims against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, declaratory judgment, invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and for violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act, the California Customer Records Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and costs of suit. With offices in Minnesota, Pension Benefit Information, LLC is a Delaware limited liability corporation that provides pension plan management services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. David A. Goodwin, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Boykin Suit Over Undisclosed Car Vent Clips ------------------------------------------------------------------- Rah-Nita Boykin, Jennifer Harmon and Elizabeth Rodriguez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G), Case No. 1:23-cv-00427-SJD (S.D. Ohio, July 12, 2023) seeks damages, restitution, and all other relief for economic harm caused by the Defendant over violations of various consumer protection laws, warranty statues, and the common law. The Plaintiffs purchased Defendant P&G's product called "Febreze CAR Vent Clips". But unbeknownst to them, said Febreze Clips contain one or more design and/or manufacturing defects that cause damage to users' cars. P&G should have known this given its long history of producing products under the Febreze brand. However, the Defendant has not recalled the defective Febreze Clips and failed to notify customers of the issue, says the suit. Furthermore, P&G actively ignored customer complaints related to the product and did not reimburse affected users for their damages or warn them of the defect. Plaintiffs accuse P&G of actively concealing the defect and continuing to sell the product. As a result, Plaintiffs and similarly situated purchasers and users of the Febreze Clips have sustained and continue to sustain significant loss of money and/or loss in value of their vehicles, the suit added. P&G is incorporated in the State of Ohio, with its principal place of business located at One Procter & Gamble Plaza Cincinnati, Ohio. It manufactures markets, and distributes the Febreze Clips throughout Ohio and the United States. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan Shub Benjamin F. Johns Samantha E. Holbrook SHUB & JOHNS LLC Four Tower Bridge 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 477-8380 E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com bjohns@shublawyers.com sholbrook@shublawyers.com PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Deutsch Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info -------------------------------------------------------------- SUSAN DEUTSCH, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-11547-RGS (D. Mass., July 11, 2023) arises from a recent cyberattack resulting in a data breach of sensitive information in the possession and custody and/or control of Defendant and alleges claims against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and breach of fiduciary duty. Progress Software Corporation (PSC) was notified of a system vulnerability in its MOVEit cloud on May 28, 2023. On or about May 31, 2023, PSC posted a notice on its website confirming a recently discovered SQL injection vulnerability related to its MOVEit Transfer and MOVEit Cloud file transfer services resulting from a breach in its network and systems that may have been exploited by cybercriminals from as far back as 2021. However, despite the enormity of the breach, PSC has not yet began sending direct notice to those impacted by the Data Breach, though many of its customers, including the California Public Employees' Retirement System have begun notifying individuals, including Plaintiff and Class Members, that their personally identifiable information (PII) has been compromised as a result of the PSC Data Breach, says the suit. Moreover, in failing to adequately protect Plaintiff's and the Class's PII, failing to adequately notify them about the breach, and by obfuscating the nature of the breach, Defendant violated state and federal law and harmed an unknown number of its consumers, the suit added. PSC is a software company offering a range of products and services to government and corporate entities across the country and around the world, including cloud hosting and secure file transfer services such as MOVEit file transfer and MOVEit cloud. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael S. Appel, Esq. KETTERER, BROWNE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 336 S. Main Street Bel Air, MD 21014 Telephone: (617) 359-4981 E-mail: michael@KBAattorneys.com - and- 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 PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Secure Private Info, Gilson Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- CODY GILSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-11552-NMG (D. Mass., July 11, 2023) asserts claims against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and for violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all those similarly situated to seek relief from Defendant's failure to reasonably safeguard Plaintiff's and Class members' Private Information; its failure to reasonably provide timely notification that Plaintiff's and Class members' Private Information had been compromised by an unauthorized third party; and for intentionally and unconscionably deceiving Plaintiff and Class members concerning the status, safety, location, access, and protection of their Private Information. Moreover, Plaintiff seeks the court to enter a judgment declaring that the Defendant continues to owe a legal duty to secure Plaintiff's and Class members' Private Information, to timely notify them of any data breach, and to establish and implement data security measures that are adequate to secure Private Information. In addition, Plaintiff also asks the court to issue corresponding prospective injunctive relief requiring the Defendant to employ adequate security protocols consistent with law and industry standards to protect Plaintiff's and Class members' Private Information. Progress Software Corporation (PSC)is a Massachusetts-based software company that markets, sells, and supports a wide variety of software products to private corporate and government entities throughout the United States, including healthcare service providers and state DMV agencies. One of PSC's most popular and successful products is "MOVEit" a cloud hosting and secure file transfer program/service. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 101 Federal Street, 19th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 203-8459 Facsimile: (800) 922-4851 E-mail: psheehan@whatleykallas.com - and - Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 Facsimile: (312) 782-4485 E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com nhagman@caffertyclobes.com REALPAGE INC: Breaches Antitrust Laws, Lauder and Meredith Allege ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mia Lauder and Rachel Meredith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REALPAGE, INC.; GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP; BH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; CAMPUS ADVANTAGE, INC.; CARDINAL GROUP HOLDINGS LLC; CA VENTURES GLOBAL SERVICES, LLC; UNIVERSITY HOUSE COMMUNITIES GROUP, LLC; TIMBERLINE REAL ESTATE VENTURES LLC; B.HOM STUDENT LIVING LLC; JOHN DOES 1- 10, Case No. 6:23-ev-1025-AA (D. Or., July 13, 2023) alleges the Defendants of multiple violations of federal antitrust laws and state laws. The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants entered into an unlawful agreement among themselves to artificially inflate the prices of student housing throughout the United States, including near school campuses. The Defendants allegedly conspired to eliminate competition in the student housing market by using the "Revenue Management Solutions" software developed by RealPage. The Plaintiff brings this class action to recover treble damages, injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs, and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Headquartered in Richardson Texas, RealPage, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that provides software and services to the residential real estate industry. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Keith A. Ketterling, Esq. STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C. 209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 227-1600 Facsimile: (503) 227-6840 E-mail: kketterling@stollberne.com - and – Tricia R. Herzfeld, Esq. Anthony A. Orlandi, Esq. Kathryn Brown, Esq. HERZFELD SUETHOLZ GASTEL LENISKI AND WALL, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 300 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 800-6225 E-mail: tricia@hsglawgroup.com tony@hsglawgroup.com - and – David R. Scott, Esq. Amanda Lawrence, Esq. Patrick McGahan, Esq. Michael Srodoski, Esq. G. Dustin Foster, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 156 South Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06145 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile: (860) 537-4432 E-mail: david.scott@scott-scott.com alawrence@scott-scott.com pmcgahan@scott-scott.com msrodoski@scott-scott.com gfoster@scott-scott.com - and – Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq. Carmen A. Medici, Esq Fatima Brizuela, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 West Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 798-5325 Facsimile: (619) 233-0508 E-mail: pcoughlin@scott-scott.com cmedici@scott-scott.com fbrizuela@scott-scott.com - and – Kristen Anderson, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 E-mail: kanderson@scott-scott.com - and – Thomas J. Undlin, Esq. Stacey Slaughter, Esq. Geoffrey H. Kozen, Esq. J. Austin Hurt, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 349-8500 Facsimile: (612) 339-4181 E-mail: tundlin@robinskaplan.com sslaughter@robinskaplan.com gkozen@robinskaplan.com ahurt@robinskaplan.com - and – Swathi Bojedla, Esq. Mandy Boltax, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 E-mail: sbojedla@hausfeld.com mboltax@hausfeld.com - and – Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 E-mail: gsmith@hausfeld.com - and – Katie R. Beran, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 900 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 985 3270 E-mail: kberan@hausfeld.com - and – Eric L. Cramer, Esq. Michaela L. Wallin, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: ecramer@bm.net mwallin@bm.net - and – Daniel J. Walker, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 559-9745 E-mail: dwalker@bm.net - and – Brendan P. Glackin, Esq. Dean M. Harvey, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 E-mail: bglackin@lchb.com dharvey@lchb.com - and – Steve W. Berman, Esq. Breanna Van Engelen, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com breannav@hbsslaw.com - and – Christian P. Levis, Esq. Vincent Briganti, Esq. Peter Demato, Esq. Radhika Gupta, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com clevis@lowey.com pdemato@lowey.com rgupta@lowey.com - and – Christopher M. Burke, Esq. Walter W. Noss, Esq. Yifan (Kate) Lv, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY P.C. 707 Broadway, Suite 1410 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 625-5621 Facsimile: (314) 241-3525 E-mail: klv@koreintillery.com cburke@koreintillery.com wnoss@koreintillery.com - and – Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Steven N. Williams, Esq. Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. Kevin E. Rayhill, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com swilliams@saverilawfirm.com czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com krayhill@saverilawfirm.com - and – Benjamin J. Widlanski, Esq. Javier A. Lopez, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 372-1800 E-mail: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com jal@kttlaw.com - and – Jennifer W. Sprengel, Esq. Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. Alexander Sweatman, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 Facsimile: (312) 782-4485 E-mail: jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com dherrera@caffertyclobes.com asweatman@caffertyclobes.com RUGSUSA LLC: Engages in Deceptive Sales Practices, Korda Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Korda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RUGSUSA, LLC, Case No. 3-23-cv-1026 (D. Or., July 13, 2023) alleges the Defendant of deceptive sales tactics, in violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant engages in misleading sales practices, such as false "reference pricing" to deceive consumers, including Plaintiff, for the sole purpose of increasing its sales. The Defendant's practices persuaded Plaintiff and Class members to purchase its products under the false premise that they were of a higher grade, quality, or value than they actually were. The Plaintiff seeks damages, restitution, and all other relief under UTPA and alleges fraud and unjust enrichment. RUGSUSA is a Delaware limited liability company engaged in rugs and carpet trading, with its principal place of business located in Cranbury, New Jersey. It sells and markets its products in various locations, including Oregon. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jermaine F. Brown, Esq. Stanton R. Gallegos, Esq. MARKOWITZ HERBOLD PC 1455 SW Broadway, Suite 1900 Portland, OR 97201 Telephone: (503) 295-3085 E-mail: JermaineBrown@MarkowitzHerbold.com StantonGallegos@MarkowitzHerbold.com - and – Neal J. Deckant, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com - and – Stephen A. Beck, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 E-mail: sbeck@bursor.com - and – Julian Diamond, Esq. Matthew Girardi, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, Floor 32 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 E-mail: jdiamond@bursor.com mgirardi@bursor.com RV WORLD: Greenhill Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Hours ---------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Greenhill, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. RV World LLC d/b/a Camping World of Marion, Case No. 3:23-cv-02437 (S.D. Ill., July 13, 2023) seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages, treble damages, and attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Plaintiff brings this class action over RV World's failure to pay Plaintiff and Putative Class Members all hours worked as well as hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. RV World only pays the affected employees, including Plaintiff, set amounts according to the type of projects they completed, despite working and being required to stay at the job site longer than their normal work hours. RV World's actions have caused financial injury to Plaintiff and the Putative Class members, says the suit. RV World, LLC is headquartered and/or maintains its principal place of business in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michelle K. Faron, Esq. Sarah Jane Hunt, Esq. Nicole Matlock, Esq. KENNEDY HUNT, P.C. 4500 West Pine Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63108 Telephone: (314) 872-9041 Facsimile: (314) 872-9043 E-mail: michelle@kennedyhuntlaw.com sarahjane@kennedyhuntlaw.com nmatlock@kennedyhuntlaw.com SAVOI LATIN BISTRO: Fails to Pay Overtime Premiums, Gonzalez Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- KELVIN RAMON CAPELLAN GONZALEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAVOI LATIN BISTRO INC., and KIARA SARITA, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-05285 (E.D.N.Y., July 11, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Kelvin Ramon Capellan Gonzalez was employed by Defendants in Kings, New York as a dishwasher and general helper/porter at the Defendant's restaurant beginning in November 2021 and ending in May 2023. Allegedly, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff an overtime premium for all the hours he worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Among other things, the Defendants also failed to comply with the notice and record keeping requirement of the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act, says the Plaintiff. Savoi Latin Bistro is a Latin American restaurant in Brooklyn, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter H.Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC. 60 East 42nd Street - 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com SIRH LLC: Dale and Masters Seek Unpaid Minimum Wages and Tips ------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Dale and Jeremy Masters, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SIRH, LLC, RTH Enterprises, John Doe Corporations I-XX, Rahul Haria and Jane Doe Haria, and Hansa Haria and Jane Doe Haria II, Case No. 2:23-cv-01361 (D. Ariz., July 12, 2023) accuse the defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate them at the standard hourly rate implemented in the State of Arizona and refusing to allow them to retain all their tips. The Plaintiffs were employed as servers for Denny's, a restaurant chain owned and operated by the Defendants. The Plaintiffs were initially assigned at the Denny's branch in Gilbert, Arizona. Plaintiffs' primary job responsibilities included customer service, running food, cleaning, and other server-related duties. They were also required to handle and serve pickup and delivery orders for Denny's customers. For this particular service, Plaintiffs often received tips from customers. However, Plaintiffs were not allowed to retain their tips, with the entire amount taken directly by the Defendants. This practice violates the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (CAA) and the FLSA. The Defendants also failed to properly compensate Plaintiffs for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours, say the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all current or former tipped employees or individuals with similar job duties or titles, seek unpaid minimum wages and tips, liquidated damages, and any other relief under the FLSA. The Defendants are all involved in the ownership, management, and operations of Denny's, which has multiple branches in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Clifford P. Bendau II Christopher J. Bendau BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC P.O. Box 97066 Phoenix, AZ 85060 Telephone: (480) 382-5176 Facsimile: (480) 304-3805 E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com chris@bendaulwaw.com STIFEL NICOLAUS: E.D. Missouri Denies Bid to Stay Krupka Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KEITH M. KRUPKA, et al., Plaintiffs v. STIFEL NICOLAUS & CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00049-JAR (E.D. Mo.), Judge John A. Ross of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, denies the Plaintiffs' motion to stay the case pending a ruling on their petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. California Plaintiffs Keith Krupka and Joseph Lee filed the putative class action in November 2022 in Missouri state court alleging that Missouri Defendant Stifel Nicolaus made negligent misrepresentations and was negligent in its underwriting of municipal bonds issued by the Illinois Finance Authority to fund low-income housing developments in Chicago. In January 2023, the Defendant removed the case to this Court under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), and filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on Jan. 17, 2023. The Plaintiffs then moved to remand the case, arguing that their claims fall under CAFA's jurisdictional exception for actions related to securities. Noting that the Eighth Circuit had not opined on the proper application of CAFA's securities exception, the Court followed other circuit and district court precedent and accordingly denied the motion and directed the Plaintiffs to respond to the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings by June 1, 2023. The Plaintiffs then filed a petition for permission to appeal in the Eighth Circuit, during which the Court stayed the case pending a ruling by the appellate court. The Eighth Circuit summarily denied the Plaintiffs' petition, after which the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to file a response to Defendants motion for judgment on the pleadings by June 26, 2023. On that date, the Plaintiffs filed the present motion to stay the case again pending their petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court. The Defendant opposes the stay and, in light of the Plaintiffs' repeated delays, urges the Court to grant its motion without further briefing. Judge Ross agrees with the Defendant that further delay is not warranted. The Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, which centrally asserts that the Plaintiffs' claims are time-barred, has been pending for six months. Even accepting the Plaintiffs' premise that Brady applies, in the Court's estimation their likelihood of success in the Supreme Court is tenuous. Further, Judge Ross fails to see any material prejudice they would suffer from filing a responsive brief, particularly considering the resources they have expended seeking interlocutory appeals. In contrast, the Defendant is prejudiced by the ongoing pendency of this lawsuit without a threshold ruling on its viability. Additionally, he finds that any further delays in the case would undermine the interests of judicial efficiency. Judge Ross, therefore, denies the Plaintiffs' motion to stay the case while they await a ruling from the Supreme Court. However, the he prefers to rule on the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings after full briefing and will afford the Plaintiffs a final extension to file their response in opposition. The Plaintiffs will file a response to the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings within 14 days. Any reply will be filed within 10 days of the response. A full-text copy of the Court's July 5, 2023 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/7944hdtt from Leagle.com. TESLA INC: Liaison & Interim Class Counsel Named in Lamontagne Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, THOMAS LAMONTAGNE, Plaintiff v. TESLA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-00869-AMO (N.D. Cal.), Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants Oakland County's motion for Labaton Sucharow LLP to serve as the interim class counsel and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP to serve as the liaison counsel. In this putative securities class action, Plaintiff Oakland County Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association ("Oakland County VEBA") and Oakland County Employees' Retirement System ("Oakland County ERS" and together with Oakland County VEBA, "Oakland County") filed a motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B). Oakland County also seeks appointment of its counsel, Labaton Sucharow LLP as lead counsel, and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as liaison counsel for the putative class. The motion is unopposed. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), Judge Martinez-Olguin finds the motion appropriate for determination on the papers. She finds that has litigated complex securities class actions in this and other districts in California and New York. The firm's resume boasts its significant experience and recoveries for plaintiffs in securities class action litigation. The firm has successfully recovered $19 billion in the aggregate in securities class actions and has served as lead or co-lead counsel in numerous actions. Accordingly, Labaton Sucharow has shown it is qualified to serve as lead counsel for the putative class. In addition, Hagens Berman has obtained recoveries for injured investors in securities cases and has experience successfully representing investors in class action litigation. No movant challenges Oakland County's selection of class counsel and liaison counsel. Considering the qualifications and experience of both firms. Judge Martinez-Olguin finds that no grounds exist to disturb Oakland County's choice that these law firms serve as lead and liaison counsel. Accordingly, he grants Oakland County's motion for Labaton Sucharow LLP to serve as the interim class counsel and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP to serve as the liaison counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's July 5, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3v2v2wdd from Leagle.com. UNITED AIRLINES: N.D. California Allows Hughes to Amend Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, grants the Plaintiff leave to amend complaint in the lawsuit captioned DARRELL HUGHES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC. and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-08967-LB (N.D. Cal.). In October 2022, Plaintiff Darrell Hughes -- who was a flight attendant with United Airlines from November 2015 to Aug. 2, 2022 -- sued United on behalf of a putative class of current and former flight attendants and pilots for various wage-and-hours violations. He claims that United failed to pay reporting-time pay, provide meal or rest breaks, reimburse all business expenses, keep accurate payroll records, and pay waiting-time penalties, in violation of the California Labor Code and California's Unfair Competition Law. On May 12, 2023, the Plaintiff moved to amend the complaint to add Robin Goings, a current United flight attendant, who has worked there since 1994, as a class representative, and to add a prayer for injunctive relief. One reason for adding Ms. Goings is that she -- unlike Mr. Hughes -- is a current employee and can advance a prayer for injunctive relief. Another reason for seeking amendment is that Mr. Hughes apparently was negotiating an individual settlement. The proposed amended complaint otherwise is substantially the same as the operative complaint. United opposes the motion as an end run around a California statute that (1) effective March 23, 2023, exempts airline cabin-crew members from California's meal- and rest-break requirements if the employees are covered by a valid collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) that contains provisions governing meal and rest breaks, and (2) commencing Dec. 5, 2022, bars new lawsuits filed by or on behalf of a person covered by a CBA that meets the requirements of (1), citing California Labor Code Section 512.2(a)(1), (c). Section 512.2 does not affect existing lawsuits. United removed the case from state court to this Court. It is undisputed that the Court has diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. All parties consented to magistrate jurisdiction. The Court held a hearing on July 13, 2023. The Court grants the motion to amend. Judge Beeler explains that Section 512.2(c) is a ban on certain legal claims that does not disturb cases that were already filed on Dec. 5, 2022. And under the ordinary Rule 15(a) analysis, United is not otherwise prejudiced by adding Ms. Goings as a plaintiff. United contends, among other things, that adding Ms. Goings as a new named plaintiff now is the same as if she had filed a new lawsuit in contravention of Section 512.2(c). According to United, there is a "procedural sleight of hand" at play -- Ms. Goings will replace Mr. Hughes (who apparently may accept a settlement offer) as the only named plaintiff, a result that would gut Section 512.2(c). The problem with this argument is that the original complaint, which was filed before Section 512.2(c)'s effective date, was on behalf of a class of flight attendants that included Ms. Goings, Judge Beeler opines. Second, Judge Beeler says, the remaining issue is whether under Rule 15(a)(2), United is prejudiced by adding Ms. Goings (resulting in a prayer for injunctive relief on the breaks claims), and whether under Rule 15(c), the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading. At the hearing, United essentially conceded that -- if Section 512.2(c) did not exist and if the Plaintiff satisfied the other Rule 15(a)(2) amendment factors and the Rule 15(c) relation-back factors -- it would not be prejudiced under Rule 15(a)(2) or unfairly prejudiced under Rule 15(c). A presumption for amendment exists under Rule 15(a). Under Rule 15(c), the Plaintiffs have an identity of interests, the claims are the same, and Ms. Goings as a current employee merely adds a prayer for injunctive relief on the breaks claims, permissibly expanding the scope of relief on the class claims, Judge Beeler explains. Hence, the Court grants leave to file the proposed amended complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 17, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8mjcxn from Leagle.com. VBIT TECHNOLOGIES: McKellar Named Lead Plaintiff in Pelham Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PARKER PELHAM, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. VBIT TECHNOLOGIES CORP., VBIT MINING LLC, ADVANCED MINING GROUP, DANH CONG VO a/k/a DON VO, PHUONG D VO a/k/a KATIE VO, SEAN TU, JIN GAO, LILLIAN ZHAO, and JOHN DOE INDIVIDUALS 1-10, and ABC COMPANIES 1-10, Defendants, Civil Action No. 23-162-CFC-SRF (D. Del.), Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware: (1) grants the motion of Alisha McKellar to appoint lead plaintiff and approve lead plaintiff's selection of counsel; and (2) denies the motion of Parker Pelham to appoint lead plaintiff and approve lead plaintiff's selection of counsel. On Feb. 13, 2023, Pelham initiated this putative class action by filing a complaint alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") by Defendants VBit Technologies Corp., VBit Mining LLC, Advanced Mining Group, Danh Cong Vo a/k/a Don Vo, Phuong D Vo a/k/a Katie Vo, Sean Tu, Jin Gao, and Lillian Zhao. The action was brought on behalf of all investors who purchased unregistered securities in the form of investment contracts promising the sales, leasing, and servicing of specialized computer hardware to produce Bitcoins for customers (the "Mining Contracts"). Under the Mining Contracts, the Defendants purportedly hosted physical Bitcoin mining equipment at its facilities, and investors could then use the equipment to mine and procure Bitcoin. Beginning in June of 2022, investors began to realize that they could not make withdrawals of Bitcoin from their "virtual wallets" located in an online dashboard hosted by the Defendants. The virtual wallets were frozen, and investors were prevented from accessing their Bitcoin holdings and the computer hardware they owned or leased from the Defendants. The complaint alleges that customers' investments were commingled, and the Bitcoins appearing in the virtual wallets were investment returns arbitrarily determined by the Defendants. On Feb. 14, 2023, counsel for Pelham published a notice in Business Wire announcing that the action had been filed against the Defendants and advising investors with a VBit Mining Contract that they had until April 17, 2023 to file a motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff. On April 17, 2023, McKellar and Pelham filed competing motions to appoint lead plaintiff and approve lead plaintiff's selection of counsel. No opposition was filed to the motion of McKellar. McKellar opposes the motion filed by Pelham. Judge Fallon states that under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), the court must appoint as lead plaintiff the member or members of the purported class that the Court determines to be most capable of adequately representing the interests of class members. The PSLRA provides a "rebuttable presumption" that the most adequate plaintiff is the person or group of persons that (aa) has either filed the complaint or made a motion in response to the initial class notice; (bb) in the determination of the court, has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class; and (cc) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. McKellar satisfies each of the three criteria for appointment as lead plaintiff, Judge Fallon holds. First, McKellar filed the pending motion for appointment as lead plaintiff on April 17, 2023, within the deadline set forth in the Notice. Second, the record confirms that she purchased six Mining Contracts during the class period and lost a total of $313,852.27 because of those investments. In contrast, Pelham's losses amount to $214,828.55, and he concedes that he has not asserted the largest financial interest. Third, McKellar otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 -- numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Fallon grants McKellar's motion and denies Pelham's motion. The parties may serve and file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy of the Memorandum Order. The objections and responses to the objections are limited to two pages each. The parties are directed to the court's Standing Order For Objections Filed Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, dated March 7, 2022, a copy of which is available on the court's website, www.ded.uscourts.gov. A full-text copy of the Court's July 5, 2023 Memorandum Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6xrdzpd from Leagle.com. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Oct. 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Aug. 1 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE: VZ) between February 4, 2020 and July 26, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Verizon investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Verizon class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=17727 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose, among other things, that: (1) Verizon owns cables around the country that are highly toxic due to being wrapped in lead, and which harm Company employees and non-employees alike; (2) it faces potentially significant litigation risk, regulatory risk, and reputational harm as a result of its ownership of these lead cables and the health risks stemming from their presence around the United States; (3) it was warned about the damages and risks presented by these cables but did not disclose that they posed a threat to employee safety, to everyday people, and communities around the country; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 2, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=17727 or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] VISION SOLAR: N.J. Court Dismisses Landy's 1st Amended Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled BRENNAN LANDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VISION SOLAR, LLC d/b/a SOLAR EXCHANGE, Defendant, Case No. 21-20241 (D.N.J.), Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. On Feb. 7, 2023, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss and granted the Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint to correct the deficiencies related to the proper identity of the corporate entity named as defendant. The Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint on Feb. 21, 2023, and this motion followed. The Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint against the Defendant pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c), to stop its practice of placing unsolicited telemarketing calls without consent to consumers, who registered their phone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. The Original Complaint consisted of one count for violation of the Act, arising out of the Plaintiff allegedly receiving more than "one telephone solicitation" from the Defendant within a 12-month period, despite being on the National Do Not Call Registry. The original proposed Class Action Complaint named Vision Solar, LLC, d/b/a Solar Exchange, as the sole defendant. The Defendant moved for dismissal as a matter of law, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), because it claimed that no corporate entity named "Vision Solar, LLC d/b/a Solar Exchange" exists or was formed. In support of dismissal, the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff wrongly attempted to combine two distinct and separate entities as a single entity without any support for using the legally operative "d/b/a" designation or attempt to link the two entities in the Original Complaint. The Court agreed with the Defendant finding "the Complaint lacks a sufficient foundation for the connection between Vision Solar and Solar Exchange," but granted the Plaintiff "leave to file an Amended Complaint sufficiently setting forth the identity of the corporate defendant." The Plaintiff timely filed the Amended Complaint. The Defendant now moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in its entirety as a matter of law because he has "failed to sufficiently set forth the identity of the corporate defendant and therefore, should be dismissed." The Plaintiff argues the Amended Complaint "has been filed against Defendant Vision Solar, LLC--the sole corporate defendant identified in the case at this time--and Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that Vision conducts at least a portion of its business under the name 'Solar Exchange.'" The Defendant revives its argument that the "Plaintiff has attempted to combine two legally distinct separate entities as a single entity without any credible support." Despite the Plaintiff's contention that the complaint seeks relief against one corporate defendant--Vision Solar, LLC--which he alleges also conducts business, at least in part, using the name 'Solar Exchange,'" he did not amend the caption or remove any references to "d/b/a Solar Exchange" throughout the Amended Complaint, Judge Rodriguez notes. The Plaintiff alleges this is a factual allegation, which at the motion to dismiss stage, must be accepted as true. However, this is not a factual obligation that must be taken as true but is instead an impermissible legal conclusion, Judge Rodriguez opines. Thus, the Court finds the Plaintiff continues to attempt to combine two distinct and separate entities as a single entity without any support for using the legally operative "d/b/a" designation or attempt to link the two entities in the Amended Complaint. Despite the Court's previous Opinion and Order, the Plaintiff continues to rely upon a 2019 press release from Wolf Commercial Real Estate, which includes the name "Vision Solar LLC, doing business as Solar Exchange." As previously found, the press release is an insufficient foundation for the connection between Vision Solar and Solar Exchange. Significantly, Judge Rodriguez finds the Plaintiff fails to provide any legally reliable and/or verified documents that establish "Vision Solar, LLC d/b/a Solar Exchange" as the name of any registered and/or legally recognized entity. The Plaintiff now alleges in the Amended Complaint that during one of the calls, the call center operator stated that Solar Exchange and Vision are 'partner companies.'" Judge Rodriguez opines that such allegation contradicts the Plaintiff's belief that Vision Solar, LLC, and Solar Exchange are not partner companies but are the same company. Judge Rodriguez holds that the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to provide the sufficient foundation for the claim that Vision Solar, LLC, does business under the fictitious name Solar Exchange and is, therefore, dismissed in its entirety. For the reasons stated, Judge Rodriguez grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted, and the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated July 17, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/spkfz9mn from Leagle.com. WALBRIDGE ALDINGER: Faces Gray Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Hours -------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Gray, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Walbridge Aldinger LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-11672-SDK-DRG (E.D. Mich., July 12, 2023) seeks unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by Walbridge as a Straight Time Employee and was paid by the hour. Straight Time Employees worked more than 40 hours a week on a regular basis but they did not receive overtime pay from Walbridge. Defendant Walbridge misclassified Plaintiff and all other Straight Time Employees as exempt from overtime. Hence, they were paid the same hourly rate for all hours worked regardless if they worked over 40 hours in a workweek. Furthermore, Walbridge never paid its Straight Time Employees on a salary basis. Walbridge's conduct is in violation of the FLSA and done in reckless disregard of the law, the Plaintiff alleges. Gray, on behalf of himself and all other Straight Time Employees at Walbridge, seeks overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs. Walbridge is a full-service construction company headquartered in Detroit, MI and operates throughout the country. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson Andrew W. Dunlap Alyssa J. White 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 awhite@mybackwages.com - and – Richard J. (Rex) Burch 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 – Jennifer L. McManus FAGAN MCMANUS, PC 25892 Woodward Avenue Royal Oak, MI 58067-0910 Telephone: (248) 542-6300 E-mail: jmacmanus@faganlawpc.com WEBSTER BANK: Jenkins Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- Diandra Jenkins, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Webster Bank, N.A., Case No. 2:23-cv-05333 (E.D.N.Y., July 13, 2023) seeks unpaid overtime premiums under the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as damages for discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff is an African-American who works as a Loan Closing Associate for Defendant Webster Bank. While employed by the company, Plaintiff has not been paid significant overtime premium for hours worked in excess of 40 hours. The Plaintiff has also been subject to an egregious hostile work environment due to her race. Webster Bank, N.A. is a commercial bank that delivers financial and banking services and operates an office in Jericho, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maria Louisa Bianco, Esq. Milo Silberstein, Esq. DEALY SILBERSTEIN & BRAVERMAN,LLP 225 Broadway, Suite 1240 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 385-0066 WESTERN EXPRESS: Halluni Seeks Back Pay and Damages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Dejan Halluni, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Western Express, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00691 (M.D. Tenn., July 13, 2023) seeks all available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff was hired as truck driver by Western Express and was required to attend an orientation as part of its policy for newly hired drivers. The Plaintiff took part in the two-day orientation in Pennsylvania, but he was not paid by Western Express for the time he spent attending such orientation, says the suit. Headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee, Western Express is a Tennessee corporation engaged in the trucking industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark N. Foster, Esq. LAW OFFICE of MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC P.O. Box 869 Madisonville, KY 42431 Telephone: (270) 213-1303 E-mail: Mfoster@MarkNFoster.com WESTSIDE 309: Compelled to Produce Demanded Docs in Chang Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned YEN HSANG CHANG, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WESTSIDE 309 LLC, THAYER 45 LLC, POST 118 LLC, SEAMAN 20 LLC, SEAMAN 30 LLC, SEAMAN 133 LLC, VERMILYEA 153 LLC, HEIGHTS 170 LLC, HEIGHTS 624 LLC, HEIGHTS 177 LLC, FT. GEORGE 617 LLC, INWOOD 213 LLC, PAYSON 55 LLC, CROWN ASSOCIATES LLC, GEBS REALTY LLC, ALJO REALTY LLC, ABIII LLC, SKILLMAN 47 LLC, QPI-XXXII LLC, PAGE REALTY LLC, SUNNYSIDE 45-42 LLC, SYLVEEN REALTY LLC, SUNNYSIDE 47-21 LLC, and SUNNYSIDE 42 LLC, Defendants, Index No. 153031/2018 (N.Y. Sup.), Justice Lucy Billings of the New York Supreme Court, New York County, grants the Plaintiffs' motion to compel the Defendants to produce certain demanded documents. The other Plaintiffs are KENNETH HICKS, RANDY GARCIA, TIFFANY LEE, STEPHEN BOTTA, TAILEEN JOA, SHIRLEY OVID MITCHELL, CYNTHIA LOWE, DANIEL LORIA, NICOLE COCCHIARO, ANN VOTAW, SALVATORE RUSSO, ELIZABETH BOUK, NETANIA BUDOFSKY, JESSICA GOLDHIRSH, JOSEPH OSTWALD, ANDREW O'BRIEN, LAURA PIRAINO, MELODY MERKER, GARY TOPP, KRISTINA BONHORST, KENT HAINA JR., ANDREW KELTZ, DARRYL WASHINGTON, MEGAN HAGAR, MARISSA KOELLER, GABRIELLA GARCIA, TIMOTHY BARKER, ADEOLA ROLE, CAROLINA BOTERO, JOSEPH CRACCO, DAVID WALKER, FLORENCE LAGAMMA, MARY LEVITT, RYAN BALAS, DEIRDRE BALAS, JONATHAN LEUNG, LUKE VAN DEE VEER, JOSEPH RICCARDI, ADRIENNE RICCARDI, HENRY NICPONSKI, KAREN CLAMAN, PETER CERNAUSKAS, RYAN CLAPP, CLEMENT CHAN, MATTHEW HAENSLY, SCOTT CHAPMAN, MOHAMMAD ISLAM, STEPHANIE. MOSHER, ALGERSON ANDRE, LUKASZ JANIK, YOLANDA NUNLEY, MICHAEL ALBERTSON, ADINA WOLF, JONATHAN O'GRADY, DAVID ISAACS, STEPHANIE MACIOCH, ISABELLA CARDONA, MICHAEL WILKE, SHUCHIN SHUKLA, MAMUA JEME, GLENN ENGLISH, ANA MARIE SANTOS, JEN WATSON, KERRY McFATE, DESIREE GRENAY, JONATHAN GRENAY, TIMOTHY MORAN, LORNE HEILBRONN, J.L. DUFFY, PHYLISS HIRSHORN, HANS KLUEFER, and KATHERINE KLUEFER. The Appellate Division affirmed this Court's denial (Lubell, J.) of the Plaintiffs' prior motion to compel the documents the Plaintiffs now move to compel, because they previously failed to explain how the documents would show whether they met the prerequisites for class certification and whether a class action is the most feasible method for adjudicating this controversy. The Plaintiffs now provide that explanation comprehensively. The Defendants do not contend otherwise, but instead insist that documents covering any period more than four years before commencement of this action on April 3, 2018, are not discoverable. The Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs may obtain disclosure covering an earlier period only if the Plaintiffs complain that the Defendants deregulated the Plaintiffs' apartments, which is not the case here, and the Plaintiffs show indicia of the Defendants' fraud. In a decision that was not appealed and remains law of the case, the Court (Kalish, J.) found that the Plaintiffs adequately alleged indicia of the Defendants' fraud to entitle the Plaintiffs to disclosure looking back longer than the statute of limitations of four years. As Justice Robert D. Kalish determined, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants perpetrated a fraudulent scheme to inflate rents above the levels permitted under the New York Rent Stabilization Law. The Defendants did so by misrepresenting that they performed individual apartment improvements (IAIs) during vacancies, which entitled the Defendants to increase the rent, when the apartments did not appear to be improved, and no permits were issued for claimed improvements that would have required permit. The Defendants contend that their improvements before April 3, 2014, were non-structural interior renovations that did not impact health or safety and require a permit, yet required enough expenditures to increase rents above the deregulation threshold. Therefore, Justice Billings holds the Plaintiffs are entitled to disclosure to ascertain the extent of those improvements, to determine their value, whether they were repairs rather than improvements, whether the Defendants claimed the same improvements twice, and whether the New York City Department of Buildings required a permit, and to ascertain whether the Defendants obtained one. Justice Billings explains that this disclosure will show whether the Defendants engaged in such practices throughout the Defendants' buildings where the Plaintiffs reside. Documents showing whether the buildings operated under common ownership and management also may indicate a pattern or common practice. Since the Defendants rely on invoices from and checks to contractors to show their expenditures, the Plaintiffs are entitled to disclosure regarding the relationship between the Defendants and their contractors to show that the Defendants may have created these documents to support increases, after the fact without the improvements actually having been performed. The Plaintiffs are entitled to the contemporaneous rent histories, including rent registrations and notices of deregulation for their apartments and the State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) Registration Rent Roll Report and Cases by Building Report, to determine whether the actual improvements justified the rent increases and any resulting deregulation, Justice Billings opines. Importantly, the Plaintiffs' inspection of this history is at this juncture only to determine whether the Defendants' engaged in a fraudulent scheme to increase rent above the deregulation threshold so as to taint the reliability of the rent April 3, 2014, the base date, and not to furnish evidence to calculate the regulated rent April 3, 2014, or permit recovery of overcharges before that date. As the inquiry is whether the reliability of the base date's rent is tainted, and the documents determinative of that question are in the Defendants' possession or control, to require the Plaintiffs to show that the base date's rent is tainted before they may access these documents is illogical, Justice Billings says. The Defendants maintain that 9 N.Y.C.R.R. Sections 2521.2(c) and 2523.7(b) (2018) did not require them to retain records more than four years before April 3, 2014. First, Justice Billings opines, the Defendants themselves rely on such records (unless they created those records after the fact). If they did retain such records, the Defendants must produce those records to the extent demanded. Second, the Defendants claim they charged preferential rents, below the maximum regulated rent, for most of the Plaintiffs' apartments. When owners charged preferential rents, 9 N.Y.C.R.R. Section 2521.2(c) required retention of the entire "rental history of the housing accommodation immediately preceding such preferential rent." Third, 9 N.Y.C.R.R. Section 2526.1(a)(2)(iv) (2018) provided that, when tenants complained of overcharges, their apartments' rental histories more than four years before their complaints were subject to examination to determine not only whether a fraudulent scheme by the Defendants to deregulate rendered the base date's rent unreliable. As explained, whether the Plaintiffs may use the rental history of their apartments before April 3, 2014, to prove the ultimate merits of their claim to set a lower regulated rent is not the issue now before the Court. Justice Billings holds that the Plaintiffs may use that history to establish the prerequisites for class certification and whether a class action is the most feasible method for adjudicating this controversy. Consequently, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion to compel the Defendants to produce the demanded documents within 20 days after service of this order with notice of entry, unless the parties stipulate to a different deadline. Justice Billings holds that the Defendants will produce their operating and management agreements, all documents showing the ownership and formation of the Defendants, and all communications between any plaintiff and any defendant. For each of the Plaintiffs' apartments, the Defendants will produce all IAI and major capital improvement records, Notices of Deregulation, apartment registrations, leases, other rent records, and the DHCR Registration Rent Roll Report and Cases by Building Report. The parties also may stipulate to a different scope of documents. A full-text copy of the Court's Decision and Order dated July 17, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/28du93we from Leagle.com. WHITE BIRCH: Faces Guevara Suit Over Laborers' Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- GREGORIO ANTONIO GUEVARA, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff vs. WHITE BIRCH LANDSCAPE DESIGN, LLC, and all other affiliated entities and/or joint employers, all whose true names are unknown, and NICHOLAS DIFRANCISCO, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-03713 (D.N.J., July 11, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law and associated provisions of the New Jersey Administrative Code, as well as the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. Plaintiff Guevara became employed by Defendants, full-time, as a non-exempt landscape laborer, in or about May 2022, and worked for Defendants throughout New Jersey until in or about the end of June 2023. He routinely worked 50 to 60 hours per work week, working from Monday through Saturday. However, he was not compensated at one- and one-half times his regular rate of pay for his hours worked in excess of 40, the Plaintiff asserts. Headquartered in Livingston, NJ, White Birch Landscape Design, LLC provides design and installation landscapes, pavers, retaining walls, bluestone, and plants. The company also offers tree work and snow removal services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com ZANDER GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged ERISA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ William H. "Chip" Jones, II, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Zander Group Holdings, Inc., Zander Group Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Zander Group Holdings, Inc. 401(k) Plan, Jeffrey J. Zander, JJZ Insurance Agency Partnership d/b/a Zander Insurance Group, Zander Insurance Agency, Joshua Vollet, and John Does 1-8, Case No. 3:23-cv-00687 (M.D. Tenn., July 12, 2023) alleges the Defendants of breaching the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant Zander Insurance Agency as its IT Manager from June 2010 to October 2014. He was among the participants of the Agency's 401(k) plan and Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP). The Plaintiff resigned from the Agency in October 2014 and decided to roll over his 410(k) funds into another retirement plan not related to the Defendants, but his ESOP funds remained under the management of the Defendants. However, on December 31, 2021, the Defendants transferred Plaintiff's ESOP funds to the 401(k) Plan against his will and without proper and sufficient notice, in violation of ESOP's terms and ERISA. Thus, the Plaintiff is seeking all relief available under ERISA. Zander Group Holdings, Inc., also known as Zander Insurance Group, was established on July 7, 2011. It was previously owned by two trusts, the Cardinal Trust and the Toxaway Trust, and a Tennessee company, the now inactive JJZ Insurance Agency. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seamus T. Kelly, Esq. David J. Goldman, Esq. MUSIC CITY LAW, PLLC 1033 Demonbreun Street, Suite 300 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 200-0682 E-mail: seamus@musiccityfirm.com david@musiccityfirm.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 ***