/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231002.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, October 2, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 197 Headlines 1STOPBEDROOMS INC: Dawson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York 24/7 ROOTER & PLUMBING: Robinson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. 3M COMPANY: Deer Park Sues Over Contaminated Water Supplies 3M COMPANY: Grace Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Thomas Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Waldrup Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Williams Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 505 WASH: Rosado Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages A.A.A. DELI: Tavarez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ACCU-TEMP HEATING: Hidalgo Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination ADC CONSTRUCTION: Sued Over Unpaid Compensation ADMIRAL-MERCHANTS MOTOR: Major Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois AGRO RESEARCH: Class Certification Deadlines Stayed in Romero Suit ALABAMA CHANIN: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ALL SECURE: Seeks to Set Rescind Conditional Class Cert Order ALLIANCE FOR COMMUNITY: Austin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ALLSTATE VEHICLE: Seeks to Enforce Settlement Agreement in Mitchell AMAZON.COM INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to March 7, 2024 AMAZON.COM INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to May 31, 2024 AMERICAN HONDA: Geddis-Wright Files Suit in C.D. California AMERICAN WEIGH SCALES: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ANDREW CUOMO: Parties Seeks to File Docs Under Seal ARAMARK UNIFORM: Fernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California ARGENT TRUST: Lysengen Bid for Partial Summary Judgment Tossed ARVATO DIGITAL: Lomeli Suit Removed to C.D. California ATI PHYSICAL THERAPY: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit ATI PHYSICAL THERAPY: Faces Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing AVEN FLORIDA: Nesbitt Sues to Recover Security Deposits AZ MEDIQUIP: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BAKED NYC LLC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York BALLINAS & VASQUEZ: Martinez Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages BANK OF AMERICA: Class Settlement in Frausto Suit Wins Initial Nod BANK OF AMERICA: Class Settlement in Suarez Suit Wins Initial Nod BANK OF NEW YORK: Class Cert Hearing Set for Jan. 17, 2024 BANNER HEALTH: Williams Suit Transferred to N.D. California BAY CORPORATION: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BAYER HEALTH: Kleiman Sues Over False Marketing and Advertising BENNETT'S DEPARTMENT: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BIENVILLE ORTHOPAEDIC: Fendley Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi BIENVILLE ORTHOPAEDIC: Schenck Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi BIENVILLE ORTHOPAEDIC: Slusser Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi BLOOMBERG L.P.: Can Compel Graham to Arbitration; Case Stayed BLUE STAR: Garita Sues Over Truck Drivers' Unpaid Overtime BOJANGLES OPCO: Andrews Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages BOOT JUNKY INC: Gonzalez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BORN TO BE SASSY: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BOTHELL FEED CENTER: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BRADY MARTZ: Hoffer Files Suit in D. North Dakota BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES: Sims Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BROOKLERE PHARMACY: Dean Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES: St-Hilaire Files Suit in S.D. Indiana C K COLLECTION: Gonzalez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CARBON CREEK: Colton Seeks to Certify Class Action CARESOURCE: Embert Files Suit in S.D. Ohio CARESOURCE: Fails to Secure Customers’ Info, Eslinger Alleges CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY: Slaughter Suit Removed to D. Columbia CEDAR REALTY: HISF Securities Suit Ongoing in New York CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Fact Discovery Extended in Baird Suit CHECKPEOPLE LLC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Nov. 9 CHEERLEADING COMPANY: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CIGNA HEALTH: Ahmed Sues Over Improper Denial of Medical Services CIGNA HEALTH: Deighton Sues Over Fiduciary Duties Breach CITRUS WORLD: Foster Sues Over False and Misleading Labeling CLEVELAND AVE: Court Certifies Hogan Collective Action CLOVER HEALTH: Settlement Reached in Bond Suit CLOVER HEALTH: Settlement Reached in Kaul Suit CLOVER HEALTH: Settlement Reached in Tremblay Suit CLOVER HEALTH: Settlement Reached in Yaniv Suit CRODA INC: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Baker's Class Complaint CS DISCO: Faces Gambrill Securities Suit Over 53% Stock Price Drop DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Skistimas Suit Ongoing in New York DENTALPLANS.COM: Bradley Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass DIAMOND RESORTS: Settlement Agreement in Zwicky Gets Initial Nod EXPEDIA GROUP: Plaintiff Must Move for Class Cert. by Dec. 14 FAST BUSINESS: Starling Request to Conduct Discovery Partly OK'd FEDEX CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Annuity Benefits, Watt Claims FIFTY WEST: Class Cert Response Due Oct. 6 in Morse Suit FLAG DEVELOPMENT: Singh Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA FOUNDATION ENERGY: Ritter Seeks to Certify Settlement Classes FREESTYLE SOFTWARE: Bid to Dismiss Penn Suit Granted in Part FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Court Junks MSP Recovery Suit GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Bid for Summary Judgment Partly OK'D GN TRANSPORTATION: Court Sets Class Certification Deadlines GOLF GEAR: Fails to Pay Assembly Workers' OT Wages, Aguilera Says GPB HOLDINGS: Court Grants Bid for Leave to Amend Deluca Suit HAIN CELESTIAL: Howard Seeks to Certify Class HAIN CELESTIAL: Howard Seeks to Seal Portions of Documents HARRIS BAY AREA: Norman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HARTFORD GOLD: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due April 29, 2024 HOMETOWN EQUITY: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Feb. 22, 2024 HOPE CREDIT: May 2, 2024 Filing for Class Cert. Bid Sought IAC INC: Dismissal of Shareholder Suit Under Appeal ILLINOIS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to March 29, 2024 INTEGRATED COMMUNICATION: Court OK's Preliminary Settlement ISS FACILITY: Garcia Seeks to Continue Hearing on Class Status JOSEPH ALCE: Ct. Tosses DGIC Bid to Bifurcate Discovery JUNIPER NETWORKS: Class Settlement in Reichert Suit Wins Prelim. OK JUUL LABS: Altria Settlement Deal Gets Initial Nod KADENCE INT'L: $77.5K in Attys.' Fees & Costs Awarded in Brown Suit KANDLE DINING: Parties Seek to Certify Two Settlement Classes KENVUE INC: Hernandez Sues Over Sale of Ineffective Decongestants KOHLER CO: Shortchanges Plan Participants, Holloway Suit Alleges LA DUC FLAMBEAU: Denial of Bid to Toss Fitzgerald Suit Appealed LA DUC FLAMBEAU: Skytrail Appeals Ruling in Fitzgerald Suit LEXISNEXIS RISK: Scroggins Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Nayani Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd LOCUST MEDICAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 5, 2024 MAVIS DISCOUNT: Class Cert Reply Deadline Extended in Washington MBA MORTGAGE: Court Certifies Class & Subclasses in Remsnyder MCCORMICK & CO: Plaintiffs Must File Amended Complaint by Oct. 5 MENTAL HEALTH: Manning Seeks to Certify Class Action Settlement MID-HUDSON VALLEY: Settlement in Edwards Gets Final Nod MULTIPLAN INC: Good Samaritan Suit Moved to California Super. Court NEW YORK: Sughrim Bid for Partial Summary Judgment Partly OK'd NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Bucks County Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Pauli's Bid for Conditional Certification Denied PAPA JOHN'S: Amended Bid for Antitrust Suit Deal Approval Ordered PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER: McCarthy Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for CSRs PENSKE LOGISTICS: Faces Morgan Suit Over Wage-and-Hour Violations PROCTER & GAMBLE: Drugs Can't Treat Nasal Congestion, Kleiman Says PURFOODS LLC: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Emmert Alleges RBS CITIZENS: Filing of Reinig's Renewed Class Cert. Bid Allowed RECKITT BENCKISER: Decongestants "Ineffective," Jones Suit Claims RECKITT BENCKISER: Nyanjom Sues Over Decongestants' False Ads SAFECO INSURANCE: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Dow SANDS POINT: Fails to Pay Caddies' Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA SAVE MART: Parties Seek to Modify Certification Briefing Deadlines SELIP & STYLIANOU: Bid for Summary Judgment in Tomaine Suit Denied SEMPER LASER: Class Cert. Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge SPOKEO INC: Keliman Allowed to File Second Amended Complaint SPORTS RESEARCH: Capaci Must File Class Cert. Bid by Dec. 4 STAGHORN PETROLEUM: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 19, 2024 STATE FARM: Sisia Files Renewed Bid for Conditional Class Status TOYOTA MOTOR: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 25, 2024 TRAEGER PELLET: Court Certifies Two Classes in Yates Suit TRIBUCHA INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to March 28, 2024 TYSON FOODS: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in IPREH Suit TYSON FOODS: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Nims Suit UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS: Joseph Sues Over Unprotected Info WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Oct. 10 Extension to File Class Cert Sought WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Reply WASHINGTON: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Apr. 10, 2024 WELLS FARGO: Bid to Dismiss First Amended Kafka Complaint Granted WESTFIELD, MA: Perron Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. WILCO LIFE: Hearing on Grundstrom's Class Cert Bid Set for Nov. 3 ********* 1STOPBEDROOMS INC: Dawson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 1stopbedrooms Inc. The case is styled as Lashawn Dawson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. 1stopbedrooms Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08248-JHR-JW (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 1StopBedrooms -- https://www.1stopbedrooms.com/ -- stands out for its vast variety of high-quality furnishings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Phone: (516) 287-3458 Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com 24/7 ROOTER & PLUMBING: Robinson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 24/7 Rooter & Plumbing Services Inc., et al. The case is styled as Winston Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 24/7 Rooter & Plumbing Services Inc., Does 1 Through 50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC23609127 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Sept. 15, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." 24/7 Rooter & Plumbing -- https://www.24-7rooter.com/ -- with over 30 years of experience, are the most trusted and experienced plumbers in the San Francisco Bay Area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Michael Breall, Esq. BREALL & BREALL, LLP 3625 California St. San Francisco, CA 94118 Phone: 415-345-0545 Fax: 415-345-0538 Email: jmbreall@breallaw.com 3M COMPANY: Deer Park Sues Over Contaminated Water Supplies ----------------------------------------------------------- City Of Deer Park, Washington, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY L.L.C. F/K/A THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP (successor-in-interest to the Ansul Co.); JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-49; Case No. 2:23-cv-04169-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 21, 2023), is brought seeking to recover by this action the substantial costs necessary to protect the public and restore its water supplies, which are contaminated with the synthetic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including but not limited to perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS"), perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA"), perfluorohexane sulfonic acid ("PFHxS"), perfluorononanoic acid ("PFNA"), perfluorobutane sulfonate ("PFBS"), as well as all of their salts and ionic states, the acid forms of the molecules and their chemical precursors, and any other compounds the State regulates in the future. The Plaintiff brings this action to address widespread contamination of groundwater that provides drinking water to Plaintiff with PFAS, to recover costs associated with the contamination of drinking water and groundwater with PFAS, and further seek abatement of the ongoing nuisance these chemicals constitute in the environment, and for such other action as is necessary to ensure that the PFAS that contaminate the stormwater, surface water and aquifers supplying drinking water for Plaintiff do not present a risk to the public. PFAS are persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative compounds when released into the environment. PFAS have impacted stormwater, surface water and groundwater, and now contaminate the water supplies used by Plaintiff. The Defendants are companies that designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold PFAS, the chemical precursors of PFAS, and/or products containing PFAS, and/or their chemical precursors. Defendants made products with PFAS including but are not limited to, Teflon, Scotchgard®, waterproofing compounds, stain-proofing compounds, waxes, paper and cloth coatings, aqueous film forming foam ("AFFF"), a firefighting agent used to control and extinguish Class B fuel fires, and fluorosurfactants used in the manufacture of AFFF as well as telomer building blocks used to make fluorosurfactants that were then used to manufacture other PFAS containing products, including AFFF. Collectively, Defendants' PFOA, PFOS, precursors, products containing PFAS, AFFF, and other products and intermediates containing PFAS are referred to herein as "Fluorochemical Products." The Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, stored and/or sold Fluorochemical Products with the knowledge that these toxic compounds would be released into the environment during fire protection, fire training, and response activities, even when used as directed and intended by defendants. Defendants were also aware that their Fluorochemical Products would be and have been used, released, stored, and/or disposed of at, near, or within the vicinity of Plaintiff's water supplies such that PFAS, and their chemical precursors would enter the environment, migrate through the soil, sediment, stormwater, surface water, and groundwater, thereby contaminating the water that supplies Plaintiff. As a result of the use of defendants' Fluorochemical Products for their intended purpose, PFAS, and/or their chemical precursors have been detected in Plaintiff's water supplies at levels exceeding or approaching the Washington State Action Levels ("SALs") and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") proposed national drinking water standards and lifetime health advisory levels. Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that their PFAS compounds would enter the environment, contaminate soil, reach groundwater, pollute drinking water supplies, render drinking water unusable and unsafe, and threaten public health and welfare. The Plaintiff files this lawsuit to seek abatement of an ongoing nuisance and trespass, to recover compensatory and all other damages and relief, including all necessary funds to compensate Plaintiff for the costs of investigating and remediating the contamination of drinking water supplies impacted by PFAS; designing, constructing, installing, operating, and maintaining the treatment facilities and equipment required to remove PFAS from public water supplies; and for such other damages and relief the Court may order. Such costs include all necessary funds to investigate, monitor, assess, evaluate, remediate, abate, or contain contamination of water resources that are polluted with PFAS, says the complaint. The Plaintiff owns and operates a water system that provides drinking water to residents and commercial customers in the City of Deer Park, Washington. 3M Company (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company) ("3M") is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth A. Sansone, Esq. SL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW GROUP PC 4 Park Street, Suite 300 Concord, NH 03301 Phone: (603) 227-6298 Facsimile: (415) 366-3047 Email: ksansone@slenvironment.com - and - Robert A. Bilott, Esq. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, OH 45202-3957 Phone: (513) 381-2838 Facsimile: (513) 381-0205 Email: bilott@taftlaw.com - and - David J. Butler, Esq. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 65 East State Street, Suite 1000 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 221-2838 Facsimile: (614) 221-2007 Email: dbutler@taftlaw.com - and - Kevin J. Madonna, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN MADONNA, PLLC 48 Dewitt Mills Road Hurley, NY 12443 Phone: (845) 481-2622 Facsimile (845) 230-3111 Email: kmadonna@kennedymadonna.com - and - Gary J. Douglas, Esq. Michael A. London, Esq. Rebecca G. Newman, Esq. Tate J. Kunkle, Esq. DOUGLAS & LONDON, P.C. 59 Maiden Ln, 6th Fl, New York, NY 10038 Phone: (212) 566-7500 Email: gdouglas@douglasandlondon.com mlondon@douglasandlondon.com rnewman@douglasandlondon.com tkunkle@douglasandlondon.com - and - Ned McWilliams, Esq. LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, RAFFERTY, PROCTOR, BUCHANAN, O'BRIEN & MOUGEY, P.A. 316 S. Baylen St. Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 435-7138 Email: nmcwilliams@levinlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Grace Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Grace, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:23-cv-04242-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 24, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a state police officer and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq. Keith Jackson, Esq. Jeremiah Mosley, Esq. RILEY & JACKSON, P.C. 3530 Independence Dr. Birmingham, AL 35209 Phone: 205-879-5000 Facsimile: 205-879-5901 3M COMPANY: Thomas Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemarie Thomas & Richard Thomas, as Heirs to the Estate of RAMON Eugene Thomas, deceased, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-04237-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 24, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by the Decedent in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Decedent was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Decedent's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused Decedent to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Rosemarie Thomas (the Surviving Spouse) and Richard Thomas (the surviving child), are the Heir to the Estate of, Ramon Eugene Thomas who regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with leukemia and bladder cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 3M COMPANY: Waldrup Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------ Joni Waldrup, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-04704-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 19, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tessa G. Cuneo, Esq. Alexandra W. Robertson, Esq. ASK LLP 2600 Eagan Woods Drive, Suite 400 St. Paul, MN 55121 Phone: (651) 406-9665 Fax: (651) 406-9676 Email: tcuneo@askllp.com arobertson@askllp.com 3M COMPANY: Williams Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams -------------------------------------------------------------- Vincent Williams, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:23-cv-04243-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 24, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a state police officer and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq. Keith Jackson, Esq. Jeremiah Mosley, Esq. RILEY & JACKSON, P.C. 3530 Independence Dr. Birmingham, AL 35209 Phone: 205-879-5000 Facsimile: 205-879-5901 505 WASH: Rosado Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Gloria C. Rosado, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. 505 WASH LLC, Case No. 7:23-cv-08344 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 20, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") to recover from Defendant: unpaid overtime compensation; unpaid minimum wages; liquidated damages on those amounts; liquidated damages for untimely wage payments; liquidated damages and civil penalties pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and a proposed class of others similarly situated, who worked at Defendant's Hotels in New York State, the required overtime pay of time and one-half for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week and failed to pay them the required minimum wage for all hours worked. Concerning overtime, Plaintiff regularly worked 10-20 hours of overtime each week since the beginning of their employment. However, Defendant did not pay Plaintiff the mandated time-and-a-half for these overtime hours, violating federal and state labor laws. The Defendant utilized both paper and digital timesheets for record keeping, and Plaintiff was able to view some of these pay stubs through the ADP mobile app. No formal meal or rest breaks were granted to Plaintiff, contrary to standard labor practices. Plaintiff was allowed to eat but was not allowed to leave the premises for official breaks. Contrary to New York labor law, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff the "spread of hours" pay for shifts exceeding 10 hours in a single day, which would be an additional hour's pay at $15 per hour. In summary, Plaintiff alleges multiple violations of labor laws, including the failure to properly compensate for overtime hours and not providing mandated meal and rest breaks, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a Front Desk Receptionist at the Defendant' multiple hotel locations. The Defendant operates hotels in various location in Bronx, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810, New York, NY 10017 Phone: 718-669-0714 Email: mgangat@gangatpllc.com A.A.A. DELI: Tavarez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Leandro Tavarez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. A.A.A. Deli and Grocery Inc., and Leonardo Collado, Case No. 2:23-cv-06968 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 21, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and violations of Articles 6 and 19 of the New York State Labor Law ("NYLL") and their supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations, the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA"). From September 2020 to, through and including July 2021, Tavarez. Was paid $8.00 per hour, for all hours worked. From October 2022 to, through and including, August 15, 2023, Tavarez. was paid $14.00 per hour, for all hours worked. The Defendants never granted Plaintiff with meal breaks or rest periods of any length. The Plaintiff was not required to keep track of Plaintiff's time, nor to Plaintiff's knowledge, did the Defendants utilize any time tracking device, such as sign in sheets or punch cards, that accurately reflected Plaintiff's actual hours worked. No notification, either in the form of posted notices, or other means, was ever given to Plaintiff regarding wages are required under the FLSA or NYLL. Defendants did not provide Plaintiff a statement of wages, as required by NYLL. The Defendants did not give any notice to Plaintiff, in Spanish (Plaintiff's primary language), of Plaintiff's rate of pay, employer's regular pay day, and such other information as required by NYLL. The Defendant's failure to provide accurate wage notices and accurate wage statements denied Plaintiff his statutory right to receive true and accurate information about the nature of his employment and related compensation policies, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was ostensibly employed as a general worker at the Defendants' deli. The Defendants own, operate and/or control the deli known as "AAA Deli & Grocery" located in Freeport, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 792-0046 Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com ACCU-TEMP HEATING: Hidalgo Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------------- FLAVIO ALFREDO CHAVEZ HIDALGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACCU-TEMP HEATING & COOLING INC., THOMAS SHANLEY, JR., and BYRON PAREDES, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-06930 (E.D.N.Y., September 19, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York State Human Rights Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to furnish wage statements, failure to furnish wage notice, and engagement in discriminatory and retaliatory practices. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a technician from in or around October 2017 until in or around January 2023. Accu-Temp Heating & Cooling Inc. is a company that specializes in heating, cooling, furnace, air conditioning installation, repairs, and maintenance, with a principal executive office located at 140 Raynor Ave., Ronkonkoma, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 ADC CONSTRUCTION: Sued Over Unpaid Compensation ----------------------------------------------- Eduardo De La Cruz-Ramos, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated v. ADC CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC, GNA CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., and ALEJANDRO DE LA CRUZ, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 3:23-cv-00104-TES (M.D. Ga., Sept. 20, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid overtime premium pay and minimum wages, owed to them pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and supporting regulations. Throughout Plaintiff's employment, Plaintiff received no overtime wages despite working excess of 40 hours each week. Additionally, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff any wages whatsoever for his last three weeks of work, which means Defendants failed to pay at least the statutory minimum wage and the overtime wages owed for those three weeks, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked in the Defendants' company as a laborer. The Defendants own and operate a construction company called ADC Construction Services, LLC ("ADC"), which was formerly known as GNA Construction Services, Inc. ("GNA").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon A Thomas, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC 1 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 650 Atlanta, GA 30328 Phone: (678) 862-9344 Fax: (678) 638-6201 Email: brandon@overtimeclaimslawyer.com ADMIRAL-MERCHANTS MOTOR: Major Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as John Major, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Admiral-Merchants Motor Freight, Inc., Case No. 23104531 was removed from the Superior Court of Cobb County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 22, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-05884 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Admiral Merchants -- https://www.ammf.com/ -- offers truckload and LTL service with a variety of specialized equipment available for shipper loading.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth Barrow Mccormick, Esq. GREAT LAKES CONSUMER LAW FIRM, LLC 73 W. Monroe St., Suite 100 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 971-6787 Email: seth@glclf.com The Defendant is represented by: Joseph L. Hoolihan, Esq. William Charles Meyers, Esq. GOLDBERG KOHN LTD. 55 East Monroe Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 201-3854 Email: joseph.hoolihan@goldbergkohn.com wcm@goldbergkohn.com AGRO RESEARCH: Class Certification Deadlines Stayed in Romero Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Romero, et al., v. Agro Research International LLC, et. al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00518 (N.D. Cal., Filed Jan. 21, 2021), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order setting a status conference for October 26, 2023, at 10:00 am. -- In light of defendant Agro Research International's impending bankruptcy, all deadlines pertaining to class certification are stayed. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Agro Research is in the industry of Chemicals, Petrochemicals, Glass & Gases, Manufacturing.[CC] ALABAMA CHANIN: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alabama Chanin, Inc. The case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Alabama Chanin, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08251 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Alabama Chanin -- https://alabamachanin.com/ -- is an e-commerce company that provides women's clothes, home textiles, tabletop, and DIY.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com ALL SECURE: Seeks to Set Rescind Conditional Class Cert Order ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN WHITE, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. ALL SECURE, LLC, a Tennessee limited liability company, Case No. 2:22-cv-02501-TLP-cgc (W.D. Tenn.), the Defendant seeks a ruling from the Court rescinding the order granting conditional certification based on the holding of Clark and further seeks a ruling that clarifies or reestablishes a new Scheduling Order in this cause. To comply with the Clark standard, Plaintiff's most show that evidence already exists that a group of putative plaintiffs exist that are similarly situated to the Plaintiff, and this is an inquiry that must be made on an individualized basis. This matter has been pending since August 8, 2022, and not one putative Plaintiff has opted into this matter since the filing, the Defendant contends. The Plaintiff has further failed to articulate with any specificity the scope of her job duties and whether or not she in fact performed all the duties herself. The Plaintiff, Lauren White has not shown that her employment which spanned only six and one half months she claimed to have worked for 1482 hours, the Defendant adds. The Defendant All Secure has represented to the Court that it disputes that White worked the hours alleged by herself. Any hours for which the Plaintiff is demanding compensation must be shown to have been worked by her and that the work was integral and indispensable to her position as a security guard. There is no such proof in the record at this point. All Secure is a full service commercial and residential security company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PpAnre at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Florence M. Johnson, Esq. JOHNSON AND JOHNSON, P.C. 1407 Union Avenue, Suite 1002 Memphis, TN 38104 Telephone: (901) 725-7520 ALLIANCE FOR COMMUNITY: Austin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Alliance for Community Wellness. The case is styled as Terrance Austin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Alliance for Community Wellness, Case No. CGC23609107 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Sept. 15, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." HIV Alliance -- https://hivalliance.org/acw/ -- was founded in 1994 to support people living with HIV/AIDS and prevent new HIV infections.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com ALLSTATE VEHICLE: Seeks to Enforce Settlement Agreement in Mitchell ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LULA MITCHELL, LARRY JOHNSON, JOYCE JOHNSON, THELMA PETTY-COSEY, SARAH ROBERSON, MAURICE WILLIAMS, TELECIA HARDY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, and ESURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, Vehicle and Property Insurance Company et al, Case No. 2:21-cv-00347-TFM-B (S.D. Ala.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to enforce Settlement Agreement. Allstate provides property and casualty insurance services. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Sept. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PIYFxR at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Roger D. Higgins, Esq. Mary-Ellen King (Wyatt), Esq. THOMPSON, COE, COUSINS, & IRONS, LLP 700 N. Pearl Street, 25th Floor Dallas, TX 75201-2832 Telephone: (214) 871-8200 Facsimile: (214) 871-8209 E-mail: rhiggins@thompsoncoe.com mking@thompsoncoe.com - and - Kermit L. Kendrick, Esq. BURR & FORMAN LLP Wells Fargo Tower, Suite 3400 420 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 251-3000 E-mail: kkendric@burr.com AMAZON.COM INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to March 7, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH DE COSTER et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-00693-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Ricardo S. Martinez entered an order regarding modified class certification briefing schedule: 1. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file their class certification motion is extended to March 7, 2024. 2. The deadline for Amazon to respond to Plaintiffs' motion is June 7, 2024. 3. The deadline for Plaintiffs' reply brief is August 7, 2024. Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company focusing on e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZirjZP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq. Anne F. Johnson, 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 barbaram@hbsslaw.com annej@hbsslaw.com - and - Zina G. Bash, Esq. Warren D. Postman, Esq. Albert Y. Pak, Esq. Jessica Beringer, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500 Austin, TX, 78701 Telephone: (512) 690-0990 E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com wdp@kellerpostman.com albert.pak@kellerpostman.com jessica.beringer@kellerpostman.com - and - Derek W. Loeser, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: Dloeser@kellerrohrback.com - and - Alicia Cobb, Esq. Steig D. Olson, Esq. David D. LeRay, Esq. Nic V. Siebert, Esq. Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq. Adam B. Wolfson, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1109 First Avenue, Suite 210 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 905-7000 E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com steigolson@quinnemanuel.com davidleray@quinnemanuel.com nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com The Defendant is represented by: MaryAnn Almeida, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com JohnGoldmark@dwt.com MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com - and - Karen L. Dunn, Esq. William A. Isaacson, Esq. Amy J. Mauser, Esq. Martha L. Goodman, Esq. Kyle Smith, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006-1047 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 Facsimile: (202) 223-7420 E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com wisaacson@paulweiss.com amauser@paulweiss.com mgoodman@paulweiss.com ksmith@paulweiss.com AMAZON.COM INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to May 31, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANNON MACK, LINDSEY FARROW, and LESLIE BETANCOURT individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-01310-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John C. Coughenour entered an order granting stipulated motion for extension of case schedule as follows: Event Current Deadline New Deadline Amazon's Response to Second Sept. 7, 2023 Jan. 8, 2024 Amended Complaint Document productions and Sept. 29, 2023 Jan. 29, 2024 written discovery shall be substantially completed Motions for joinder of Dec. 20, 2023 Apr. 19, 2024 parties and amendments to pleadings Non-expert witness Jan. 26, 2024 May 24, 2024 depositions shall be completed Plaintiffs' motion for Jan. 31, 2024 May 31, 2024 class certification Amazon's opposition to April 15, 2024 Aug. 15, 2024 Plaintiffs' motion for class certification Plaintiffs' reply in May 31, 2024 Sept. 30, 2024 support of their motion for class certification Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company focusing on e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 7, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46dcDNz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: jonas@dovel.com simon@dovel.com - and - Wright A. Noel, Esq. CARSON & NOEL, PLLC 20 Sixth Ave. NE Issaquah WA 98027 Telephone: (425) 395-7786 Facsimile: (425) 837-5396 E-mail: wright@carsonnoel.com The Defendant is represented by: David A. Bateman, Esq. Ruby A. Nagamine, Esq. Jennifer J. Nagle, Esq. Robert W. Sparkes, Esq. Michael R. Creta, Esq. Loly G. Tor, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98104-1158 Telephone: (206) 623-7580 Facsimile: (206) 623-7022 E-mail: david.bateman@klgates.com ruby.nagamine@klgates.com jennifer.nagle@klgates.com robert.sparkes@klgates.com michael.creta@klgates.com loly.tor@klgates.com AMERICAN HONDA: Geddis-Wright Files Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et al. The case is styled as Shavonne Geddis-Wright, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Managed Care of North America Inc., Honda Motor Co., Ltd., Case No. 2:23-cv-06940-WLH-SSC (C.D. Cal., Aug. 23, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Dispute. The American Honda Motor Company, Inc. -- https://www.honda.com/ -- is the North American subsidiary of the Honda Motor Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Marc Poulin, Esq. Blake G. Abbott, Esq. Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (803) 222-2222 Fax: (843) 494-5536 Email: eric.poulin@poulinwilley.com blake@akimlawfirm.com paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com - and - John C. Bohren, Esq. BOHREN LAW 8560 West Sunset Boulevard, 4th Floor West Hollywood, CA 90069 Phone: (619) 433-2803 Fax: (800) 867-6779 Email: yanni@bohrenlaw.com AMERICAN WEIGH SCALES: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Weigh Scales Inc. The case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. American Weigh Scales Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08293-ER (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. American Weigh Scales, Inc. -- https://awscales.com/ -- is a Georgia corporation that manufactures and distributes digital scales around the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com - and - Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (917) 796-7437 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com ANDREW CUOMO: Parties Seeks to File Docs Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as M. G., et al., v. Cuomo et al, Case No. 7:19-cv-00639-CS-AEK (S.D.N.Y.), the parties request that the Court grant the parties leave to file documents under seal. The Parties said, "While the documents at issue here are judicial documents, it is clear that the Protective Order requires that the parties file them under seal. Among other things, these exhibits contain mental health, correctional, and parole records of the Named Plaintiffs and records that contain personal or identifying information for Named Plaintiffs and other individuals currently or formerly incarcerated by the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. As the parties agree, these documents must be filed under seal to protect these interests." Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison LLP, along with The Legal Aid Society's Prisoners' Rights Project and Disability Rights New York, represents Plaintiffs in the above-referenced matter. The New York State Office of the Attorney General represents the Defendants in the above-referenced matter. Please accept this joint letter brief in lieu of a more formal motion requesting permission to file under seal certain documents filed in connection with Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, Defendants' Motion in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, and Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of their Motion for Class Certification. On February 7, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs' ex parte motion to proceed anonymously and ordered that filings that "reveal the identities of the Plaintiffs" may be filed under seal. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EFRikg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Crystal L. Parker, Esq. Walter Ricciardi, Esq. Emily A. Vance, Esq. Chantalle Hanna, Esq. Samuel Margolis, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019-6064 Telephone:(212) 373-3069 E-mail: cparker@paulweiss.com wricciardi@paulweiss.com evance@paulweiss.com channa@paulweiss.com smargolis@paulweiss.com - and - Elizabeth Woods, Esq. Sabina Khan, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS NEW YORK 279 Troy Road, Ste 9, PMB 236 Rensselaer, NY 12144 Telephone: (518) 432-7861 E-mail: elizabeth.woods@drny.org sabina.khan@drny.org - and - Twyla Carter, Esq. Elena Landriscina, Esq. Stefen R. Short, Esq. Robert M. Quackenbush, Esq. Sophia A. Gebreselassie, Esq. THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY 199 Water Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 577-3530 E-mail: elandriscina@legal-aid.org sshort@legal-aid.org. rquackenbush@legal-aid.org sgebreselassie@legal-aid.org The Defendants are represented by: Owen T. Conroy, Esq. Adam Sansolo, Esq. Gee Won Cha, Esq. Caroline Wallitt, Esq. Telephone: (212) 416-6133 ARAMARK UNIFORM: Fernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Antoinette Fernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ARAMARK UNIFORM & CAREER APPAREL, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV16346 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Sept. 15, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-07711. The Plaintiff alleges 8 separate causes of action for: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks; Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Eric Meckley, Esq. Sarah Zenewicz, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 Phone: +1.415.442.1000 Fax: +1.415.442.1001 Email: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com ARGENT TRUST: Lysengen Bid for Partial Summary Judgment Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACKIE LYSENGEN, on behalf of the Morton Buildings, Inc. Leveraged Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. ARGENT TRUST COMPANY, JAN ROUSE, EDWARD C. MILLER, GETZ FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ESTATE OF HENRY A. GETZ, and ESTATE OF VIRGINIA MILLER, Case No. 1:20-cv-01177-MMM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Michael M. Mihm entered an order: -- Denying the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment with respect to the Shareholder Defendants; and -- Granting the Shareholder Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment. The Plaintiff's pending Motions for Partial Summary Judgment on issues of material fact and whether the whether the ERISA claims succeed as a matter of law against Defendant Argent Trust Company remain pending before the Court. The Court found that the relief does not run afoul of the probate exception, it also does not satisfy the requirements of Section 502(a)(3) of ERISA. Additionally, the Court need not determine whether any applicable procedural safeguards are required with respect to the Shareholder Defendants since the claims do not succeed as a matter of law Morton designs and builds structures for farm, commercial, and residential use. The business was originally family owned by several individuals, including Henry Getz, Virginia Miller, the Getz Family Limited Partnership, and an employee-owned defined contribution plan known as The Morton Buildings, Inc. 401(k) and ESOP. Argent operates as an investment management firm. The Company offers financial planning, trusts, and real estate management services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/454e68g at no extra charge.[CC] ARVATO DIGITAL: Lomeli Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned Marco Antonio Lomeli, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ARVATO DIGITAL SERVICES, LLC; CORTECH WEST STAFFING, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CIV SB 2313363 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Sept. 15, 2023, and assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-01894. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts 8 causes of action against Defendants for: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime compensation; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; failure to timely pay final wages at termination; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and unfair business practices.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Veronica T. Hunter, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1700 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 650 0404 Facsimile: (713) 650-0405 Email: Veronica.Hunter@jacksonlewis.com - and - Orlando J. Arellano, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 Email: Orlando.Arellano@jacksonlewis.com ATI PHYSICAL THERAPY: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit --------------------------------------------------------- ATI Physical Therapy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that it is facing a consolidated stockholder class action seeking money damages in an unspecified amount and costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees. On April 11, 2022, defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, which were fully briefed as of July 25, 2022 and remain pending On October 7, 2021, the City of Melbourne Firefighters' Retirement System filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ATI and board members Labeed Diab, Joe Jordan, and Drew McKnight, and Fortress Value Acquisition Corp. II (FVAC) stockholders Joshua Pack, Marc Furstein, Leslee Cowen, Aaron Hood, Carmen Policy, Rakefet Russak-Aminoach, and Sunil Gulati. Complaint generally alleges that the proxy materials for the FVAC/ATI merger, as well as other ATI disclosures (including the press release announcing ATI's financial results for the first quarter of 2021), were false and misleading (and, thus, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act) because they failed to disclose that: (i) ATI was experiencing attrition among its physical therapists; (ii) ATI faced increasing competition for clinicians in the labor market; (iii) as a result, ATI faced difficulty retaining therapists and incurred increased labor costs; (iv) also as a result, ATI would open fewer new clinics; and (v) also as a result, the defendants' positive statements about ATI's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Lead Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the putative class, seek money damages in an unspecified amount and costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees. On November 18, 2021, the court consolidated the cases and appointed The Phoenix Insurance Company Ltd. and The Phoenix Pension & Provident Funds as lead plaintiffs. On February 8, 2022, they filed a consolidated amended complaint, on behalf of themselves and the putative class. ATI Physical Therapy, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is a nationally-recognized healthcare company, specializing in outpatient rehabilitation and adjacent healthcare services including physical therapy to treat spine, shoulder, knee and neck injuries or pain; work injury rehabilitation services, including work conditioning and work hardening; hand therapy; and other specialized treatment services. Its direct and indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries include, but are not limited to, Wilco Holdco, Inc., ATI Holdings Acquisition, Inc. and ATI Holdings, LLC. On November 18, 2021, the court consolidated the cases and appointed The Phoenix Insurance Company Ltd. and The Phoenix Pension & Provident Funds as lead plaintiffs. On February 8, 2022, they filed a consolidated amended complaint, on behalf of themselves and the putative class. ATI Physical Therapy, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is a nationally-recognized healthcare company, specializing in outpatient rehabilitation and adjacent healthcare services including physical therapy to treat spine, shoulder, knee and neck injuries or pain; work injury rehabilitation services, including work conditioning and work hardening; hand therapy; and other specialized treatment services. Its direct and indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries include, but are not limited to, Wilco Holdco, Inc., ATI Holdings Acquisition, Inc. and ATI Holdings, LLC. ATI PHYSICAL THERAPY: Faces Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing ------------------------------------------------------------ ATI Physical Therapy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that it is facing a stockholder class action complaint filed on August 16, 2021 by two purported ATI stockholders, Kevin Burbige and Ziyang Nie. Complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against ATI and board members Labeed Diab, Joe Jordan, and Drew McKnight, and Fortress Value Acquisition Corp. II (FVAC) stockholders Joshua Pack, Marc Furstein, Leslee Cowen, Aaron Hood, Carmen Policy, Rakefet Russak-Aminoach, and Sunil Gulati. Complaint generally alleges that the proxy materials for the FVAC/ATI merger, as well as other ATI disclosures (including the press release announcing ATI's financial results for the first quarter of 2021), were false and misleading (and, thus, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act) because they failed to disclose that: (i) ATI was experiencing attrition among its physical therapists; (ii) ATI faced increasing competition for clinicians in the labor market; (iii) as a result, ATI faced difficulty retaining therapists and incurred increased labor costs; (iv) also as a result, ATI would open fewer new clinics; and (v) also as a result, the defendants' positive statements about ATI's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Lead Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the putative class, seek money damages in an unspecified amount and costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees. On November 18, 2021, the court consolidated the cases and appointed The Phoenix Insurance Company Ltd. and The Phoenix Pension & Provident Funds as lead plaintiffs. On February 8, 2022, they filed a consolidated amended complaint, on behalf of themselves and the putative class, seeking money damages in an unspecified amount and costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees. On April 11, 2022, defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, which were fully briefed as of July 25, 2022 and remain pending. ATI Physical Therapy, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is a nationally-recognized healthcare company, specializing in outpatient rehabilitation and adjacent healthcare services including physical therapy to treat spine, shoulder, knee and neck injuries or pain; work injury rehabilitation services, including work conditioning and work hardening; hand therapy; and other specialized treatment services. Its direct and indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries include, but are not limited to, Wilco Holdco, Inc., ATI Holdings Acquisition, Inc. and ATI Holdings, LLC. AVEN FLORIDA: Nesbitt Sues to Recover Security Deposits ------------------------------------------------------- Myra Nesbitt on behalf ofherself and all others similarly situated v. AVEN FLORIDA LLC, Case No. CACE-23-018588 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Sept. 19, 2023), is brought seeking to recover security deposits paid by a class of tenants and unlawfully retained by their landlord. The Plaintiffs claims arise from Aven Florida's unlawful taking of tenants' security deposits to offset alleged damage claims; and failure to provide tenants with the statutorily required Notice of Intention to Impose a Claim on Security Deposit Letter ("Security Deposit Letter") in violation Of the Florida Residential Landlord Tenant Act ("FRLTA"). In Florida, Aven Florida owns apartments at 1610 N. Dixie Highway, Hollywood, Florida 33020 ("Apartment Building"), which is subject to the FRLTA Upon information and belief, Aven Florida owns many other properties in Florida subject to the FRLTA. After a tenant moves out, FRLTA requires Aven Florida to either return the security deposit in full to a tenant within 15 days of moveout or send a certified mail notice of its intent to impose a claim against a tenant's security deposit that includes the statutory language required by FRLTA within 30 days of move out ("Security Deposit Letter"). However, Aven Florida fails to send a Security Deposit Letter at all that complies with the FRLTA requirements. Upon information and belief, Aven Florida does not send a letter at all, let alone by certified mail. As a result, Aven Florida "forfeits the right to impose a claim upon the security deposit and may not seek a setoff against the deposit." Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class, seek a return of their security deposits in full as a result of the FRLTA violations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a tenant of the Apartment Building and paid a security deposit of $300 to Defendant. Aven Florida owns other apartment buildings and residential rentals in Florida that are subject to the FRLTA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew T. Peterson, Esq. CONSUMER LAW ADVOCATE, PLLC. 225 1st Ave. N. St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Phone: (815)-999-9130 Email: mtp@lawsforconsumers.com AZ MEDIQUIP: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AZ Mediquip, Inc. The case is styled as Lynn Zelvin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AZ Mediquip, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08317-LGS (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. AZ MediQuip -- https://www.azmediquip.com/ -- is a retail company that provides medical equipment, equipment services, pharmaceutical products, and rental services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com BAKED NYC LLC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Baked NYC, LLC. The case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Baked NYC, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06875 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 15, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Baked NYC -- https://bakednyc.com/ -- are a classic American bakery and cafe with locations in Brooklyn and Tokyo.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com BALLINAS & VASQUEZ: Martinez Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSE CARMEN NAVA MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BALLINAS & VASQUEZ CORP. and CECILIO BALLINAS, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-08244 (S.D.N.Y., September 19, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to pay wage notice, and failure to pay wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook and food preparer from in or around May 2016 until in or around July 2023. Ballinas & Vasquez Corp. is a restaurant owner and operator located at 3515 Johnson Avenue, Bronx, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 BANK OF AMERICA: Class Settlement in Frausto Suit Wins Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as IRMA FRAUSTO, v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case No. 18-cv-01983-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered an order as follows: (1) Preliminarily approving the settlement and authorizing the notices as set forth in this order; (2) Approving the notice plan; (3) Provisionally appointing the class representatives and class counsel; and (4) Appointing CPT Group, Inc. as the settlement administrator; The "Settlement Class" is defined as "Defendant's current and former non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant in California at any time from January 1, 2017, through October 31, 2022." The Class excludes the following groups: (a) any employee who has filed a separate lawsuit (individually and/or as a putative class or representative action) that remains pending as of the date of preliminary approval of this Settlement Agreement asserting the same or similar claims to those alleged in the Lawsuits, including but not limited to the named plaintiffs in "Andrea Sosa v. Bank of America National Association, Case No. 22STCV18958 (Cal. Super., Ct., Los Angeles Cty.);" "David Gentilcore, Gino Palomino, Angela Loukos, and Debra Delgado v. Bank of America, N.A., 2:21-cv-01237-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal.);" "Susan Gomez Rivas v. Bank of America, Case No. N.A., HG21110153 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty.), and "Charlotte Lee v. Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America National Association, Case No. BCV-21-100770 (Cal. Super, County of Kern); and (b) any employee who has previously released all the Released Claims and Released PAGA Claims. The "Aggrieved Employees" (for purposes of the PAGA penalties allocation) are "Defendant's current and former non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant in California at any time from February 14, 2017, through October 31, 2022 and whose PAGA claims being settled and released in this Settlement Agreement have not all been released previously as part of another court-approved PAGA settlement." There are 12,000 Class Members. Settlement Amount and Allocation The total non-reversionary Gross Settlement Fund is $1,500,000, and the Net Settlement Fund -- the fund recovered by the Class -- is approximately $560,000 after the following deductions: (1) Enhancement Awards for the Class Representatives (not to exceed $10,000 each); (2) Attorney's fees (not to exceed $500,000 or 33.33% of the Gross Settlement Fund) and costs (not to exceed $250,000) awarded to Class Counsel; (3) Settlement Administration Costs (not to exceed $70,000); (4) the PAGA Amount of $100,000 (with $75,000 to be paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency and $25,000 to be paid to the Aggrieved Employees); and (5) "any employer-side payroll taxes for the wages portion of each Individual Settlement Payment." In these putative class actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the plaintiffs -- current and former nonexempt California employees at Bank of America -- challenge Bank of America's alleged failure to pay them for their off-the-clock work, provide meal and rest breaks, or reimburse expenses. The plaintiffs claim violations of the California Labor Code, California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and California’s Private Attorney's General Act (PAGA). Bank of America offers saving and current account, investment and financial services, and online banking. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sTHG2J at no extra charge.[CC] BANK OF AMERICA: Class Settlement in Suarez Suit Wins Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARIANNA SUAREZ, v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case No. 18-cv-01202-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered an order as follows: (1) Preliminarily approving the settlement and authorizing the notices as set forth in this order; (2) Approving the notice plan; (3) Provisionally appointing the class representatives and class counsel; and (4) Appointing CPT Group, Inc. as the settlement administrator; The "Settlement Class" is defined as "Defendant's current and former non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant in California at any time from January 1, 2017, through October 31, 2022." The Class excludes the following groups: (a) any employee who has filed a separate lawsuit (individually and/or as a putative class or representative action) that remains pending as of the date of preliminary approval of this Settlement Agreement asserting the same or similar claims to those alleged in the Lawsuits, including but not limited to the named plaintiffs in "Andrea Sosa v. Bank of America National Association, Case No. 22STCV18958 (Cal. Super., Ct., Los Angeles Cty.);" "David Gentilcore, Gino Palomino, Angela Loukos, and Debra Delgado v. Bank of America, N.A., 2:21-cv-01237-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal.);" "Susan Gomez Rivas v. Bank of America, Case No. N.A., HG21110153 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty.), and "Charlotte Lee v. Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America National Association, Case No. BCV-21-100770 (Cal. Super, County of Kern); and (b) any employee who has previously released all the Released Claims and Released PAGA Claims. The "Aggrieved Employees" (for purposes of the PAGA penalties allocation) are "Defendant's current and former non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant in California at any time from February 14, 2017, through October 31, 2022 and whose PAGA claims being settled and released in this Settlement Agreement have not all been released previously as part of another court-approved PAGA settlement." There are 12,000 Class Members. Settlement Amount and Allocation The total non-reversionary Gross Settlement Fund is $1,500,000, and the Net Settlement Fund -- the fund recovered by the Class -- is approximately $560,000 after the following deductions: (1) Enhancement Awards for the Class Representatives (not to exceed $10,000 each); (2) Attorney's fees (not to exceed $500,000 or 33.33% of the Gross Settlement Fund) and costs (not to exceed $250,000) awarded to Class Counsel; (3) Settlement Administration Costs (not to exceed $70,000); (4) the PAGA Amount of $100,000 (with $75,000 to be paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency and $25,000 to be paid to the Aggrieved Employees); and (5) "any employer-side payroll taxes for the wages portion of each Individual Settlement Payment." In these putative class actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the plaintiffs -- current and former nonexempt California employees at Bank of America -- challenge Bank of America's alleged failure to pay them for their off-the-clock work, provide meal and rest breaks, or reimburse expenses. The plaintiffs claim violations of the California Labor Code, California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and California’s Private Attorney's General Act (PAGA). Bank of America offers saving and current account, investment and financial services, and online banking. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45XENN8 at no extra charge.[CC] BANK OF NEW YORK: Class Cert Hearing Set for Jan. 17, 2024 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WALDEN, et al., v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01972 (W.D. Pa., Filed Dec. 21, 2020), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy entered an order setting a hearing on the motion for class certification for Jan. 17, 2024. The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Default. Bank of New York Mellon Corporation is an American investment banking services holding company.[CC] BANNER HEALTH: Williams Suit Transferred to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Dianna Williams and Alicia Bell, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Banner Health, Meta Platforms Incorporated, Case No. 2:23-cv-01228 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Sept. 20, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-04821-LJC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Banner Health -- http://www.bannerhealth.com/-- is a non-profit health system in the United States, based in Phoenix, Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin D. Neal, Esq. William F. King, Esq. Kenneth N. Ralston, Esq. GALLAGHER & KENNEDY, P.A. 2575 East Camelback Road Phoenix, AZ 85016-9225 Phone: (602) 530-8000 Facsimile: (602) 530-8500 Email: kevin.neal@gknet.com bill.king@gknet.com kenneth.ralston@gknet.com - and - Mark Reich, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP - NEW YORK, NY 55 Broadway, 4th Fl. New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Email: mreich@zlk.com The Defendant is represented by: Alexander Vitruk, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 999 3rd Ave., Suite 3900 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 566-7092 Email: avitruk@bakerlaw.com - and - Brian Pouderoyen, Esq. George Hamilton King, Esq. William George Klain, Esq. LANG & KLAIN PC - SCOTTSDALE, AZ 6730 N Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 101 Scottsdale, AZ 85253 Phone: (480) 534-4900 Email: bpouderoyen@lang-klain.com gking@lang-klain.com wklain@lang-klain.com - and - Casie D. Collignon, Esq. Jonathan Maddalone, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP - DENVER, CO 1801 California St., Ste. 4400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 861-0600 Email: ccollignon@bakerlaw.com jmaddalone@bakerlaw.com - and - Benjamin Christian Nielsen, Esq. Katherine Bool Krukowski, Esq. QUARLES & BRADY LLP - PHOENIX, AZ One Renaissance Square 2 N. Central Ave., Ste. 600 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2391 Phone: (602) 229-5767 Fax: (602) 229-5690 Email: benjamin.nielsen@quarles.com kate.krukowski@quarles.com - and - Darcy Caitlyn Harris, Esq. Lauren R. Goldman, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Phone: (212) 351-3894 Fax: (212) 351-6394 Email: dharris@gibsondunn.com LGoldman@gibsondunn.com BAY CORPORATION: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Bay Corporation. The case is styled as Luis Mercedes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Bay Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-08263 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bay Corporation -- https://www.baycorporation.com/ -- has been creating quality custom medical gas and hose fittings since 1979.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com BAYER HEALTH: Kleiman Sues Over False Marketing and Advertising --------------------------------------------------------------- Cathy Kleiman, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Bayer Health Care, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-20480 (D.N.J., Sept. 19, 2023), is brought because of the Defendant's fraud, false marketing, false advertising, breach of contract, breach of warranty, and breaches of state law consumer protection statutes. The Defendant manufactured, marketed, labeled, distributed, and sold "Alka Seltzer Plus" branded products ("Medicine", or "Drugs"). These Drugs are designed to combat sinus issues, such as congestion, among other things. Unfortunately, the Drugs do not. In fact, the Drugs are ineffective according to the FDA, this is due to their active ingredient being phenylephrine. Through its own marketing, as demonstrated above, Defendant is seeking out consumers who are in vulnerable positions given their need for medicine related to nasal and sinus issues. Unfortunately, Defendant's "Alka Seltzer Plus" branded Drugs, containing phenylephrine, are ineffective as decongestants. These Drugs, specifically those containing phenylephrine, were brought to market as alternatives for other types of medicines that were prone to abuse by illicit drug producers, as to create methamphetamine. In fact, these Drugs took the shelf space of older, truly effective drugs, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Defendant's tablet style phenylephrine medicine. The Defendant is a self-proclaimed medical drug provider, specializing in fighting colds.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Furia, Esq. 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Phone: (845) 483-7100 Fax: (888) 749-7747 Email: furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq. Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. Blake G. Abbott, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (803) 222-2222 Email: roy.willey@poulinwilley.com paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com blake.abbott@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com BENNETT'S DEPARTMENT: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bennett's Department Store, Inc. The case is styled as Luis Mercedes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bennett's Department Store, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08269 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bennett's Clothing -- https://bennettsclothing.com/ -- offers customers the latest trends in Mens and Womens fashion and the best in customer service for over 47 years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com BIENVILLE ORTHOPAEDIC: Fendley Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bienville Orthopaedic Specialists, LLC. The case is styled as Robert Fendley, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bienville Orthopaedic Specialists, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00234-LG-MTP (S.D. Miss., Sept. 15, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Bienville Orthopaedic Specialists LLC -- https://www.bienvilleortho.com/ -- is the largest provider of orthopaedic care on the Mississippi Gulf Coast.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert G. Germany, Esq. GERMANY LAW FIRM, PLLC 2060 Main Street P.O. Box 1028 Madison, MS 39110 Phone: (601) 487-0555 Fax: (601) 487-1088 Email: bob@bobgermanylaw.com BIENVILLE ORTHOPAEDIC: Schenck Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bienville Orthopaedic Specialists, LLC. The case is styled as Guy Schenck, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bienville Orthopaedic Specialists, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00237-LG-MTP (S.D. Miss., Sept. 18, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Personal Injury. Bienville Orthopaedic Specialists LLC -- https://www.bienvilleortho.com/ -- is the largest provider of orthopaedic care on the Mississippi Gulf Coast.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Erik S. Heninger, Esq. HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC P. O. Box 11310 2224 First Avenue North (35203) Birmingham, AL 35202 Phone: (205) 326-3336 Fax: (205) 326-3332 Email: erik@hgdlawfirm.com BIENVILLE ORTHOPAEDIC: Slusser Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bienville Orthopaedic Specialists, LLC. The case is styled as Debbie Slusser, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v. Bienville Orthopaedic Specialists, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00238-HSO-RPM (S.D. Miss., Sept. 18, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Bienville Orthopaedic Specialists LLC -- https://www.bienvilleortho.com/ -- is the largest provider of orthopaedic care on the Mississippi Gulf Coast.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Matthew Eichelberger, Esq. EICHELBERGER LAW FIRM, PLLC 308 E. Pearl St., Suite 201 Jackson, MS 39201 Phone: (601) 292-7940 Fax: (601) 510-9103 Email: matt@ike-law.com BLOOMBERG L.P.: Can Compel Graham to Arbitration; Case Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JUSTIN GRAHAM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLOOMBERG L.P., Defendant, Case No. 22-CV-7015 (VSB) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: (i) grants in part and denies in part Bloomberg's motion to dismiss the complaint in the action and compel Graham to participate in arbitration; and (ii) stays the case pending the outcome of arbitration. On Feb. 16, 2021, Graham purchased a subscription to Bloomberg's news service. To do so, Graham navigated to Bloomberg's online subscription page. On this screen was a line stating, "By submitting my information, I agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Service and to receive offers and promotions from Bloomberg." Each of the underlined terms, when clicked on, linked to different webpages -- the "Terms of Service" text linked to a page containing Bloomberg's terms. Paragraph 14 of the Terms of Service Page sets out the agreement to arbitrate. The same section further provides that "there will be no authority for any claims to be arbitrated on a class or representative basis." Graham did not know about the Arbitration Agreement when he signed up for Bloomberg's services. Graham filed a class action complaint on Aug. 17, 2022, alleging violations of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2710. Bloomberg promptly waived service. On Oct. 18, 2022, Bloomberg moved to compel Graham to arbitrate his claims on an individual basis and dismiss the complaint. In support, it submitted a memorandum of law and the declaration of Marissa Zanetti-Crume with supporting exhibits. Graham opposed the motion on Nov. 22, 2022, and submitted the declarations from Philip L. Fraietta, and Graham, in support. The motion was fully briefed on Dec. 13, 2022, when Bloomberg filed its reply, and a further declaration from Zanetti-Crume with supporting exhibits. The only question before Judge Broderick is whether the Arbitration Agreement between Graham and Bloomberg is valid. He opines that the language alerting a user to the Arbitration Agreement is a clear prompt to read the terms and conditions and signals to a user that purchase will bind them to those terms. The Terms of Service Page also prominently highlights the Arbitration Agreement. Finally, the font, color, and overall design of the Bloomberg page helped to put Graham on inquiry notice. In terms of overall design and clutter or lack thereof, Bloomberg's page contains only the identification and payment information necessary to purchase a subscription without any additional offers or advisements. In sum, the design of Bloomberg's page put Graham on inquiry notice that by purchasing a subscription to Bloomberg, he validly assented to the Arbitration Agreement. Having determined that Graham assented to the Arbitration Agreement, Judge Broderick determines whether the action should be dismissed, as Bloomberg requests, or stayed. He finds sound reasons for granting a stay versus dismissal. Therefore, he denies Bloomberg's motion to dismiss this matter rather than stay it pending the resolution of arbitration proceedings. In light of the foregoing, Judge Broderick grants in part and denies in part Bloomberg's motion. Graham will participate in arbitration pursuant to the terms of the Arbitration Agreement. Bloomberg's motion to dismiss is denied. The case is stayed pending the outcome of the parties' arbitration. The parties will provide the Court with a joint status letter by the earlier of seven days after the outcome of the arbitration. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion at Doc. 8. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 15, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2487swxv from PacerMonitor.com. Victoria Jennings Maniatis -- vmaniatis@milberg.com -- Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC, Garden City, New York. Joshua David Arisohn -- jarisohn@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A, New York, New York, Counsel for the Plaintiff. Adya Baker -- adya@zwillgen.com -- Jeffrey Landis -- jeff@zwillgen.com -- ZwillGen PLLC, Washington, DC, Counsel for the Defendant. BLUE STAR: Garita Sues Over Truck Drivers' Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------- HAROLD GARITA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BLUE STAR CARTING, INC., LOUIS DeCUOLLO, individually, and JEANNETTE TUMOLO-DeCUOLLO, individually, Case No. 3:23-cv-20471 (D.N.J., Sept. 19, 2023) seeks to recover overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law("NJWPL"). Beginning 2010, the Defendants allegedly engaged in a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and members of the putative collective to regularly work in excess of 40 hours per week, without providing overtime compensation as required by applicable federal and New Jersey state law. The Plaintiff worked from 12 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., or over 13 hours per day. Regardless of the number of hours that Plaintiff worked each week in excess of 40, the Defendants generally improperly paid a salary of $640 per week, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against the Defendants as a collective action on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated - who suffered damages as a result of Defendants' violations of the FLSA. Mr. Garita was employed by the Defendants from February, 2010 until October, 2022, as a waste truck driver. Blue Star is a garbage and recycling collections business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Glenn, Esq. Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP 300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com BOJANGLES OPCO: Andrews Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Dorien Andrews II and Conner Crisco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BOJANGLES OPCO, LLC and BOJANGLES RESTAURANTS, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00593-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C., Sept. 19, 2023), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 for unpaid wages from Defendants for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay, as required by law, liquidated damages under the FLSA, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of this action. The Plaintiffs allege, on behalf of themselves and the Putative Collective Members who will opt into this action pursuant to the FLSA, that they and these other Assistant General Managers, Assistant Managers, Assistant Unit Directors, and employees in similar positions with different job titles (collectively, "AGMs") are entitled to recover overtime wages. Consistent with Defendants' policies, patterns, or practices, Plaintiffs and the Putative Collective Members regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek without being paid overtime wages. Plaintiffs and the Putative Collective Members performed the same or substantially similar primary job duties, including the non-exempt tasks of cashiering, cooking, cleaning, and restocking products. The Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages for work performed by Plaintiffs and the Putative Collective Members in excess of 40 hours per workweek was willful, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as AGMs. The Defendants operate fried chicken fast food restaurants throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian L. Kinsley, Esq. CR LEGAL TEAM, LLP 2400 Freeman Mill Rd., Suite 200 Greensboro, NC 27406 Phone: (336) 333-9899 Facsimile: (866) 827-2879 Email: bkinsley@crlegalteam.com - and - Logan A. Pardell, Esq. PARDELL, KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO, PLLC 433 Plaza Real, Suite 275 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (561) 726-8444 Facsimile: 877) 453-8003 Email: lpardell@pkglegal.com BOOT JUNKY INC: Gonzalez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed Boot Junky, Inc. The case is styled as Yanilza Gonzalez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Boot Junky, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08175 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 15, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Boot Junky, Inc. -- https://www.bootjunky.com/ -- have women's cowgirl boots, have Old Gringo boots for sale, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com BORN TO BE SASSY: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Born to Be Sassy, LLC. The case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Born to Be Sassy, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-08249 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Born To Be Sassy -- https://borntobesassy.com/ -- offer boutique shirts, jackets, bottoms, and so much more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com BOTHELL FEED CENTER: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bothell Feed Center, Inc. The case is styled as Tonimarie Rhone, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Bothell Feed Center, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08142 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bothell Feed Center -- https://bothellfeedcenter.com/ -- is a family-owned and operated animal feed store, gift shop, and pet supply store in Bothell, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com BRADY MARTZ: Hoffer Files Suit in D. North Dakota ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brady Martz & Associates, P.C. The case is styled as John Hoffer, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Brady Martz & Associates, P.C., Case No. 3:23-cv-00177-ARS (N.D. Ga., Sept. 15, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Breach of Contract. Brady, Martz & Associates, P.C. -- https://www.bradymartz.com/ -- is an accounting firm based in North Dakota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd. Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 984-0000 Email: malmstrom@whafh.com BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES: Sims Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brookfield Properties Multifamily, LLC. The case is styled as Billy G. Sims, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Brookfield Properties Multifamily, LLC, Does 1 Through 50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC23609192 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Sept. 19, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Brookfield Properties -- https://www.brookfieldproperties.com/en.html -- is a multifamily services company, providing asset and property management across the North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq. DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2540 Foothill Blvd., Ste. 201 La Crescenta, CA 91214-4583 Phone: 818-230-8380 Fax: 818-230-0308 Email: alvin@yeremianlaw.com Website: www.yeremianlaw.com BROOKLERE PHARMACY: Dean Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Maria Dean, on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated v. BROOKLERE PHARMACY, LLC AND JOHN BROOKLERE, Case No. 2:23-cv-01229-GMB (N.D. Ala., Sept. 18. 2023), is brought seeking unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages owed to them for not being paid overtime timely in direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (hereinafter called the "FLSA"). While working for Defendants, Plaintiff often worked in excess of 40 hours per week performing services for Defendants. However, despite the fact that Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week for Defendants, she was not and has not been properly paid overtime for all hours she worked in excess of 40 per week. In particular, Defendants repeatedly told Plaintiff that they do not pay and will not pay overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 per week, despite knowing, and indeed requiring, that Plaintiffs and the putative FLSA Collective Action Plaintiffs regularly and routinely work in excess of 40 hours per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff began working for Defendants providing pharmaceutical compounding services to Defendants' clients in the Birmingham Area in 2018 until June 2023. The Defendants provided pharmacy services to persons in Walker, Shelby and Jefferson County in the State of Alabama.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jody Forester Jackson, Esq. JACKSON+JACKSON 2100 Southbridge Parkway, Suite 650 Birmingham, AL 35209 Phone: (205) 414-7467 Fax: (888) 988-6499 Email: jjackson@jackson-law.net BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES: St-Hilaire Files Suit in S.D. Indiana --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Commissioner of the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles. The case is styled as Jeffson St-Hilaire, Merlange Meme, Evenks Meme, Nadege Jean Marie, L. M.D. M., by her next friend Martin Welp, on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated v. Commissioner of the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Case No. 1:23-cv-01505-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind., Aug. 23, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil Rights Act. Joe Hoage serves as Commissioner for the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chiraayu Gosrani, Esq. Nicholas David Espiritu, Esq. Tanya Broder, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER 3450 Wilshire Blvd., No, 108-62 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 639-3900 Fax: (213) 639-3911 Email: gosrani@nilc.org espiritu@nilc.org broder@nilc.org - and - Gavin Minor Rose, Esq. Kenneth J. Falk, Esq. Stevie J. Pactor, Esq. ACLU OF INDIANA 1031 E. Washington St. Indianapolis, IN 46202 Phone: (317) 635-4059 ext.106 Fax: (317) 635-4105 Email: grose@aclu-in.org kfalk@aclu-in.org spactor@aclu-in.org - and - Lisa Graybill, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER PO Box 40476 Austin, TX 78704 Phone: (213) 493-6503 Fax: (213) 639-3911 Email: graybill@nilc.org The Defendant is represented by: Betsy M. DeNardi, Esq. James A. Barta, Esq. INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL Indiana Government Center South, 5th Floor 302 West Washington St. Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770 Phone: (317) 232-6231 Fax: (317) 232-7979 Email: betsy.denardi@atg.in.gov james.barta@atg.in.gov C K COLLECTION: Gonzalez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed C K Collection, Inc. The case is styled as Yanilza Gonzalez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. C K Collection, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08177 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 15, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. C K Collection, Inc. -- https://www.ckcollection.com/ -- offers women's clothing and ‎women's shoes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com CARBON CREEK: Colton Seeks to Certify Class Action -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gregg B. Colton, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated persons, v. Carbon Creek Energy, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00150-ABJ (Wyo. Dist.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). The case concerns the Wyoming Royalty Payment Act ("WRPA"), and Colton seeks certification of class of oil-and-gas mineral owners to whom Defendant Carbon Creek Energy, LLC has failed to make timely payments on proceeds they are entitled and failed to calculate and pay the required 18% statutory interest under the WRPA. Specifically, Colton respectfully requests that the Court enter an order certifying the following class: "All non-excluded persons or entities who are legally entitled to a share of proceeds received by Carbon Creek derived from the sale of production from any wells producing oil, gas, or related hydrocarbons in Wyoming who: (1) have received late payments from Carbon Creek at any time since July 12, 2014, on oil, gas, and related hydrocarbons produced and sold by Carbon Creek from Wyoming wells; and (2) have not received interest from Carbon Creek at the statutory rate of eighteen percent per annum on such late payments." Excluded from the Class are: (1) Carbon Creek, its affiliates, predecessors, employees, officers, and directors; and (2) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the United States of America. Colton respectfully requests that the Court enter an order certifying this proposed class, appointing Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Plaintiff’s counsel as class counsel. Carbon Creek produces responsibly-sourced natural gas in Wyoming's Powder River Basin. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 8, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PKVDsG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kelly Shaw, Esq. Travis W. Koch, Esq. KOCH LAW. P.C. 121 W. Carlson St. Suite 3 Cheyenne, WY 82009 Telephone: (307) 426-5010 E-mail: kshaw@kochlawpc.com tkoch@kochlawpc.com - and - George A. Barton, Esq. Stacy A. Burrows, Esq. Seth K. Jones, Esq. BARTON AND BURROWS, LLC 5201 Johnson Drive, Ste. 110 Mission, KS 66205 Telephone: (913) 563-6250 E-mail: george@bartonburrows.com stacy@bartonburrows.com seth@bartonburrows.com CARESOURCE: Embert Files Suit in S.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against CareSource. The case is styled as Rachel Embert, on behalf of herself, her minor child, KG, and all others similarly situated v. CareSource, Case No. 3:23-cv-00270-WHR-PBS (N.D. Ga., Sept. 19, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. CareSource -- https://www.caresource.com/ -- is a nonprofit that began as a managed health care plan serving Medicaid members in Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyson Steele Beridon, Esq. HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI AND WALL, PLLC 600 Vine St., Ste. 2720 Cincinnatti, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 381-2224 Fax: (615) 994-8625 Email: alyson@hsglawgroup.com CARESOURCE: Fails to Secure Customers’ Info, Eslinger Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- PATSIE ESLINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CARESOURCE, Case No. 3:23-cv-00271-WHR-CHG (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 19, 2023) sues the Defendant for failing to safeguard the highly sensitive and confidential personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and more than three million other similarly situated individuals from the data breach perpetrated by well-known cybergang, Cl0p. On September 5, 2023, the Defendant sent a letter to the Plaintiff announcing a security breach of the data the Plaintiff and the Class had entrusted the Defendant with. CareSource divulged that on May 31, 2023, a vulnerability in the MOVEit web transfer application that CareSource utilizes for transferring documents was hacked. CareSource admits that the information compromised in the Data Breach included PII and PHI such as Class Members' full name, address, date of birth, gender, Social Security number, member identification number, plan name, health conditions, medications, allergies, and diagnoses. Despite learning of the Data Breach more than two months earlier, Defendant did not send a notice of data event letter to the Plaintiff until September 5, 2023. Thus, cybercriminals were given a head start in misusing the Plaintiff's and the Class's PII/PHI before they were even informed of what happened, the suit claims. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of the Plaintiff and Class Members, the Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. Due to CareSource's failure to utilize software with adequate data security measures in place, Plaintiff and the Class face a lifetime risk of fraud and identity theft, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff has suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud, identity theft, and misuse resulting from her Private Information being placed in the hands of unauthorized third parties and criminals. The Plaintiff has a continuing interest in ensuring that her Private Information remains backed up in Defendant's possession, is protected and safeguarded from future breaches. Plaintiff Patsie Eslinger is a citizen of Silver Creek, Georgia. After the Data Breach, Eslinger experienced effects of her information being compromised and used nefariously, including receiving voluminous amounts of suspicious emails and phone calls. CareSource is a managed care corporation incorporated in Ohio. CareSource administers one of the largest Medicaid managed care plans in the country and offers health insurance to patients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com - and - Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Charles R. Toomajian III, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com charles.toomajian@zimmreed.com CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY: Slaughter Suit Removed to D. Columbia ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Steven Slaughter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA, Case No. 2023-CAB-004788 was removed from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on Sept. 15, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-02703. The Plaintiff has sued Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), District of Columbia's Wage Payment and Collection Law ("WPCL"), and the District of Columbia's Minimum Wage Act ("MWA"). The Complaint also asserts "collective and class action allegations."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan Lescht, Esq. Nekeisha Campbell, Esq. Laura Older Rockmore, Esq. ALAN LESCHT & ASSOCIATES 1825 K Street NW, Suite 750 Washington, DC 20006 Email: Alan.Lescht@leschtlaw.com Nekeisha.Campbell@leschtlaw.com Laura.Rockmore@leschtlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael J. Marinello, Esq. KAGAN STERN MARINELLO & BEARD, LLC 238 West Street Annapolis, MD 21401 Phone (410) 216-7900 Fax (410) 705-0836 Email: marinello@kaganstern.com CEDAR REALTY: HISF Securities Suit Ongoing in New York ------------------------------------------------------ Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that it is currently facing a securities suit filed by a purported holder of the company's outstanding preferred stock filed on July 11, 2022, against the company and the Board of Directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled "High Income Securities Fund v. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc., et al.," No. 2:22-cv-4031. The complaint alleged that the Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions, and that the former Board of Directors are control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On August 12, 2022, defendants requested permission to file a motion to dismiss, and plaintiff responded opposing Defendants' request on September 7, 2022. The court granted defendants' request to file a motion to dismiss on October 25, 2022. Defendants served their motion to dismiss on December 23, 2022, which plaintiff opposed on January 27, 2023. Defendants filed a reply brief on the motion to dismiss on February 17, 2023. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. is a real estate investment trust that focuses on owning and operating income producing retail properties with a primary focus on grocery-anchored shopping centers primarily in the Northeast. At June 30, 2023, the company owned a portfolio of 19 operating properties. Cedar Realty Trust Partnership, L.P. is the entity through which the company conducts substantially all of its business and owns (either directly or through subsidiaries) substantially all of its assets. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Fact Discovery Extended in Baird Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LANCE BAIRD, et al., v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-10621-FLA-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-rocha entered an order as follows: -- Granting the Plaintiffs' motion in the alternative and extending the fact discovery cut-off date for the limited purpose of allowing Plaintiffs to distribute a survey to the putative class members; -- Granting the Magistrate Judge is granted the discretion to consider or reject any discovery requests related to such survey as previously stated; -- Denying Plaintiffs' requests to overrule or modify portions of the Magistrate Judge's July 17, 2023 Order and for an extension of expert discovery deadlines; -- Denying the Defendant's Motion and request to overrule or modify portions of the Magistrate Judge's July 17, 2023 Order; and -- Directing the parties to submit a joint status report within 90 days of the Order, detailing the status of the action and proposing a briefing schedule on Plaintiff's intended Motion for Class Certification. Charter is an American telecommunications and mass media company with services branded as Spectrum. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 8, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46jrOVM at no extra charge.[CC] CHECKPEOPLE LLC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Nov. 9 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gaul v. CheckPeople, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01313 (C.D. Ill., Filed Nov 1, 2021), the Hon. Judge James E. Shadid entered an order on motion for extension of time to complete discovery: -- Plaintiff's Class certification Nov. 9, 2023 motion to be filed by: -- Responses to class certification Nov. 30, 2023 motion due by: -- Reply due by: Dec. 14, 2023 -- Dispositive Motions due by: Feb. 1. 2024 The suit alleges violation of Torts -- Personal Property Damage. CheckPeople was founded to help you make informed decisions and have an ability to easily locate public records.[CC] CHEERLEADING COMPANY: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cheerleading Company, Inc. The case is styled as Luis Mercedes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cheerleading Company, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08273 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cheerleading Company -- https://www.cheerleading.com/ -- is a webshop that sells a range of uniforms, apparel, game-day spirit items, shoes, poms, megaphones and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com CIGNA HEALTH: Ahmed Sues Over Improper Denial of Medical Services ----------------------------------------------------------------- Azam Ahmed, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cigna Health Management, Inc., Wellfleet Insurance, and Wellfleet New York Insurance Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-08094 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 13, 2023), is brought on behalf of insureds covered under insurance policies issued by the Defendant Wellfleet New York, whose requests for preauthorization of medical goods, services, treatments, or prescription drugs under their policy were improperly denied by Defendant Cigna Health in violation of the terms of the insurance policy and applicable law, as well as all persons whose requests for preauthorization of medical goods, services, treatments, or prescription drugs under any health plan or policy were improperly by Defendant Cigna Health Management, Inc. The plan, which Mr. Ahmed purchased, covered the period from August 2016 to November 20, 2018. During that time Mr. Ahmed paid in excess of $7,500 for this insurance coverage. Years prior, doctors diagnosed Mr. Ahmed with a congenital birth defect, resulting in numerous skeletal abnormalities and related symptoms including headaches, jaw-joint pain, jaw clicking, and teeth grinding. Mr. Ahmed also suffered from facial asymmetry, issues with chewing and articulation, breathing, and jaw locking. In May 2017, on the advice of his oral maxillofacial surgeon, Mr. Ahmed underwent surgery to address symptoms resulting from these skeletal abnormalities. Wellfleet Insurance required participants in the NYU student health plan to seek preauthorization for procedures like the one received by Mr. Ahmed. Mr. Ahmed's preauthorization request was approved by Wellfleet Insurance via Hines & Associates, a vendor hired by Wellfleet Insurance to perform medical necessity reviews. Although Mr. Ahmed's surgery was partially successful, it did not fully resolve his symptoms, particularly the pain and breathing issues, which he continued to experience. On December 15, 2017, his same surgeons determined that a second surgery was necessary to further improve his skeletal deformity and remedy his ongoing pain and breathing problems, which would entail septoplasty, rhinoplasty, and jaw augmentation. Mr. Ahmed, working with his doctors, sent a preauthorization request to Wellfleet Insurance. On December 21, 2017, despite the referral letter explaining why the second surgery was medically necessary, Wellfleet Insurance, now acting through Cigna summarily denied the preauthorization request in letters to Dr. David Hirsch, Plaintiff's oral maxillofacial surgeon, as well as Mr. Ahmed. The letters indicated that the insurance provider deemed the surgery as not medically necessary, directly contradicting the professional medical opinions of Dr. Hirsch and Mr. Ahmed's other doctors. On January 8, 2018, Cigna sent a second letter to Mr. Ahmed and another of his treating surgeons, Dr. Charles Thorne, in which Cigna denied preauthorization for the remaining two procedures, the septoplasty and rhinoplasty. This letter also cited lack of medical necessity as the reason for denial. Cigna's denials were made without properly reviewing Plaintiff's health benefits and were inconsistent with the terms of the insurance policy under which Plaintiff was covered. The denials violated the policy's provision for how medical necessity is determined. Both letters state that "Cigna's review was limited to medical necessity alone. Cigna, is not a claims payor and has not reviewed your health benefits plan to determine coverage." In March 2023, ProPublica published an investigative report detailing Cigna's utilization of a system that indiscriminately denies payments for claims and may lead to improper denials of coverage for medically necessary tests and procedures.1 The report states that claims were routinely denied by Cigna's algorithm known as PXDX, and then sent to Cigna's "medical directors" who would issue denials without reviewing the patient's claim file. According to the report, these medical directors spent an average of 1.2 seconds on each case. Whether Mr. Ahmed's surgical claim was denied due to the usage of an algorithm or an actual review by Cigna's unqualified medical directors is irrelevant--either way, the denials were improper. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and good faith standards to evaluate the claims of Plaintiff and Class members, ignored the terms and conditions of Mr. Ahmed's insurance policy, and overruled the recommendations of Plaintiff's skilled and knowledgeable medical providers. The Defendants have engaged in an improper and illegal scheme to defraud Plaintiff and the Class, as defined below, by issuing denials of coverage for medical procedures through the improper use of corporate policies and/or practices such as: (a) computer algorithms including but not limited to the PXDX system; (b) the improper use of so-called "medical directors" or other staff who are not qualified to render opinions of medical necessity because of their lack of subject matter expertise; and/or (c) failing to properly review Class members' actual files, all in derogation of their duties of good faith and fair dealing in determining coverage. As a result of the foregoing conduct, this action asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment, and seeks monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a New York University ("NYU") student, first purchased NYU's student health insurance plan in August 2016. Cigna is a licensed utilization review agency hired by Wellfleet Insurance to replace Hines & Associates and review health care services for medical necessity.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William A. Walsh, Esq. Abigail J. Gertner, Esq. Natalie Lesser, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA Phone: (215) 875-3000 Fax: (215) 875-4604 Email: wwalsh@bm.net agertner@bm.net nlesser@bm.net - and - Karen L. Handorf, Esq. Julie S. Selesnick, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 2001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: (202) 559-9740 Fax: (215) 875-4604 Email: khandorf@bm.net jselesnick@bm.net CIGNA HEALTH: Deighton Sues Over Fiduciary Duties Breach -------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Deighton, on his own behalf and on behalf of his beneficiary son, C.D., and all others similarly situated v. CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; DISNEY SIGNATURE BENEFITS PLAN; INVESTMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY SPONSORED QUALIFIED BENEFIT PLANS, Case No. 2:23-cv-06988-DMG-PVC (C.D. Cal., Aug. 23, 2023), is brought against the Defendants' violation of their legal and fiduciary duties. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, mental illness among both children and adults had been increasing dramatically in the United States. Predictably, the COVID-19 pandemic has only exacerbated this trend. Recognizing the importance of mental health, Congress enacted the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (the "Parity Act"), and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), of which the Parity Act is a part. The Parity Act's purpose was to end discrimination in the provision of insurance coverage for mental health treatment, as compared to medical and surgical services. While the Parity Act does not require health care plans to cover mental health services, if a plan chooses to cover mental health services, such coverage must be provided "at parity" with medical/surgical benefits. The Defendants are violating the legal and fiduciary duties imposed on them by the Parity Act and other federal and state laws that they owe participants in the Disney Plan by improperly restricting the scope of their insurance coverage for residential treatment facilities that treat mental health issues. Because they have been, and are likely to continue to be harmed, by Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of himself and all others similarly situation, to seek declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was an employee of the Walt Disney Company and became a participant under a self-funded group health plan arranged through his employer. Cigna administers and makes benefit determinations related to ERISA group health care plans around the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. David Russell, Esq. RUSSELL LAW, PC 1500 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 500 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Phone: (323) 638-7551 Fax: (323) 760-7458 Email: david@russelllawpc.com - and - Omar G. Qureshi, Esq. QURESHI LAW PC 700 Flower Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 600-6096 Fax: (213) 277-8989 Email: omar@qureshi.law CITRUS WORLD: Foster Sues Over False and Misleading Labeling ------------------------------------------------------------ Anne Foster and Madeleine Rogow individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CITRUS WORLD, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-04785-KAW (N.D. Cal., Sept. 18, 2023), is brought on behalf of similarly situated consumers ("Class Members") who purchased for personal, family, or household use, Florida's Natural 100% Premium Orange Juice, No Pulp (the "Product"), which is a prominently labeled as being "Natural" and containing "100% Premium Orange Juice." In reality, Plaintiffs' testing has revealed that the Product contains per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), a category of synthetic chemicals that are, by definition, not "Natural." PFAS are a group of synthetic, man-made, chemicals known to be harmful to both humans and the environment. Because PFAS persist and accumulate over time, they are harmful even at very low levels. The Defendant formulates, manufactures, markets, and sells the Product, which they uniformly represent as "100% Premium Orange Juice" which is made from "Natural" ingredients. As the producer of some of the most widely recognized brands in the world, Defendant knows the importance of marketing and labeling, including the value of the label representations they carefully choose for placement on the Product. The Defendant's uniform marketing is intentionally designed to drive sales and increase profits by targeting health-conscious consumers--and specifically, conscientious consumers--who reasonably believe that the Product is free from ingredients which are artificial or otherwise unnatural. The Defendant represents the Product as containing "nothing in here but 100% pure orange juice. (Not even a shred of pulp—so relax, kids!) Squeezed from fresh oranges, grown with care. Naturally. It's 100% premium. 100% delicious". However, despite Defendant's consistent and pervasive marketing representations to consumers that their Product is a healthy, all natural orange juice, Plaintiffs' independent testing has determined that the Product actually contains PFAS--a category of man-made chemicals with a toxic, persistent, and bioaccumulative nature which are associated with numerous health concerns. The presence of PFAS is entirely inconsistent with Defendant's uniform representations that the Product is "Natural" and "100% premium". Further, the presence of PFAS in the Product renders it adulterated, misbranded, and illegal to sell under federal and state law. Prior to placing the Product into the stream of commerce and into the hands of consumers to ingest, Defendant knew or should have known that the Product contained PFAS, but Defendant misrepresented, omitted, and concealed this fact to consumers, including Plaintiffs and Class Members, by not including PFAS on the Product's labels or otherwise warning about its presence. The Plaintiffs and Class Members relied on Defendant's representations that the Product was "Natural", safe, unadulterated, and free of any potentially harmful ingredients that are not listed on the label. The Plaintiffs and Class Members purchased and consumed the Product and were therefore exposed to (or risked being exposed to) the harmful PFAS in the Product. As a result of Defendant's misconduct, Plaintiffs and putative Class Members have suffered injury in fact, including economic damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs has purchased the Product for years. The Defendant sells the Product at mass market retailers, grocery stores, and online retailers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 402 West Broadway St., Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 810-7047 Email: tkashima@milberg.com CLEVELAND AVE: Court Certifies Hogan Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA HOGAN, et al., v. CLEVELAND AVE RESTAURANT, INC. d/b/a SIRENS, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-02883-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon L. Marbley entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify as a collective action, a Rule 23 class action, and to send notice. The Plaintiffs are Jessica Hogan and Dejha Valentine, who were employed as exotic dancers for various Ohio adult entertainment clubs. The Defendants are comprised of six Ohiobased adult entertainment clubs, their owners and managers, two strip club trade associations, and Greg Flaig. Specifically, the adult entertainment clubs are the following: Cheeks, Top Hat, Private Dancer, Centerfold, House of Babes, Sirens, and Fantasyland West. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LsCpW6 at no extra charge.[CC] CLOVER HEALTH: Settlement Reached in Bond Suit ---------------------------------------------- Clover Health Investments, Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that on April 21, 2023, the parties to a securities class action entered into a memorandum of understanding providing for a settlement. In February 2021, the company and certain of its directors and officers were named as defendants in putative class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee captioned "Bond v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al.," Case No. 3:21-cv-00096. Said complaint asserts violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act. It seeks unspecified damages on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or acquired Clover securities during the class period (which begins on October 6, 2020, and, depending on the complaint, ends on February 3, 2021, or February 4, 2021), as well as certain other costs. In April 2021, this was consolidated under "Bond v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al.," Case No. 3:21-cv-00096 (M.D. Tenn.) as the lead case. On June 28, 2021, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on August 28, 2021; that motion was denied on February 28, 2022. On February 14, 2023, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Clover Health Investments, Corp., with its affiliates and subsidiaries, provides affordable, high-quality Medicare Advantage plans, including Preferred Provider Organization and Health Maintenance Organization plans, through its regulated insurance subsidiaries. The Company's regulated insurance subsidiaries consist of Clover Insurance Company and Clover HMO of New Jersey Inc., Clover Health Partners, LLC. CLOVER HEALTH: Settlement Reached in Kaul Suit ---------------------------------------------- Clover Health Investments, Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that on April 21, 2023, the parties to a securities class action entered into a memorandum of understanding providing for a settlement. In February 2021, the company and certain of its directors and officers were named as defendants in putative class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee captioned "Kaul v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al.," Case No. 3:21-cv-00101. Said complaint asserts violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act. It seeks unspecified damages on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or acquired Clover securities during the class period (which begins on October 6, 2020, and, depending on the complaint, ends on February 3, 2021, or February 4, 2021), as well as certain other costs. In April 2021, this was consolidated under "Bond v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al.," Case No. 3:21-cv-00096 (M.D. Tenn.) as the lead case. On June 28, 2021, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on August 28, 2021; that motion was denied on February 28, 2022. On February 14, 2023, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Clover Health Investments, Corp., with its affiliates and subsidiaries, provides affordable, high-quality Medicare Advantage plans, including Preferred Provider Organization and Health Maintenance Organization plans, through its regulated insurance subsidiaries. The Company's regulated insurance subsidiaries consist of Clover Insurance Company and Clover HMO of New Jersey Inc., Clover Health Partners, LLC. CLOVER HEALTH: Settlement Reached in Tremblay Suit -------------------------------------------------- Clover Health Investments, Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that on April 21, 2023, the parties to a securities class action entered into a memorandum of understanding providing for a settlement. In February 2021, the company and certain of its directors and officers were named as defendants in putative class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee captioned "Tremblay v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al.," Case No. 3:21-cv-00138. Said complaint asserts violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act. It seeks unspecified damages on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or acquired Clover securities during the class period (which begins on October 6, 2020, and, depending on the complaint, ends on February 3, 2021, or February 4, 2021), as well as certain other costs. In April 2021, this was consolidated under "Bond v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al.," Case No. 3:21-cv-00096 (M.D. Tenn.) as the lead case. On June 28, 2021, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on August 28, 2021; that motion was denied on February 28, 2022. On February 14, 2023, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Clover Health Investments, Corp., with its affiliates and subsidiaries, provides affordable, high-quality Medicare Advantage plans, including Preferred Provider Organization and Health Maintenance Organization plans, through its regulated insurance subsidiaries. The Company's regulated insurance subsidiaries consist of Clover Insurance Company and Clover HMO of New Jersey Inc., Clover Health Partners, LLC. CLOVER HEALTH: Settlement Reached in Yaniv Suit ----------------------------------------------- Clover Health Investments, Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that on April 21, 2023, the parties to a securities class action entered into a memorandum of understanding providing for a settlement. In February 2021, the company and certain of its directors and officers were named as defendants in putative class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee captioned "Yaniv v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al.," Case No. 3:21-cv-00109. Said complaint asserts violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act with additional claims under sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. It seeks unspecified damages on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or acquired Clover securities during the class period (which begins on October 6, 2020, and, depending on the complaint, ends on February 3, 2021, or February 4, 2021), as well as certain other costs. In April 2021, this was consolidated under "Bond v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al.," Case No. 3:21-cv-00096 (M.D. Tenn.) as the lead case. On June 28, 2021, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on August 28, 2021; that motion was denied on February 28, 2022. On February 14, 2023, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Clover Health Investments, Corp., with its affiliates and subsidiaries, provides affordable, high-quality Medicare Advantage plans, including Preferred Provider Organization and Health Maintenance Organization plans, through its regulated insurance subsidiaries. The Company's regulated insurance subsidiaries consist of Clover Insurance Company and Clover HMO of New Jersey Inc., Clover Health Partners, LLC. CRODA INC: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Baker's Class Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CATHERINE BAKER, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellant v. CRODA INC, f/k/a Croda, Inc., Case No. 21-3360 (3d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirms the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware's dismissal of Baker's Class Action Complaint. Appellant Baker appeals the District of Delaware's dismissal of her Class Action Complaint in which she, and her class members, asked the Court to recognize an "increased risk of illness" as a compensable tort injury. Her Complaint against Croda alleged various tort violations after potential exposure to a toxic gas. However, Baker's Complaint averred that no purported class member presented any illness or manifestation of a physical harm. For this reason, the District Court dismissed the Complaint because the class cannot recover damages for the risk of diseases that they do not yet have. And because each tort requires an injury, none of Baker's torts survives this flaw. At the time, Delaware law was silent on whether an increased risk of illness, without present manifestation of a physical harm, is a cognizable injury under Delaware law. The District Court declined to certify this issue to the Supreme Court of Delaware. Baker timely appealed, and this panel voted unanimously to transmit a Petition for Certification to the Supreme Court of Delaware pursuant to Local Appellate Rule 110.1 of the Third Circuit, and in accordance with the procedures set forth in Del. Sup. Ct. R. 41(a)-(b) and DEL. CONST., art. IV, Section 11(8). The Petition for Certification was sent to the Delaware Supreme Court on Oct. 21, 2022, and that court accepted our request on Oct. 31, 2022. A final order and opinion were issued by the Supreme Court of Delaware on Aug. 24, 2023. In its opinion, the Delaware Supreme Court held that an increased risk of illness without present manifestation of a physical harm is not a cognizable injury under Delaware law. Because Baker's Complaint failed to allege the existence of a present injury, the Third Circuit opines that the District Court properly dismissed the Complaint because the class cannot show it has suffered any injury under Delaware law. It agrees and affirms. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 15, 2023 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/bddr75mh from PacerMonitor.com. CS DISCO: Faces Gambrill Securities Suit Over 53% Stock Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------------ LYNN GAMBRILL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CS DISCO, INC; KIWI CAMARA; MICHAEL LAFAIR; Case No. 1:23-cv-08270 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2023) is a securities class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased shares of CS Disco's common stock between July 21, 2021, and August 11, 2022, inclusive, against the Defendants for violation of Section 10 (b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff contends that CS Disco and the Officer Defendants employed devices, schemes, and artifices to defraud; made untrue statements of material fact and/or omitted to state material facts necessary to make the statements not misleading; and engaged in acts, practices, and a course of business which operated as a fraud and deceit upon the purchasers of the Company's shares in an effort to maintain artificially high market prices for CS Disco shares. Beginning with its July 2021 initial public offering and throughout the Class Period, CS Disco repeatedly touted strong growth in its revenues attributable to customer usage of its cloud-based electronic discovery platform and asserted that it had good advance visibility into changes in the demand from individual customers over time. The truth began to emerge on August 11, 2022, when CS Disco released financial results for the second quarter of 2022. Not only did the Company's revenue growth taper drastically over past quarters, but the Company alerted the markets that it would no longer be including in its guidance any revenues attributable to its largest customers for the entire year. As a result of these disclosures, the price of CS Disco stock declined $15.53 between August 11, 2022 and August 12, 2022, a drop of more than 53 percent. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's shares, the Plaintiff and putative class members have suffered significant losses and damages. The Plaintiff and putative class members seek damages for redress, reasonable attorneys' fees, injunctive relief, and all other relief this Court deems just and proper Plaintiff Lynn Gambrill is a resident of Austin, Texas, and purchased shares of CS Disco common stock traceable to the Company's IPO at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. CS Disco provides cloud-based, artificial intelligence-powered technologies to simplify electronic discovery, legal document review, legal hold and case management for enterprises, law firms, legal services providers, and governments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Dark, Esq. Patrick T. Egan, Esq. BERMAN TABACCO 425 California Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-3200 Facsimile: (415) 433-6382 E-mail: mdark@bermantabacco.com pegan@bermantabacco.com DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Skistimas Suit Ongoing in New York ------------------------------------------------------ Danimer Scientific, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that a consolidated securities suit against the company is currently going on, seeking the following remedies: (i) determining that the lawsuits may be maintained as class actions under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (ii) certifying a class representative, (iii) requiring Defendants to pay damages allegedly sustained by plaintiffs and the class members by reason of the acts alleged in the complaints and (iv) awarding pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as well as reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs. On May 19, 2021, a class action complaint was filed by Elizabeth and John Skistimas in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Plaintiffs seek the following remedies: (i) determining that the lawsuits may be maintained as class actions under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (ii) certifying a class representative, (iii) requiring Defendants to pay damages allegedly sustained by plaintiffs and the class members by reason of the acts alleged in the complaints and (iv) awarding pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as well as reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs. On July 29, 2021, said case has been consolidated into a single lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York. On January 19, 2022, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed in the Eastern District of New York, naming as defendants the company, its directors and certain of its officers as well as certain former directors. The amended complaint is brought on behalf of a class consisting of (i) purchasers of shares of the company during the class period, (ii) all holders of the company's Class A common stock entitled to vote on the merger transaction between the company and Meredian Holdings Group, Inc. consummated on December 28, 2020 and (iii) purchasers of company securities pursuant to the company's registration statement on Form S-4 that was declared effective on December 16, 2020 or the company's registration statement on Form S-1 that was declared effective on February 16, 2021. The Amended Complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10(b)-5(a)-(c) promulgated thereunder and Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Plaintiffs seek the following remedies: (a) a determination that the lawsuit is a proper class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and certifying Plaintiffs as class representative, (b) awarding compensatory and punitive damages allegedly sustained by the class members by reason of the acts set forth in the Amended Complaint and (c) awarding pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, experts' fees and other costs. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May 20, 2022. Plaintiffs served their opposition papers to the motion to dismiss on July 21, 2022, and Defendants filed a reply on September 6, 2022. The court has yet to rule on the motion to dismiss. In their opposition papers, plaintiffs have now confirmed that, based on defendants' arguments in the motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs have dropped seven of the nine counts, eliminating all of the Securities Act counts specifically relating to the proxy solicitation, registration statements and related control person claims, and all that now remains are the first two counts under Rules 10(b)-5(a)-(c) of the Exchange Act and control person liability. Additionally, all of the defendants other than Danimer and three of its current or former officers or directors have been dismissed from the case. Danimer Scientific, Inc. (formerly Live Oak Acquisition Corp.), together with its subsidiaries is a performance polymer company specializing in bioplastic replacements for traditional petroleum-based plastics. On December 29, 2020, Live Oak consummated a business combination with Meredian Holdings Group, Inc., with Legacy Danimer surviving the merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Live Oak. In connection with the Business Combination, Live Oak changed its name to Danimer Scientific, Inc. DENTALPLANS.COM: Bradley Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH BRADLEY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. DENTALPLANS.COM and CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01094-CCB (D. Md.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a Class and Subclass, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3). DentalPlans offers dental discount programs through Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company and other insurance companies. As part of its standardized telephone sign-up process and procedure for new customers, DentalPlans telephone agents read a script that explains that DentalPlans is gathering the consumer's telephone number "in case we get disconnected." The script then asks whether it would be okay if it sends the consumer promotional text messages, and then asks if the consumer agrees to receive "prerecorded messages" without reference to telemarketing. The Plaintiff alleges that the above script is insufficient to confer sufficient consent to receive the prerecorded telemarketing calls at issue. After substantial public comment and regulatory consideration, the FCC tightened the TCPA's "prior express consent" regulations through a formal rulemaking in 2012, to require "clear and conspicuous" "written" consent for telemarketing robocalls. DentalPlans.com offers dental discount plans as an alternative to traditional dental insurance. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EFFA9t at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander H. Burke, Esq. Daniel J. Marovitch, Esq. BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 909 Davis St., Suite 500 Evanston, IL 60201 Telephone: (312) 729-5288 E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com dmarovitch@burkelawllc.com - and - Peter A. Holland, Esq. Emanwel J. Turnbull, Esq. THE HOLLAND LAW FIRM, P.C. 914 Bay Ridge Rd., Ste. 230 Annapolis, MD 21401 Telephone: (410) 280-6133 E-mail: peter@hollandlawfirm.com eturnbull@hollandlawfirm.com - and - Amanda J. Allen, Esq. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC 401 E. Jackson St., Suite 2340 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 500-1500 E-mail: amanda@theconsumerprotectionfirm.com DIAMOND RESORTS: Settlement Agreement in Zwicky Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zwicky v. Diamond Resorts Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02322 (D. Ariz., Filed Dec. 1, 2020), the Hon. Judge Diane J. Humetewa entered an order: -- Preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement and Release as sufficiently fair, reasonable, and adequate to allow the dissemination of notice of the Settlement Agreement and Release to the Class; -- Appointing as third-party Settlement Administrator: JND Legal Administration; and -- Setting In-Court Final Approval Hearing for Feb. 8, 2024 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 605, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona. Plaintiffs' Unopposed Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement, Approval of Notice is granted. The suit alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO). Diamond provides membership and explores vacation destinations, as well as offers concerts, relaxation, sightseeing, hiking, and beaches and experiences.[CC] EXPEDIA GROUP: Plaintiff Must Move for Class Cert. by Dec. 14 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMIE HUBER, v. EXPEDIA GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-03570-PD (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Paul S. Diamond entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. A trial for the case shall be held on October 1, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 14A, United States District Court, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennyslvania. 2. The Parties shall propound all interrogatories and requests for document production related to class certification no later than September 29, 2023. 3. The Parties shall respond to all written discovery requests related to class discovery no later than October 9, 2023. 4. All discovery shall proceed and continue in such manner as will assure that all requests for, and responses to, discovery will be noticed, served, and completed no later than November 30, 2023. 5. The Plaintiff shall move for class certification on or before December 14, 2023. 6. The Defendant shall respond on or before January 4, 2024. 7. The Plaintiff shall propose stipulated facts and submit those proposed stipulated facts to Defendant on or before August 26, 2024. 8. The Defendant shall state agreement or disagreement with each of Plaintiff’s proposed stipulated facts and may counter-propose stipulated facts on or before August 30, 2024. Expedia is an American travel technology company that owns and operates travel fare aggregators and travel metasearch engines. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LrbwlG at no extra charge.[CC] FAST BUSINESS: Starling Request to Conduct Discovery Partly OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as R'KES STARLING, v. FAST BUSINESS FINANCIAL, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00655-P (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Mark Pittman entered an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's Request to Conduct Discovery on Issues of Class Certification, filed September 1, 2023. The Court grants the request in part (for the request regarding class discovery) and denies the request in part (for the request regarding damages discovery). The Plaintiff shall have six months to conduct the necessary discovery and to move for class certification, with such motion to be filed on or before March 5, 2024. The Request seeks leave for Plaintiff to conduct class certification and damages discovery. While Plaintiff is entitled to conduct discovery related to class certification, "unless and until a class has been certified, discovery as to the damages such class might be entitled to is premature." Fast Business provides funding to small businesses in minutes. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48gIy1A at no extra charge.[CC] FEDEX CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Annuity Benefits, Watt Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Robert A. Watt, Gary J. Friesen, Michael H. McKenna, and Geoffrey B. Coe, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. FedEx Corporation, the FedEx Corporation Employees' Pension Plan, the Retirement Plan Investment Board of FedEx Corporation, and John/Jane Does 1–10, Case No. 2:23-cv-02593 (W.D. Tenn., Sept. 19, 2023) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay joint and survivor annuity (JSA) benefits under the FedEx Corporation Employees' Pension Plan in amounts that satisfy the actuarial equivalence requirements in Employee Retirement Income Security Act, causing retirees to lose part of their vested retirement benefits in violation of ERISA. By using flawed formulas for calculating JSA benefits -- based on antiquated, unreasonable actuarial assumptions -- the Defendants depress the present value of JSAs, resulting in monthly payments that are materially lower than they would be if Defendants used conversion factors based on up-to-date, reasonable actuarial assumptions. In sum, the Defendants are causing Plaintiffs and Class Members to receive less than they should in pension benefits each month, which will continue to affect them throughout their retirements. JSA is an annuity for the participant's life with a contingent annuity payable to the participant's beneficiary (usually a spouse) for the life of the beneficiary, which is expressed as a percentage of the amount paid during the participant's life. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek an order from the Court (1) declaring that the conversion factors used to determine JSA benefits under the Plan produce benefits that are less than the actuarial equivalent of the SLA offered to participants; (2) requiring the Defendants to pay all amounts improperly withheld in the past and to be withheld in the future; (3) requiring the Defendants to recalculate the Plaintiffs' JSA benefits in a manner consistent with ERISA's actuarial equivalence requirements; and (4) requiring the Defendants to increase the amounts of the Plaintiffs' future benefit payments;. Mr. Watt is a Plan participant who worked for FedEx for over 35 years. He is receiving a "Traditional Benefit" that was calculated using the UP-84 and a 7% discount rate under Appendix B of the Plan and a "Flying Tiger" benefit that was calculated using the 1971 GAM and a 6% discount rate under Appendix D of the Plan. Mr. Friesen is a Plan participant who worked for FedEx for over 25 years. He is receiving a "Traditional Benefit" that was calculated using the UP-84 and a 7% discount rate under Appendix B of the Plan. FedEx is an American multinational holding company focused on transportation, e-commerce and business services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kristy L. Bennett, Esq. Tressa V. Johnson, Esq. JOHNSON & BENNETT, PLLC 1407 Union Avenue, Ste. 807 Memphis, TN 38104 Telephone: (901) 402-6601 E-mail: kristy@myjbfirm.com tressa@myjbfirm.com - and - Robert A. Izard, Esq. Douglas P. Needham, Esq. Christopher M. Barrett, Esq. IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP 29 South Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6292 E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com dneedham@ikrlaw.com cbarrett@ikrlaw.com FIFTY WEST: Class Cert Response Due Oct. 6 in Morse Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Morse v. Fifty West Brewing Company LLC, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00377 (S.D. Ohio, Filed June 4, 2021), the Hon. Judge Douglas R. Cole entered an order granting Parties' joint motion for extension of time for the Defendants to file their memorandum in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. -- Response is due by Oct. 6, 23. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Fifty West is a Food and Beverage Services, Wineries & Breweries, and Food, Beverages & Tobacco company.[CC] FLAG DEVELOPMENT: Singh Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------- AVTAR SINGH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FLAG DEVELOPMENT LLC, LUIS SEGUERRA, HUGO VICTOR and JOSE MARTINEZ, Case No. 1:23-cv-06933 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2023) seeks to recover overtime provisions pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law and the corresponding N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants required the Plaintiff and those similarly situated to begin work on job sites 15 minutes before clocking in and automatically deducted a 30-minute break from the Plaintiff's pay every day. However, the Plaintiff, the FLSA Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Plaintiffs were not actually afforded an uninterrupted break, amounting to Defendants stealing 30 minutes' worth of wages every workday. The Defendant also failed to furnish the Plaintiff, the FLSA Plaintiffs, and the Rule 23 Plaintiffs with accurate wage statements on each payday as the NYLL requires. The Plaintiffs seek to bring this suit to recover from the Defendants their full payment of all unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages, individually, on their own behalf, as well as on behalf of those in the following collective: Current and former employees of Defendants who, during the applicable FLSA limitations period, performed work for the Defendants as non-exempt employees, regardless of job title in the City of New York who give consent to file a claim to recover damages for overtime compensation that is legally due to them for time worked in excess of 40 hours per week ("FLSA Plaintiffs"). The Rule 23 Class that Plaintiffs seek to define includes: Current and former employees of Defendants who, during the applicable NYLL limitations period, performed work as non- exempt employees regardless of job title, in the City of New York ("Rule 23 Plaintiffs"). Mr. Singh worked for the Defendants as a general laborer from July 5, 2021 until December 14, 2022. Flag is a construction company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amit Kumar, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO 108 West 39th Street, Suite 602 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 583-7400 E-mail: AKumar@CafaroEsq.com FOUNDATION ENERGY: Ritter Seeks to Certify Settlement Classes ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stephen Lane Ritter, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Foundation Energy Management, LLC, et al., Case No. 6:22-cv-00246-JFH (E.D. Okla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) Certifying the Settlement Classes for Settlement purposes; (2) Preliminarily approving the Settlement; (3) Appointing him as Class Representative for the Settlement Classes; (4) Appointing Reagan E. Bradford and Ryan K. Wilson as Co-Lead Class Counsel and Brady L. Smith as Additional Class Counsel for the Settlement Classes; (5) Approving the form and manner of the proposed Notice; (6) Appoint JND Legal Administration as Settlement Administrator; (7) Appoint MidFirst Bank as Escrow Agent; and (8) Setting a hearing date for final approval of the Settlement and application for an award of Plaintiff's Attorneys' Fees, Litigation Expenses and Administration, Notice, and Distribution Costs, and a Case Contribution Award to Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff moves the Court to certify the Settlement Classes consisting of: -- Class I "All non-excluded persons or entities who, within the Claim Period: (1) received late payments under the PRSA from Foundation Energy Management, LLC for oil-and-gas proceeds from Oklahoma wells or whose proceeds were sent as unclaimed property to a government entity by Foundation Energy Management, LLC; and (2) whose proceeds did not include the statutory interest required by the PRSA. Excluded from the Class are: (1) Foundation Energy Management, LLC, its affiliates, predecessors, and employees, officers, and directors; and (2) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the United States of America or the State of Oklahoma; (3) any Indian Tribe as defined at 30 U.S.C. § 1702(4) or Indian allotee as defined at 30 U.S.C. § 1702(2); (4) prior period adjustments; and (5) any claims attributable to payments made by Foundation Energy Management, LLC to owners in the Cox 24-1H and Cox 24-2H wells. -- Class II "All non-excluded persons or entities who, within the Claim Period: (1) received late payments under the PRSA from Corterra Energy Operating, LLC (or Corterra Energy Operating, LLC's designee) for oil-and-gas proceeds from the Oklahoma wells that were acquired by Foundation Energy Fund VII-A, L.P., or whose proceeds from those acquired wells were sent as unclaimed property to a government entity by Corterra Energy Operating, LLC; and (2) whose proceeds did not include the statutory interest required by the PRSA." Excluded from the Class are: (1) Corterra Energy Operating, LLC, its affiliates, predecessors, and employees, officers, and directors; and (2) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the United States of America or the State of Oklahoma; (3) any Indian Tribe as defined at 30 U.S.C. § 1702(4) or Indian allotee as defined at 30 U.S.C. § 1702(2); and (4) prior period adjustments. Foundation Energy is a manager of energy investments for institutional partners. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 5, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rlosTd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reagan E. Bradford, Esq. Ryan K. Wilson, Esq. BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC 431 W. Main Street, Suite D Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 698-2770 E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com ryan@bradwil.com - and - Brady L. Smith, Esq. Harry "Skeeter" Jordan, Esq. BRADY SMITH LAW, PLLC One Leadership Square, Suite 1320 211 N. Robinson Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 293-3029 E-mail: brady@blsmithlaw.com skeeter@blsmithlaw.com FREESTYLE SOFTWARE: Bid to Dismiss Penn Suit Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, PENN, LLC, d/b/a PULSETV.COM, Plaintiff v. FREESTYLE SOFTWARE INC., f/k/a September 15, 2023 DYDACOMP DEVELOPMENT CORP., INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 22-6760 (SDW) (ESK) (D.N.J.), Judge Susan D. Wigenton of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey grants in part and denies in part Freestyle's Motion to Dismiss. The case arises from a data breach. The Plaintiff, a business-to-consumer e-commerce company, sells products to its customers through its website, PulseTV.com. The Defendant provides e-commerce software and hosting services for hundreds of online stores. Since March 2001, the Plaintiff has used the Defendant's online shopping cart technology, SiteLINK Toolkit. Among other things, SiteLINK provides its users with payment processing services related to bank-card and credit-card transactions. In 2005, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that it would no longer offer SiteLINK outside of the Defendant's hosting environment -- i.e., its web servers. To convince the Plaintiff to transition PulseTV.com's e-commerce store to the Defendant's web servers, the Defendant and its agents misrepresented the servers' safety, security, and compliance with the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard ("PCI DSS"). As a result of those misrepresentations, the Plaintiff entered a new services contract with the Defendant. The Defendant's false assurances allegedly continued throughout the parties' years-long business relationship. In March 2021, the Plaintiff received a third-party email notice of a potential Common Point of Purchase ("CPP"). At that time, no evidence of a data breach was discovered. Months later, in October 2021, the Plaintiff again received a notice of additional CPPs and, in turn, hired forensic investigators to uncover the issue. Because of the Defendant's poor management of its systems, the Plaintiff's first forensic investigator was unable to determine the source of the breach. At the behest of several credit brands, the Plaintiff continued to investigate the breach. On Jan. 11, 2022, the Plaintiff engaged Kroll, a global company certified as a PCI Forensic Investigator, to conduct a PCI Forensic Investigation. Kroll determined that the Defendant's web server was compromised by malicious software as early as Sept. 9, 2020. The breach was not contained until in February 2022. According to the Complaint, the Defendant failed to comply with the PCI standards by neglecting to create and retain backups, failing to implement file integrity monitoring, and lacking a change-detection mechanism to alert personnel to unauthorized access to its network. The Plaintiff alleges that, if the Defendant had complied with the PCI standards, it would have been able to detect and timely resolve the data breach. Instead, the data breach was able to persist from September 2020 until February 3, 2022, which allegedly caused the Plaintiff and its customers harm. According to the Complaint, the Defendant's breach compromised the payment card information of over 236,000 of the Plaintiff's customers and caused losses in excess of $30 million. On Nov. 23, 2022, the Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this Court, asserting the following claims against the Defendant: Declaratory Judgment (Count I); Negligence/Gross Negligence (Count II); Breach of Contract (Count III); Breach of Implied Contract (Count IV); Negligence Per Se (Count V); Negligent Misrepresentation/Fraudulent Inducement (Count VI); Violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("NJCFA"), N.J. Stat. Ann. 56:8-1 et seq. (Count VII); Per Se Violation of the NJCFA (Count VIII); Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 (Count IX); Violation of the New Jersey Truth-In-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act ("NJTCNA"), N.J. Stat. Ann. 56:12-15 (Count X); Punitive Damages (Count XI); and Indemnification and Contribution (Count XII). On Feb. 21, 2023, the Defendant filed the Motion. The parties timely completed briefing. At the outset, Judge Wigenton notes that the Plaintiff has attempted to withdraw without prejudice its First, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Twelfth Causes of Action,. To withdraw claims without prejudice, however, a plaintiff must amend the complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a). Therefore, should the Plaintiff fail to amend the Complaint within 30 days of the Opinion, the Withdrawn Claims will be dismissed with prejudice. Judge Wigenton then turns to the Motion to Dismiss. As to breach of contract claim (Count III), the Complaint alleges that the Plaintiff entered into contracts with the Defendant that impose minimum standards that Freestyle must meet with respect to the security and nondisclosure of the Plaintiff's Sensitive Financial Information, and that those contracts require Freestyle to take appropriate steps to safeguard the Sensitive Financial Information of the customers of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant failed to adequately safeguard the Sensitive Financial Information, which has directly caused injuries to the Plaintiff, including, inter alia: costs associated with investigating the data breach, loss of business revenues, cash flow restrictions, reputational harms, loss of goodwill, potential liability in class action lawsuits, potential regulatory fines, potential PCI fines, a 50 percent decrease in sales, and loss of subscribers from its mailing lists. The Defendant insists that Count III is deficient. Specifically, it contends that the Complaint has failed to identify a breach of a specific contractual provision; that the actual terms of the contract show no breach; that even if there were a breach, the damages sought by the Plaintiff are barred under the terms of the contract; and that the Defendant's liability is limited by the contract. Judge Wigenton says the Defendant's arguments are unpersuasive. She opines that the Plaintiff's allegations that the contracts impose minimum standards that Freestyle must meet with respect to the security and non-disclosure of the Plaintiff's Sensitive Financial Information and require the Defendant to use reasonable care to safeguard the Sensitive Financial Information of the customers of the Plaintiff, are sufficient to put the Defendant on notice that it breached its duties under the Confidentiality Provision. Consequently, she denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss Count III. As to Count IV, Judge Wigenton holds that the allegations in the Complaint do not make clear whether the Plaintiff is pursuing a claim for breach of an implied-in-fact contract or for a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. While the Complaint fails to state a claim under the former theory, she says it adequately states a claim under the latter. The Complaint does not allege any facts to support the Plaintiff's contention that the parties, by conduct instead of words, entered an implied-in-fact contract distinct from the express contracts. Accordingly, to the extent the Plaintiff is asserting a claim for breach of an implied-in-fact contract, that claim is dismissed without prejudice. The Complaint alleges that the express contract lacks a term necessary to fulfill the parties' expectations under the contract -- namely, a term imposing on an obligation to take appropriate measures to safeguard the sensitive and personal information of the Plaintiff's customers. Although this claim seemingly overlaps with the Plaintiff's breach-of-contract claim, Judge Wigenton allows both claims to proceed at this juncture. Therefore, she denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss Count IV. Because the Plaintiff has failed to allege that it was owed a duty independent from the contractual relationship, its claims based in negligence is dismissed. Judge Wigenton opines that the Plaintiff has failed to allege that Defendant owed it any duty independent from the obligations under the contract. Therefore, its claims for negligence and gross negligence (Count II) are dismissed without prejudice. Judge Wigenton also dismisses without prejudice the Plaintiff's claims for fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation. She opines that though the Complaint, at times, provides the "who," it plainly fails to put the Defendant on notice of the specific misrepresentations with which it is charged. Therefore, the Plaintiff's claims for fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation (Count VI) are dismissed without prejudice. Because the Plaintiff's claim under the NJCFA sounds in fraud, the Complaint must meet the stringent pleading requirements of Rule 9(b). Judge Wigenton opines that the Plaintiff has failed to meet this heightened pleading standard and thus has not adequately alleged in its Complaint the existence of a substantial aggravating circumstance. Therefore, Count VII is dismissed without prejudice. Finally, the Complaint alleges a claim for punitive damages. Punitive damages, however, are a remedy incidental to a cause of action. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's independent claim for punitive damages (Count XI) is dismissed with prejudice. For these reasons, Judge Wigenton grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. An appropriate order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 15, 2023 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/fjcrx2u3 from PacerMonitor.com. FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Court Junks MSP Recovery Suit ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSP Recovery Claims Series LLC et al., v. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-12231-NMG (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton entered an order allowing Fresenius's motion to dismiss. MSP Recovery has also requested leave to amend its complaint. That request will be denied because Judge Woodlock specifically informed the parties at his February 2019 status conference that the second amended complaint should be MSP Recovery's "last and best offer." Furthermore, courts in other circuits have denied MSP Recovery’s repeated requests to amend its complaints when confronted with motions to dismiss, aptly describing such tactics as the result of MSP Recovery's "scattershot litigation strategy." The Plaintiffs bring this product liability action against the Defendants alleging severe defects in their NaturaLyte and GranuFlo products. MSP Recovery brings this action as assignee of various Medicare, Medicaid and similar third party payers. MSP Recovery seeks to collect the payments that were made by the assignors, such as those arising from injuries resulting from defendants' defective GranuFlo product. The second amended complaint further explains that the assignors suffered financial injury when they paid for, or otherwise provided medical care, to their enrollees for injuries sustained as a result of having been administered the defective GranuFlo products during hemodialysis. In contrast, the Berzas putative class was defined as: "All consumers and third-party payors in the United States and its territories who, for purposes other than resale, purchased, reimbursed and/or paid for NaturaLyte and/or GranuFlo from May 1, 2003, to present. For purposes of the Class definition, individuals and entities "purchased" NaturaLyte and/or GranuFlo if they paid some or the entire purchase price. According to the second amended complaint, MSP Recovery seeks to recoup payments made by its assignors in connection with injuries sustained by patients who were administered GranuFlo, not payments for NaturaLyte or GranuFlo itself. Fresenius operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides kidney and renal care services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rg2m4s at no extra charge.[CC] GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Bid for Summary Judgment Partly OK'D ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BECKY CHEDESTER, et al., v. GEBRUEDER KNAUF VERWALTUNGSGESELLSCHAFT KG, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00447-KD-B (S.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Kristi K. DuBose entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's bid for summary judgment. 1. As to the Chedesters, the Defendants' motion is granted as to Counts I-III and VIVIII and denied as to Counts IV-V. 2. As to the Lees, the Defendants' motion is granted as to Counts II-III and VII-VIII and DENIED as to Counts I and IV-VI. The Lees allege that the Defendants' conduct was wanton. However, there is insufficient evidence of wantonness presented by Plaintiffs in response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The case involves Chinese-manufactured drywall that was manufactured by Knauf Defendants. The case was filed in November 2014 as part of a class action styled Elizabeth Bennett et al. v. Gebrueder Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG, et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-02204 (N.D. Ala.). According to Plaintiffs, the Defendants acted recklessly, wantonly, and/or negligently in the manufacture, export, import, distribution, delivery, supply, inspection, installation, marketing, and/or sale of the defective drywall. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48drUjz at no extra charge.[CC] GN TRANSPORTATION: Court Sets Class Certification Deadlines ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCAS LEE, v. GN TRANSPORTATION LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-04704-FMO-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order setting deadline for motion for class certification. Any motion(s) for class certification shall comply with all Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules, as well as this Order. Please be advised that this Order contains requirements more specific than the Local Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court says. 1. Joint Brief The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single, fully integrated joint brief covering each party's position, in which each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a party is immediately followed by the opposing party's/parties' response. 2. Citation to Evidence All citation to evidence in the joint brief shall be directly to the exhibit and page number(s) of the evidentiary appendix, or page and line number(s) of a deposition. Parenthetical explanations are encouraged. The parties shall cite to relevant evidence to support factual assertions throughout the joint brief. 3. Unnecessary Sections The parties need not include a "procedural history" section, since the court will be familiar with the procedural history. The court is also familiar with the general standard for class certification, so that need not be argued. 4. Evidentiary Appendix The joint brief shall be accompanied by one separate, tabbed appendix of declarations and written evidence (including documents, photographs, deposition excerpts, etc.). GN Transport is an active DOT registered motor carrier. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45Wtjcu at no extra charge.[CC] GOLF GEAR: Fails to Pay Assembly Workers' OT Wages, Aguilera Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- VILMA AGUILERA, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. GOLF GEAR, LTD. d/b/a CLUB PRO MANUFACTURING USA, LTD and STEPHEN TYRER, Case No. 2:23-cv-06946 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2023) sues the Defendant for failing to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff regularly worked Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. and sometimes Saturdays from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. However, the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week at the rate of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay. Instead, the Defendant only paid the Plaintiff her regular rate of pay for all hours worked, including those hours worked after 40 hours per workweek, the lawsuit claims. The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and Class Members their wages earned within seven days of the end of their workweeks, and willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff one additional hour pay at the basic minimum wage rate before allowances for each day the spread of hours exceeded ten (10) in violation of New York Labor Law, the lawsuit adds. The Plaintiff seeks to proceed as a Collective Action on behalf of herself and all persons who are currently, or have been employed by the Defendant in production, packaging, shipping and receiving during the three years prior to the filing of their respective consent form. The Plaintiff also brings this action against the Defendants on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 ("Rule 23") to recover statutory damages for failure to timely pay wages in violation of NYLL section 191. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs of this action and other appropriate relief. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid, non-exempt assembly worker from September 2017 to June 2023. The Defendant is engaged in the manufacture of fabric and textiles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 E-mail: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com GPB HOLDINGS: Court Grants Bid for Leave to Amend Deluca Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BARBARA DELUCA, DREW R. NAYLOR, and PEGGY ROLLO, et al., Plaintiffs v. GPB HOLDINGS, LP, et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-10498 (LAK) (JW) (S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Jennifer W. Willis of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend. The putative class action alleging a nationwide scheme to defraud investors was brought against individual Defendants, the investment funds they controlled, and their auditors: Crowe LLP, EisnerAmper LLP, Margolin, Winer & Evens LLP, RSM US LLP, and Cohn Reznick LLP. The case commenced in 2019, and the claims were partially dismissed in 2020. In January 2021, Defendants David Gentile, Jeffry Schneider, and Jeffrey Lash were indicted by the US Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York. In May 2021, the Parties stipulated to stay the case against all Defendants until such time as final judgment is entered in the Federal Criminal Action. That Stipulation permitted the Plaintiffs the right to seek a termination or lifting of the stay and the Defendants reserved all rights to oppose any such motion. In late 2022, the Plaintiffs, asserting that the criminal action was proceeding "at a snail's pace" moved to lift the stay against the Auditor Defendants only. In January 2023, Judge Kaplan granted the Motion to Lift the Stay. In March, the Auditor Defendants submitted Motions to Dismiss, which were opposed by the Plaintiffs. One of the arguments for dismissing the action is that due to the absence of specific allegations regarding each Plaintiff's reliance, the Plaintiffs' claim of fraudulent misrepresentation must be dismissed. That Motion to Dismiss remains pending before the Court. In June 2022, the SEC proposed a litigation hold in connection with the proposed receivership. On July 28, 2023, Magistrate Judge Scanlon issued a Report recommending the conversion of the Monitor into a receivership and imposing a litigation hold, enjoining actions involving the Receivership Estate or the Receivership Entities or any Receivership Assets. On August 9th, the Plaintiffs filed a letter opposing the proposed stay. That same day, they separately requested a pre-motion conference to discuss an anticipated motion for leave to amend the operative Amended Class Action Complaint. On August 14th, the Auditor Defendants opposed the Plaintiffs' letter seeking leave to amend. On August 21st, Magistrate Judge Hightower of the Western District of Texas agreed to stay the Kinnie Ma case against all defendants. The next day, the Auditor Defendants submitted another letter informing the Court of the Kinnie Ma stay. This Court then issued an Order pausing all briefing deadlines in the pending Motion for Class Certification while it considered the proposed stay. The Parties are currently engaged in both merits discovery of the Auditor Defendants and class certification discovery of the proposed class representatives. The Court heard oral argument on the proposed stay on September 13th. Judge Willis holds that since it is the Auditor Defendants seeking a prolonged stay, there is no risk of the amendment causing a significant delay in resolving the dispute. Moreover, the amendment will result in only a slight increase in the need to expend additional resources. Therefore, the Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend is granted. They will file their proposed Amended Complaint. In light of the proposed amendment and the fact that the Motions to Dismiss made Plaintiff-specific arguments, the previously filed Motions to Dismiss are denied as moot upon the filing of the Second Amended Complaint. The Auditor Defendants will file a letter informing the Court and the Plaintiffs whether they wish to submit an omnibus Motion to Dismiss on behalf of all the Auditor Defendants. The Parties will jointly propose a briefing schedule for the anticipated Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On the proposed stay, while Judge Scanlon's Report recommending a receivership has the potential to affect our case, given the SEC's clarification letter, until Judge Brodie acts on the R&R, the exact scope of the litigation hold is uncertain. Thus, at this time, none of the developments in the Kinnie Ma action or the SEC Action appear to obviate the reasoning Judge Kaplan adopted when he lifted the stay in January. Therefore, the request to stay the action is denied, in part. However, given that the Plaintiffs have moved to add new class representatives, the Court finds that there are reasonable grounds to pause the Motion for Class Certification until the anticipated Motions to Dismiss are ruled upon. Therefore, all deadlines with respect to the Motion for Class Certification are adjourned until the Court issues a Report and Recommendation on the anticipated Motions to Dismiss. Judge Willis thus stays class certification-specific discovery. In the interim, should there be any category of discovery or depositions that a Party concludes is unduly burdensome or likely to be duplicative, the Parties will meet and confer on a potential resolution prior to seeking court intervention. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to close Dkt. Nos. 188, 190, 193, 197, and 203 A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 15, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdcupapd from PacerMonitor.com. HAIN CELESTIAL: Howard Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACY HOWARD, ADINA RINGLER, and TRECEE ARTIS on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC. d/b/a EARTH'S BEST, Case No. 3:22-cv-00527-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to certify the following class: "All persons in the State of California who purchased the Products between January 26, 2018 and the present." The Class will pursue claims under the Unfair Competition Law, the California Legal Remedies Act, the California False Advertising Law, and for common law fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs further request that the Court (1) appoint Plaintiffs Howard, Ringler, and Artis as class representatives on all claims, and (2) appoint Gutride Safier LLP as lead counsel. Hain is an American food company whose main focus is natural foods and botanically-based personal care products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 5, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rikw5G at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Hayley A. Reynolds, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com hayley@gutridesafier.com HAIN CELESTIAL: Howard Seeks to Seal Portions of Documents ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACY HOWARD, ADINA RINGLER, and TRECEE ARTIS on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC. d/b/a EARTH'S BEST, Case No. 3:22-cv-00527-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs Tracy Howard, Adina Ringler, and Trecee Artis file administrative motion to seal certain portions of the following documents that have been designated as confidential by other parties: -- The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification; -- Supporting Exhibits to the Declaration of Hayley Reynolds; and -- Declaration of Colin Weir. These documents contain information designated as confidential or highly confidential by Defendant or third-party Circana (formerly Information Resources, Inc.) pursuant to the protective order entered in this case. Specifically, information derived from material designated confidential appears at: -- Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification at pages 1-7, 9. -- Declaration of Hayley Reynolds, Exs. 1, 4-17. -- Declaration of Colin Weir at pages 4, 5, 18, 19. Hain is an American food company whose main focus is natural foods and botanically-based personal care products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 5, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PEO9aC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Hayley A. Reynolds, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com hayley@gutridesafier.com HARRIS BAY AREA: Norman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harris Bay Area, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Alvin Norman, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Harris Bay Area, LLC, Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. CGC23609051 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Sept. 13, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Harris Bay Area is a US-based private equity real estate firm focused on investing in the urban core of secondary and tertiary markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arby Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 Arden Ave., Ste. 203 Glendale, CA 91203-4007 Phone: 818-265-1020 Fax: 818-265-1021 Email: arby@calljustice.com HARTFORD GOLD: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due April 29, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Thomas McDougall v. The Hartford Gold Group, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-03912-JAK-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an order setting the following deadlines: -- Last day to amend pleadings or add parties Oct. 30, 2023 -- Last day to participate in a settlement Feb. 28, 2024 conference/mediation -- Last day to file notice of settlement / March 1, 2024 joint report re settlement: -- Post Mediation Status Conference: March 11, 2024 -- Affirmative Class Expert Disclosures: March 15, 2024 -- Rebuttal Class Expert Disclosures: April 5, 2024 -- Deadline to File Motion for Class April 29, 2024 Certification: -- Deadline to File Response to Motion May 20, 2024 for Class Certification: -- Deadline to File Reply in Support of May 29, 2024 Motion for Class Certification: -- Hearing on Motion for Class June 17, 2024 Certification: -- Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off: July 22, 2024 -- Initial Expert Disclosures: August 5, 2024 A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 7, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PIxqU4 at no extra charge.[CC] HOMETOWN EQUITY: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Feb. 22, 2024 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IDAN U. EDRY, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated; v. HOMETOWN EQUITY MORTGAGE, LLC, a Missouri limited-liability company, d/b/a/ THELENDER, Case No. 2:22-cv-00804-MMD-VCF (D. Nev.), the Court entered an order to extend discovery deadlines: -- Discovery Cut-Off Date: March 29, 2024 -- Initial Expert Disclosures: Jan. 30, 2024 -- Rebuttal Expert Disclosures: Feb. 29, 2024 -- Class Certification Motion: Feb. 22, 2024 -- Dispositive Motions: May 10, 2024 -- The deadline for filing a June 11, 2024 Hometown Equity Mortgage LLC is a national mortgage lending company and trusted partner of NAN. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sXRIQu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Royi Moas, Esq. Jordan Butler, Esq. WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP 3773 Howard Hughes Parkway Suite 590 South Las Vegas, NV 89169 Telephone.: (702) 341-5200 E-mail: rmoas@wrslawyers.com jbutler@wrslawyers.com - and - Shoham Segal, Esq. LVNV LEGAL 1180 N. Town Center Dr., Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89144 Telephone: (702) 660-6700 E-mail: Segal@Lvnvlegal.Com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. David R. Parker, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com kstoops@sommerspc.com dparker@sommerspc.com The Defendant is represented by: Kristen T. Gallagher, Esq. McDONALD CARANO LLP 2300 West Sahara Avenue, Suite 1200 Las Vegas, NV 89102 - and - Matthew P. Previn, Esq. Michael Morrill, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 HOPE CREDIT: May 2, 2024 Filing for Class Cert. Bid Sought ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARGARET MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HOPE CREDIT, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01003-BNW (D. Nev.), the Parties submit a proposed Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. 1. Discovery Cut-Off Date The Defendant filed its Answer on July 26, 2023. To allow for all discovery to take place, the proposed cut-off date for discovery shall be July 31, 2024. 2. Amending the Pleadings and Adding Parties: All motions to amend the pleadings or to add parties shall be filed no later than February 2, 2024. 3. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2) Disclosures (Experts): Disclosures and reports concerning experts shall be made by April 2, 2024. Disclosures and reports concerning rebuttal experts shall be made by May 2, 2024. 4. Class Certification The final date to file the motion for class certification shall not be later than May 2, 2024. 5. Dispositive Motions The date for filing dispositive motions shall not be later than August 30, 2024, 30 days after the proposed close of discovery. In the event that the discovery period is extended from the discovery cut-off date set forth in this proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order, the date for filing dispositive motions shall be extended to be not later than 30 days from the subsequent discovery cut-off date. 6. Pretrial Order The date for filing the joint pretrial order shall not be later than September 30, 2024. Hope Credit is a financial loan company that specializes in loan debt management services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PJ5BLo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gustavo Ponce, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 6787 W. Tropicana Ave., Suite 250 Las Vegas, NV 89103 - and - Christopher Reade, Esq. Rowland Graff, Esq. COREY READE DOWS & SHAFER 1333 North Buffalo Drive, Suite 210 Las Vegas, NV 89128 IAC INC: Dismissal of Shareholder Suit Under Appeal --------------------------------------------------- IAC Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that in September 2022, the Delaware state court dismissed a shareholder litigation arising out of the June 30, 2020 separation of IAC from Match Group where the plaintiffs filed an appeal. The shareholder class action and derivative lawsuit pending in Delaware state court have been consolidated under the caption "In re Match Group, Inc. Derivative Litigation," Case No. 2020-0505 alleging that the terms of the separation are unfair to the former Match Group public shareholders and unduly beneficial to IAC as a result of undue influence by IAC and Mr. Barry Charles Diller (Chairman and Senior Executive of IAC and Expedia Group) over the then Match Group directors who unanimously approved the transaction and asserts a variety of direct and derivative claims. On May 30, 2023, after hearing oral argument on the appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court issued an order directing the parties to submit supplemental briefing concerning the correct legal standard governing judicial review of the MTCH Separation. On July 12, 2023, IAC submitted its opening brief pursuant to the court's order. IAC Inc. is a technology company based in New York, NY which operates Dotdash Meredith, Angi Inc. and Care.com. ILLINOIS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to March 29, 2024 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kainz, et al., v. Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01250 (C.D. Ill., Filed Sept 8, 2021), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered an order on motion for extension of time to complete discovery, terminate deadlines and hearings: -- Set/Reset Deadlines Class discovery Jan. 31, 2024 cutoff is extended to: -- Expert discovery relevant to class Feb. 29, 2024 certification to be completed by: -- Class Motion to be filed on or before: March 29, 2024 All other previously set deadlines and hearings are vacated and will be reset upon disposition of the motion for class certification, the Court says. The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment Discrimination. Illinois Department of Corrections is the code department of the Illinois state government that operates the adult state prison system.[CC] INTEGRATED COMMUNICATION: Court OK's Preliminary Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL RANDALL and ALLEN FINNEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. INTEGRATED COMMUNICATION SERVICE, INC.; COMCAST CORPORATION, and COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-05438-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge David G. Estudillo entered an order granting the Parties' motion for approval of preliminary settlement. Separately, the Court will enter Plaintiff's proposed Order Granting Plaintiff’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Collective Action Settlement, striking preliminary approval of the requested attorney fees and reserving its ruling with the final approval of the settlement. On behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs' amended complaint asserts Defendants violated federal, state, and local wage laws. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants employed them and the proposed class members as technicians in Oregon, Colorado, and Washington. Technicians are those individuals "who carried out Defendants' installation and service business." The Plaintiffs claimed Integrated Cable Communications (ICS) failed to compensate technicians for off-the-clock work, changed job codes to lower paying codes, manipulated time records so technicians' hours were significantly underreported, and failed to provide employees with proper meal and rest breaks. -- Proposed Settlement Agreement Terms The gross settlement amount is $2,200,000. Of this, the following amounts are to be deducted: (1) $15,000 to each of the two named plaintiffs; (2) up to one third of the gross settlement amount to class counsel, approximately $733,333.33; (3) up to $30,000 for class counsel costs; and (4) approximately $16,250 for settlement administration costs. Once these costs are deducted, the estimated net settlement amount is approximately $1,390,000. There are 752 individuals in the proposed settlement class. The State Class Members have 735 technicians who were employed by ICS in Colorado, Oregon, and Washington. The Collective Members include those technicians employed by ICS as hourly non-exempt employees between May 8, 2017, and August 26, 2021, and whose opt-in consent from has been filed in this action. Integrated Communication is a Network Services Company which designs, installs, and services Voice and Data Network System. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48kS7Na at no extra charge.[CC] ISS FACILITY: Garcia Seeks to Continue Hearing on Class Status -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDIA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ISS FACILITY SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; ISS FACILITY SERVICES CALIFORNIA, INC.; a Delaware corporation; BROADRIDGE FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-07807-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff requests that the Court grant its motion to change time, and issue an order continuing the hearing on a motion for class certification and all related briefing deadlines by at least 90 days. The Plaintiff brings this motion because Defendants' delay tactics have deprived her of discovery necessary to support her renewed motion for class certification. ISS is a leading workplace experience and facility management company, connecting people and places A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PGTkXH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Matthew E. Gordon, Esq. Max N. Sloves, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com mgordon@maternlawgroup.com msloves@maternlawgroup.com JOSEPH ALCE: Ct. Tosses DGIC Bid to Bifurcate Discovery -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, v. JOSEPH BEECHER ALCE; DESTINY ALCE; JEANETTE JACQUES; JOSEPH BEECHER ALCE; and JOSEPH BEECHER ALCE, Case No. 6:23-cv-00681-WWB-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Robert M. Norway entered an order denying the Plaintiff's Motion to Bifurcate Discovery. The Court considered Direct General's prior request to bifurcate and rejected it. It does so again. Direct General has established no reason for the Court to revisit its earlier orders, modify its Case Management and Scheduling Order, or to depart from its long-standing practice of not bifurcating discovery. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 8, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46i7CU7 at no extra charge.[CC] JUNIPER NETWORKS: Class Settlement in Reichert Suit Wins Prelim. OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BRIAN REICHERT, et al., Plaintiffs v. JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-06213-JD (N.D. Cal.), Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the motion for preliminary approval of a class settlement. The litigation arose out of claims of alleged breaches of fiduciary duties in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), asserted against Defendants Juniper Networks, Inc., the Board of Directors of the Juniper Networks, Inc., and the Investment Committee of Juniper Networks, Inc., relating to the management of the Juniper Networks, Inc. 401(k) Plan. The Court denied without prejudice a prior application for preliminary approval of a class settlement. The parties filed a revised application, which addressed the Court's concerns. This is order is based a proposed order lodged by the parties and modified according to the Court's practices and conclusions. The counsel are advised that some dates and deadlines have been changed. Unless stated otherwise, capitalized terms take the meaning stated in the Class Action Settlement Agreement dated Nov. 7, 2022, and attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Paul Secunda. The proposed Settlement resulted from arm's-length negotiations by experienced and competent counsel. It was negotiated after the Class Counsel had received pertinent information and documents from the Defendants. The Class Counsel and the Class Representatives have submitted declarations in support of the Settlement. Judge Donato finds that the Settlement is sufficiently fair, reasonable, and adequate to warrant sending notice of the Settlement to the Settlement Class. A Fairness Hearing is set for Jan. 18, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. He approves and orders that Analytics Consulting LLC will be the Settlement Administrator responsible for carrying out the responsibilities set forth in the Settlement Agreement, with fees and costs not to exceed $50,000. The Settlement Administrator will be bound by the Confidentiality Order and any further non-disclosure or security protocol jointly required by the Settling Parties, set forth in writing to the Settlement Administrator. It will use the data provided by the Defendants and the Plan's recordkeeper solely for the purpose of meeting its obligations as Settlement Administrator, and for no other purpose. The Settling Parties will have the right to approve a written protocol to be provided by the Settlement Administrator concerning how the Settlement Administrator will maintain, store, and dispose of information provided to it in order to ensure that reasonable and necessary precautions are taken to safeguard the privacy and security of such information pursuant to the Settlement Administration Data Protection Checklist of the Northern District of California. The following Settlement Class is preliminarily certified for settlement purposes only pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1): All participants and beneficiaries of the Juniper Networks, Inc. 401(k) Plan beginning Aug. 11, 2015, and running through the date of preliminary approval of the settlement. Judge Donato appoints Brian Reichert and Derek Deviny as the representatives for the Settlement Class; and Walcheske & Luzi, LLC as the counsel for the Settlement Class. The Settling Parties have presented to the Court the Settlement Notice, which is the proposed forms of notice regarding the Settlement for mailing to Class Members. Judge Donato approves the text of the Settlement Notice. The Settlement Administrator will send by first-class mail the appropriate Settlement Notice to each Class Member within 75 calendar days of the date of the Order, as specified in the Settlement Agreement, based on data provided by the Plan's recordkeeper. It will use commercially reasonable efforts to locate any Class Member whose Settlement Notice is returned and re-mail such documents one additional time. Class Counsel and Local Counsel will file a request for attorneys' fees and costs, settlement administrative expenses, and case contribution awards, 60 days before the Fairness Hearing. Objections to any aspect of the Settlement will be heard by the Court at the Fairness Hearing if they have been timely sent to the Class Counsel and the Defendants' Counsel, at least 30 calendar days prior to the Fairness Hearing. A party may file a response to an objection by a Class Member at least 14 calendar days before the Fairness Hearing, and the Plaintiffs will file their Final Approval Motion at least 14 calendar days before the Fairness Hearing. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 15, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycxj9394 from PacerMonitor.com. JUUL LABS: Altria Settlement Deal Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as In Re: Juul Labs, Inc., Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 3:19-md-02913-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order granting preliminary approval of Altria Settlement of class claims: 1. The proposed Altria Class Settlement Agreement is preliminarily approved as likely to be finally approved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2) and as meriting notice to the Settlement Class for its consideration. 2. Considering the factors set forth in Rule 23(e)(2), the Court preliminarily finds as follows: a. Class Plaintiffs and Class Counsel have adequately represented the Class. b. The Altria Class Settlement Agreement was negotiated at arm's length with the assistance of Thomas J. Perrelli, a Settlement Administration 3. The Court appoints and designates Epiq Systems, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator. 4. The Court authorizes the payment of up to $2,500,000.00 from the Initial Class Settlement Administration Payment for notice and settlement administration costs prior to entry of Final Approval. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/454dSxW at no extra charge.[CC] KADENCE INT'L: $77.5K in Attys.' Fees & Costs Awarded in Brown Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CODY BROWN, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KADENCE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 22-1097-KSM (E.D. Pa.), Judge Karen Spencer Marston of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants the Plaintiffs' counsel's renewed request for attorneys' fees and costs. Lead Plaintiff Brown was employed as a Marketing Helper and Support Assistant by Defendant Kadence. Brown brought this lawsuit, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, alleging that the Defendant misclassified him as an independent contractor and failed to pay him appropriate overtime compensation, violating the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Pennsylvania's Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"). On March 23, 2023, the Court granted in part the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for an Order Certifying the Case as a Collective Action for Settlement Purposes Only, Approving the Settlement Agreement, Granting a Service Award, and Awarding Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses. At that time, the Court took under advisement Mr. Michael Murphy and Mr. Michael Groh's ("Plaintiffs' counsel") request for attorneys' fees and costs. Presently before the Court is the Plaintiffs' counsel's renewed request for attorneys' fees and costs, which provides supplemental argument in support of their original request. After extensive arms' length negotiations, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant agreed upon a fair, adequate, and reasonable settlement to resolve Plaintiffs' claims. Subject to the Court's approval, the Defendant agreed to pay a sum of $220,000, allocated accordingly: * $122,468 to the collective, to be distributed to up to 93 putative members on a pro rata basis, based on the degree of economic harm they experienced, as estimated by counsel; * $2,500 to Brown as an award for his service as class representative; * $77,000 to the Plaintiffs' counsel in attorneys' fees and $532 in costs; and * $17,500 to the Claims Administrator's fees and costs. The parties' settlement plan was to mail all putative members of the collective an "Initial Settlement Payment Check" in the amount of the collective members' pro rata contribution to the total estimated collective-wide damages in unpaid overtime compensation. By redeeming the check, the member would elect to join the collective action as an "Opt-in Plaintiff" and waive their individual claims against the Defendant. Each member had 75 days to sign and redeem the check, enclosed with a "Notice of Collective Action Settlement." After 75 days, any checks that remained unnegotiated would be voided. And within 14 days after the expiration of the 75-day deadline, the funds associated with any unclaimed check would be redistributed, on a pro rata basis, to all Opt-In Plaintiffs via "Residual Settlement Payment Checks." The Opt-In Plaintiffs would have another 75 days to redeem the check, and any remaining funds would be distributed, cy pres, to the Pennsylvania IOLTA Board. The Court instructed the Plaintiffs' counsel to file redacted facsimiles of the negotiated checks with the Court after the initial 75-day redemption period, at which point their counsel may then supplement any arguments in support of the requested fee amount. On Aug. 9, 2023, the Plaintiffs' counsel complied with that instruction and reported that, out of a settlement collective of 913 members, 67 individuals redeemed their Initial Settlement Payment Checks, thereby joining this matter as Opt-In Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs' counsel also attached a list of the Opt-In Plaintiffs and redacted copies of the Opt-In Plaintiffs' negotiated Initial Payment Settlement Checks. In light of this excellent participation rate of 74%, the Plaintiffs' counsel renews their request for $77,000, which amounts to 35% of the total settlement, in attorneys' fees and $532 in costs. Judge Marston finds that the Plaintiffs' counsel's requested fee award and costs are reasonable. He grants the Plaintiffs' counsel's request for $77,000 in attorneys' fees and $532 in costs is granted. An appropriate Order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 15, 2023 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc85ry44 from PacerMonitor.com. KANDLE DINING: Parties Seek to Certify Two Settlement Classes ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALAINA BODI, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KANDLE DINING SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-02491-KAS (D. Colo.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying the following two Classes for Settlement purposes: FLSA Collective Action Class "All salaried kitchen and dining hall employees who worked for KANDLE Dining Services, Inc. at any camp location in the United States between May 21, 2020, and the Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement, who timely file a FLSA Opt-in Form indicating their intention to opt-in to this action;" Rule 23 Class "All salaried kitchen and dining hall employees who worked for KANDLE Dining Services, Inc. in camps throughout Colorado between May 21, 2020, and the Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement; 2. Appointing Alaina Bodi as the class representative; 3. Appointing the undersigned attorneys from the Wilhite & Miller Law Firm as Class Counsel; 4. Approving the Notice, Consent, and Opt-out Forms attached as Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 to be sent to the Settlement Class Members; and 5. Approving CAC Services Group, LLC, as Settlement Administrator. The putative wage and hour class and collective action centers around two issues of Colorado and federal law: (1) whether KANDLE's salaried kitchen and dining hall employees who worked in camps were paid appropriately under Colorado and federal wage and hour laws; and (2) whether this Court has jurisdiction over a nationwide class under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Bodi alleges that KANDLE maintained a policy through which it failed to pay minimum wage and overtime to its salaried kitchen and dining hall employees who worked more than 40 hours a week in camps throughout the United States in violation of both the FLSA and the Colorado Wage Act and the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order. The total settlement payment will be distributed to the approximately 1,000 Settlement Class Members on a pro rata basis based on the number of workweeks each Class Member worked during the relevant period Kandle is in the Sporting and Recreational Camps business. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 5, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PIZiYf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David H. Miller, Esq. Victoria E. Guzman, Esq. THE WILHITE & MILLER LAW FIRM 1600 Ogden Street 950 Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (303) 839-1650 E-mail: dhmiller@wilhitelawfirm.com vguzman@wilhitelawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Ryan P. Lessmann, Esq. Evan H. Smithers, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS, P.C. 17th Street, Suite 2600 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 892-0404 E-mail: ryan.lessmann@jacksonlewis.com evan.smithers@jacksonlewis.com KENVUE INC: Hernandez Sues Over Sale of Ineffective Decongestants ----------------------------------------------------------------- NATASHA HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KENVUE, INC., MCNEIL CONSUMER HEALTHCARE, and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-04817 (N.D. Cal., September 19, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of over-the-counter oral nasal decongestants known as Sudafed PE, containing the active ingredient Phenylephrine (PE). The Defendants market Sudafed PE to consumers as an effective oral nasal decongestant, but a U.S. Food and Drug Administration Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee (NDAC) has concluded that PE is no more effective as an oral nasal decongestant than a placebo. By purchasing Sudafed PE, the Plaintiff and the Class did not receive a product that was effective at treating nasal congestion, says the suit. Kenvue Inc. is an American consumer health company, headquartered in Skillman, New Jersey. McNeil Consumer Healthcare is wholly owned by Kenvue Inc., with headquarters in Fort Washington, Pennsylvania Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. is a consumer goods company based in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Ave., Suite 1420 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 E-mail: swestcot@bursor.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 KOHLER CO: Shortchanges Plan Participants, Holloway Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANNY HOLLOWAY and JAMES KOHLHAGEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KOHLER CO. and THE KOHLER CO. PENSION PLAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01242 (E.D. Wis., September 19, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The case arises from Kohler's unlawful shortchanging the participants of the Kohler Co. Pension Plan by millions of dollars through their use of outdated formulas to calculate pension benefits. By using outdated formulas to calculate benefits prior to 2021, Kohler caused the Plaintiffs and Class members to receive less than the "actuarial equivalent" of their vested benefits, in violation of ERISA's actuarial equivalence requirements. Kohler failed to act prudently and diligently by failing to sufficiently review the terms of the Plan, including the formulas used to calculate pre-2021 optional benefit forms and QPSAs. Further, Kohler failed to apply the amendment updating the formulas retroactively to shore up the benefits of participants who retired before 2021, says the suit. As a direct and proximate result of these fiduciary breaches, the Plaintiffs and Class members allegedly lost millions of dollars in vested accrued pension benefits. Kohler Co. is a manufacturing company headquartered in Kohler, Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. Lisa R. Considine, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Facsimile: (646) 417-5967 E-mail: ofaircloth@sirillp.com lconsidine@sirillp.com LA DUC FLAMBEAU: Denial of Bid to Toss Fitzgerald Suit Appealed --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH WILDCAT, SR., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Lori Fitzgerald, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JOSEPH WILDCAT, SR., Tribal President of the Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, in his official and individual capacities, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00044-NKM-JCH, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs bring this class action complaint against the Defendants for violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations laws and various state lending laws resulting in the collection of unlawful debts. LDF Holdings is a lender formed by the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, a federally recognized Native American tribe. They are allegedly involved in a "rent-a-tribe" scheme where they channel their lending business over the internet through a Native American tribe to attempt to insulate itself from federal and state law, thus making them bound by the laws of that reservation or tribe only, not applicable federal and state law, thus avoiding state and federal law, with the vast majority of the revenues going to non-tribal entities. These loans carry triple-digit usurious interest rates. Lori Fitzgerald and Aaron Fitzgerald received loans with rates as high as 750% in violation of both Virginia's licensing and usury laws, which prohibit a person from charging an annual percentage rate exceeding 12% without first obtaining a consumer finance license from the Commonwealth. Williams received loans with interest rates exceeding 300% in violation of Georgia's licensing and usury requirements. On Oct. 30, 2020, Defendants Nicole Chapman-Reynolds, Jessi Phillips Lorenzo, and Joseph Wildcat, Sr. filed a motion to compel individual arbitration, stay proceedings pending arbitration, and a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On Dec. 4, 2020, Defendant Zenresolve LLC filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, failure to state a claim, and failure to join an indispensable party, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on Jan. 8, 2021. The complaint as against Defendant ZenResolve was dismissed with prejudice. All pending motions filed by Defendant ZenResolve were dismissed as moot. On Feb. 2, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to stay and request for hearing. On Apr. 16, 2021, the case was transferred to Senior Judge Norman K. Moon for all further proceedings. On August 21, 2023, the Court held that the Defendants must face class action allegations that they violated racketeering and usury laws by issuing loans with illegally high interest rates. The Court denied their bids to toss the suit or send it to arbitration. The appellate case is captioned Lori Fitzgerald v. Joseph Wildcat, Sr., Case No. 23-1930, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on September 7, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees LORI FITZGERALD, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq. Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. Casey Shannon Nash, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7576 (703) 424-7570 (703) 424-7571 Defendants-Appellants JOSEPH WILDCAT, SR., et al., are represented by: John Edward Komisin, Esq. Alan Durrum Wingfield, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP P.O. Box 1122 Richmond, VA 23218 Telephone: (804) 697-1872 (804) 697-1350 LA DUC FLAMBEAU: Skytrail Appeals Ruling in Fitzgerald Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- SKYTRAIL SERVICING GROUP, LLC, et al. have filed an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Lori Fitzgerald, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JOSEPH WILDCAT, SR., Tribal President of the Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, in his official and individual capacities, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00044-NKM-JCH, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs bring this class action complaint against the Defendants for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and various state lending laws resulting in the collection of unlawful debts. LDF Holdings is a lender formed by the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, a federally recognized Native American tribe. They are allegedly involved in a "rent-a-tribe" scheme where they channel their lending business over the internet through a Native American tribe to attempt to insulate itself from federal and state law, thus making them bound by the laws of that reservation or tribe only, not applicable federal and state law, thus avoiding state and federal law, with the vast majority of the revenues going to non-tribal entities. These loans carry triple-digit usurious interest rates. Lori Fitzgerald and Aaron Fitzgerald received loans with rates as high as 750% in violation of both Virginia's licensing and usury laws, which prohibit a person from charging an annual percentage rate exceeding 12% without first obtaining a consumer finance license from the Commonwealth. Williams received loans with interest rates exceeding 300% in violation of Georgia's licensing and usury requirements. On Oct. 30, 2020, Defendants Nicole Chapman-Reynolds, Jessi Phillips Lorenzo, and Joseph Wildcat, Sr. filed a motion to compel individual arbitration, stay proceedings pending arbitration, and a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On Dec. 4, 2020, Defendant Zenresolve LLC filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, failure to state a claim, and failure to join an indispensable party, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on Jan. 8, 2021. The complaint as against Defendant ZenResolve was dismissed with prejudice. All pending motions filed by Defendant ZenResolve were dismissed as moot. On Feb. 2, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to stay and request for hearing. On Apr. 16, 2021, the case was transferred to Senior Judge Norman K. Moon for all further proceedings. On August 21, 2023, the Court held that the Defendants must face class action allegations that they violated racketeering and usury laws by issuing loans with illegally high interest rates. The Court denied their bids to toss the suit or send it to arbitration. The appellate case is captioned Lori Fitzgerald v. Skytrail Servicing Group, LLC, Case No. 23-1929, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on September 7, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees LORI FITZGERALD, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq. Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. Casey Shannon Nash, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7576 (703) 424-7570 (703) 424-7571 Defendants-Appellants SKYTRAIL SERVICING GROUP, LLC, et al., are represented by: David Neal Anthony, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP P.O. Box 1122 Richmond, VA 23218 Telephone: (804) 697-5410 LEXISNEXIS RISK: Scroggins Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KERRY JENNIFER SCROGGINS, v. LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS FL INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00545-MHL (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order enlarging and staying the deadline for the filing of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Lexisnexis was founded in 1994. The company's line of business includes providing full service legal advice. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PFqoiO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leonard A. Bennett, Esq. Craig C. Marchiando, Esq. Drew D. Sarrett, Esq. Kevin A. Dillon, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com craig@clalegal.com drew@clalegal.com kevin@clalegal.com LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Nayani Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NIZAR S. NAYANI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. LIFESTANCE HEALTH GROUP, INC., MICHAEL K. LESTER, J. MICHAEL BRUFF, ROBERT BESSLER, DARREN BLACK, JEFFREY CRISAN, WILLIAM MILLER, JEFFREY RHODES, ERIC SHUEY, KATHERINE WOOD, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, JEFFERIES LLC, TPG CAPITAL BD, LLC, UBS SECURITIES LLC, and WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C., Case No. 1:22-cv-06833-JSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jed S. Rakoff entered an order granting Lead Plaintiff Nizar Nayani's motion but limits the class to those who purchased LifeStance common stock no later than November 8, 2021. Nayani moved the Court to certify "a class of all persons, other than the Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased LifeStance common stock in and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering (IPO) on or about June 10, 2021," to appoint Nayani as class representative, and to appoint his chosen counsel, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, as class counsel. LifeStance is a national provider of behavioral healthcare services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PkhCoV at no extra charge.[CC] LOCUST MEDICAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 5, 2024 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GERARD JACKSON, v. LOCUST MEDICAL, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00424-MWB (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Matthew W. Brann entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion or a four-month extension of the deadline to file a motion for class certification. -- The deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification is January 5, 2024. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t2UbZI at no extra charge.[CC] MAVIS DISCOUNT: Class Cert Reply Deadline Extended in Washington ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Washington v. Mavis Discount Tire, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10999 (S.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 30, 2022), the Hon. Judge James L. Cott entered an order granting letter motion for extension of time to file response / reply to Conditional Collective Certification. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mavis operates as an independent multi-brand tire dealer.[CC] MBA MORTGAGE: Court Certifies Class & Subclasses in Remsnyder ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW S. REMSNYDER, et al., v. MBA MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-00492-CCB (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Catherine C. Blake entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The following class and subclasses are certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 as follows: a. The MBA Class: All individuals in the United States who were borrowers on a mortgage loan originated or brokered by MBA Mortgage Services, Inc., for which All Star Title, Inc., provided a settlement service, as identified in Section 1100 on the borrower's HUD-1 or on the Closing Disclosure between July 1, 2009, and December 31, 2015. Exempted from this class is any person who, during the period of July 1, 2009, through December 31, 2015, was an employee, officer, member and/or agent of MBA Mortgage Services, Inc. or All Star Title, Inc.; any judicial officer who handles this case, and the immediate family members of such judicial officer(s). b. The RICO Subclass: The RICO Subclass is comprised of all members of the MBA Class. c. The RESPA Subclass: The RESPA Subclass is comprised of all members of the MBA Class who were borrowers on a federally related mortgage loan (as defined under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. section 2602). The named plaintiffs, Matthew S. Remsnyder, Kimberly I. McMillen, Lucy Strausbaugh, Vernon and Crystal Miller, Bonnie S. Vaughn, Edward and Karen Leech, Jr., Ellen T. Geiling, Ted and Andrea Doederlein, Randall Taylor, and Edward F. and Anna M. Barth, Jr are appointed class representatives. Michael Smith and Melissa English, of Smith, Gildea & Schmidt LLC, and Timothy Maloney and Veronica Nannis, of Joseph, Greenwald & Lake, PA, are appointed Class Counsel. MBA is a mortgage company that offers brokerage services for buying and selling residential and commercial properties. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PIswGD at no extra charge.[CC] MCCORMICK & CO: Plaintiffs Must File Amended Complaint by Oct. 5 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY BALISTRERI, et al., v. MCCORMICK & COMPANY, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-00349-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila entered an order granting motion to Dismiss as to Counts 1–11 with leave to amend. The Plaintiffs are ordered to file an amended complaint by October 5, 2023. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient standing, and Plaintiffs' claims are not preempted or subject to primary jurisdiction. However, the Court grants McCormick's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon relief can be granted. The Court grants Plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint to allege facts with more specificity and cure the other deficiencies identified in this Order. The Plaintiffs are seven individuals who purchased McCormick spices in the past four years. The Plaintiffs seek class certification for the following proposed class: "All persons within the United States who purchased the Products from the beginning of any applicable limitations period through the date of judgment." The Plaintiffs also bring this action on behalf of the following state subclasses: -- Washington Subclass "All persons who purchased the Products in the State of Washington from the beginning of any applicable limitations period through judgment." -- California Subclass "All persons who purchased the Products in the State of California from the beginning of any applicable limitations period through judgment." McCormick manufactures, markets, and sells herbs and spices, including the Products, throughout California, Washington State, and the United States A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 13, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/462Tuym at no extra charge.[CC] MENTAL HEALTH: Manning Seeks to Certify Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Manning v. Mental Health Department in a County Jail, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01209-E-BT (S.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying class action settlement. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZoQE4o at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff appears pro se. MID-HUDSON VALLEY: Settlement in Edwards Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REGINALD EDWARDS and ASHLEY FACCIOLA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. MID-HUDSON VALLEY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 1:22-cv-00562-TJM-CFH (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Thomas J. McAvoy entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for certification of the Settlement Class, Final Approval of the class action settlement, approval of Service Awards, and approval of attorneys' fees and costs. -- Accordingly, the Court finds that Class Counsel is entitled to $754,851 in reasonable attorneys' fees. -- Pursuant to the Agreement, no money shall revert to Defendant. Instead, within one year after the date the Settlement Administrator mails the first Settlement Class Member Payment, any remaining amounts resulting from uncashed checks shall be to the cy pres beneficiary that the Parties shall suggest. On March 29, 2021, the Plaintiff Facciola filed a putative class action complaint entitled Ashely Facciola v. Mid-Hudson Valley Federal Credit Union, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 7:21-cv-02676, alleging claims for breach of contract with regard to Defendant Mid-Hudson Valley Federal Credit Union's (MHVCU) practice of charging overdraft fees ("OD Fees") on debit card transactions that allegedly did not overdraw an account at the time they were authorized ("APPSN transactions"). Mid-Hudson is a financial institution that offers banking and financial services as well as credit loans. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LnOWdF at no extra charge.[CC] MULTIPLAN INC: Good Samaritan Suit Moved to California Super. Court ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL, L.P., Plaintiff v. MULTIPLAN, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-02139-AMO (N.D. Cal.), Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. Good Samaritan is a 474-bed acute care hospital in San Jose, California, that operates a 24-hour emergency room and includes a state-of-the art NICU center for the care of infants. It is a citizen of Tennessee and Delaware. MultiPlan is a health network provider that arranges, manages, and offers national preferred provider organization plans. It is a citizen of New York. Defendant Trustmark Health Benefits, formerly known as CoreSource, Inc., is a third-party administrator of healthcare benefits who acts on behalf of employers to administer health care benefits in accordance with the terms of the health plans and the terms of the contracts between plans and providers. It is a citizen of both Illinois and Delaware. Altimetrik Corp. is a data and digital engineering corporation with Michigan citizenship. MultiPlan and Good Samaritan operate in accordance with the MPI Participating Facility Agreement. Through this Network Agreement, Good Samaritan agreed to participate in MultiPlan's network and accept payment for services at discounted rates for Good Samaritan's otherwise applicable billed charges, in part based on the assurance that MultiPlan would ensure timely compensation to Good Samaritan in accordance with the terms of the Network Agreement for services rendered to members of the plans sold by MultiPlan. The case arises out of the Defendants' alleged failures to honor and properly apply the Network Agreement. That is, Good Samaritan avers that Defendants have refused to properly pay for the medically necessary services provided to an infant patient. Good Samaritan asserts that the Defendants failed to pay or cause payment for medical services in excess of $970,000. It alleges that the bill in question was underpaid, in part, because Defendants applied improper Line Item Disallowances ("LIDs"), unilaterally striking portions of Good Samaritan's charges. The Network Agreement prohibits such unilateral adjustments to billed charges. Good Samaritan also alleges that the Defendants further underpaid the bill by improperly deeming the medical level of care it provided as purportedly non-medically necessary or justified, and then applying a lower rate than what the contract required for the medically necessary services. Good Samaritan asserts 10 contract-based state law causes of action against the Defendants relating to purported breaches of the Network Agreement: 1. Breach of written contract against MultiPlan; 2. Breach of written contract against Trustmark; 3. Breach of written contract against Altimetrik; 4. Breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against MultiPlan; 5. Breach of the Client Trust Agreement against Trustmark – Third party beneficiary; 6. Breach of the User Agreement against Altimetrik – Third party beneficiary; 7. Intentional interference with contractual relations and/or prospective economic advantage against MultiPlan; 8. Intentional interference with contractual relations and/or prospective economic advantage against Trustmark; 9. Intentional interference with contractual relations and/or prospective economic advantage against Altimetrik; and 10. Relief from forfeiture against all Defendants. On Feb. 8, 2022, Good Samaritan filed its initial complaint in the Santa Clara Superior Court against Defendants MultiPlan, Trustmark, and Altimetrik. On April 4, 2022, Trustmark filed a notice of removal solely based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332, with the consent of all other Defendants. The notice of removal alleged complete diversity of citizenship between the parties based on the assertion that the Plaintiff is a citizen of California, Trustmark is a citizen of Delaware and Illinois, multiplan is a citizen of New York, and Altimetrik is a citizen of Michigan for removal and diversity purposes. At the time, no party contested removal. Following some amendments to the pleadings, the Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Remand on May 19, 2023. Altimetrik filed an opposition brie, which Trustmark joined. Good Samaritan moves to remand on the basis that diversity of citizenship is lacking where it and Defendant Trustmark are both corporate citizens of the State of Delaware. Judge Martinez-Olguin holds that there is no federal question jurisdiction because there is not complete preemption under ERISA. She also finds that both Good Samaritan and Trustmark are citizens of the State of Delaware, and complete diversity does not exist between the parties. Therefore, the Court does not have diversity jurisdiction over this matter. Because both federal question and diversity jurisdiction are lacking, Judge Martinez-Olguin grants the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. She remands the case to the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 15, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6a6x4zy from PacerMonitor.com. NEW YORK: Sughrim Bid for Partial Summary Judgment Partly OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN SUGHRIM, DAVID FELICIANO, ROLAND SOFO, DEREK GLEIXNER, and KHALDOUN ALSHAMIRI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPPERVISION, ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, JOHN A. SHIPLEY, NA-KIA WALTON, STEPHEN URBANSKI, ALAN WASHER, WILLIAM LEE, MICHAEL BERTONE, and THOMAS NAPOLI, Case No. 1:19-cv-07977-RA-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ronnie Abrams entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. Specifically, the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their Religious Requirements Claim is granted, as is their motion on Gleixner, Alshamiri and Sofo's individual Title VII claims. Their summary judgment motion on Feliciano’s claims is denied. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) is granted. Injunctive relief is ordered as described in this Opinion. Specifically, Defendants are: -- Enjoined from enforcing their practice of denying religious accommodations based on their own understanding of the tenets of the applicant’s faith, and shall amend their grooming policies to memorialize the end of that practice; -- Ordered not to revoke or modify the existing accommodations for Gleixner and Alshamiri insofar as they are not assigned to clean shaven posts; and -- Ordered to grant a religious accommodation to Sofo permitting him to wear a beard up to one inch long insofar as he is not assigned to a clean shaven post, and are further ordered not to revoke or modify the accommodation insofar as he is assigned to a clean shaven post. No later than October 6, 2023, Defendants shall advise the Court how they intend to comply with this Opinion and Order. Insofar as Plaintiffs wish to respond, they shall do so no later than October 13, 2023. The case involves a challenge by New York State correction officers who claim that the State’s prison system and its officials have violated, and continue to violate, their constitutional and statutory rights by denying their requests to wear beards as an expression of their religious beliefs. The Plaintiffs move to certify a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2), consisting of: "DOCCS security staff whose religious accommodation requests to wear beards were not granted after August 26, 2016, and all DOCCS security staff who will in the future submit requests for religious accommodations to wear beards." The Plaintiffs also moved to certify a subclass consisting of: "officers who since August 26, 2016 were denied religious accommodations based on DOCCS’s policy of determining the tenets or requirements of some religions, but not others (the "Religious Requirements Subclass")." A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sXREjI at no extra charge.[CC] NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Bucks County Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BUCKS COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiff, v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-982 (S.D. Ohio), Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, grants the Defendants' Motion to Change Venue under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Plaintiff Bucks County Employees Retirement System, a retirement fund out of eastern Pennsylvania, brings this action individually and on behalf of all other purchasers of Norfolk Southern Corporation common stock between Oct. 28, 2020 and March 3, 2023. It seeks relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Defendant Norfolk Southern and certain Norfolk Southern executives -- Defendants Mark R. George, Alan H. Shaw, and James A. Squires. Shaw is the President and CEO of Norfolk Southern and serves on its board of directors. George is an Executive Vice President and the CFO of Norfolk Southern, and Squires is a former Chairman of Norfolk Southern's Board Norfolk Southern, an owner of major freight railroads, is a Virginia corporation with its headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. It operates over 19,000 route miles in 22 states, including Ohio. On Feb. 3, 2023, one of Norfolk Southern's trains derailed close to the Pennsylvania–Ohio border in East Palestine, Ohio. And, on March 4, 2023, another Norfolk Southern train derailed in Springfield, Ohio. The Plaintiff says these derailments shed light on Norfolk Southern's campaign against safety regulations in the railway industry. It alleges that, despite the company's assurances to the public and investors of its measures to maintain safe operations, Norfolk Southern was actively lobbying for decreased regulation in railway safety. So, the Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, sued the Defendants in this Court, alleging they disseminated or recklessly disregarded false and misleading statements about Norfolk Southern's positions on safety. Later, the Denmark-based AkademikerPension and the New York-based Ironworkers Locals 40, 361 & 417 Union Annuity, Pension and Topping Out Fund each moved to be named Lead Plaintiff. Plaintiff Bucks County Employees Retirement System has not asked to be Lead Plaintiff. Now, the Defendants move to transfer this case to the Northern District of Georgia. And, because the Plaintiff alleges the train derailment in Springfield, Ohio, shed light on the Defendants' alleged misrepresentations, the Court ordered the Plaintiff to show cause why this matter should not be transferred to the Western Division of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in Dayton, Ohio. The parties briefed both the Motion and the Order to show cause, and the question of venue is properly before the Court. Judge Jolson opines that the Northern District of Georgia is a proper forum for this litigation, and the great weight of relevant considerations favors transfer out of this district. First, the Northern District of Georgia has personal jurisdiction over all Defendants and is an appropriate venue for this litigation because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in that district. Second, despite the Plaintiff's claims, it is highly speculative that significant witnesses reside in Columbus. And shareholders' interest in Norfolk Southern's alleged misrepresentations is no more fervent here than anywhere else in the country. Simply put, Columbus has no gravitational pull over this litigation. The balance of factors strongly justifies the transfer of the action to another forum. Atlanta, thus, holds the center of gravity for the case and provides for the accessibility of evidence, as well as a convenient forum for parties and witnesses. The Defendants' Motion is granted. The Clerk of Courts is directed to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 15, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/52nmccue from PacerMonitor.com. OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Pauli's Bid for Conditional Certification Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JAMES PAULI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OLLIE'S BARGAIN OUTLET INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:22-CV-00279 (MAD/ML) (N.D.N.Y.), Judge Mae A. D'Agostino of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York denies the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification and the Defendant's motion to strike portions of the Plaintiff's reply submissions. On March 22, 2022, the Plaintiff filed this putative collective and class action against Defendant Ollie's alleging violations of the Federal Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). Currently pending before the Court is the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). Additionally, the Defendant has moved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) to strike portions of the Plaintiff's reply submissions. The Defendant is a Pennsylvania-based corporation that has operated since 1982 and is described as one of America's largest retailers of closeout merchandise and excess inventory. It operates over 400 stores in 29 states, with approximately 28 locations in New York. The Defendant is a described as a discount retail store chain that focuses on closeouts, overstocks, package changes, manufacturer refurbished goods, and irregulars." The Defendant markets itself under the slogan "Good Stuff Cheap." The Plaintiff is a New York resident who has worked at an Ollie's store in Cicero, New York since August 2013. Since November 2013, the Plaintiff's position title has been "Co-Team Leader" or "CTL." Co-Team Leaders spend over 90% of their time on tasks such as unloading supply trucks, unboxing products (hundreds per day sometimes), stocking shelves, operating cash registers, cleaning the store, setting up product displays, shoveling and salting snow and ice, and helping customers." The Plaintiff typically works more than 10 hours per day, or 50 to 60 hours per week. He receives a flat salary of approximately $940 per week, regardless of how many hours he works. The Plaintiff describes the proposed collective as: All current and former Co-Team Leaders who have worked for Defendant from March 22, 2019 through the date of trial, and elect to opt-in to this action pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) ("Nationwide Collective Class"). Judge D'Agostino finds that the Plaintiff has failed to meet the modest burden necessary for conditional FLSA certification. She says the Plaintiff's proposed collective is the limited quantity of proposed opt-in plaintiffs considering a request that spans "nationwide" in 28 states. On the whole, the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate evidence warranting a nationwide collective. As such, his request for FLSA collective certification is denied. Judge D'Agostino also denies the Defendant's motion to strike because it would require making a credibility determination to resolve a factual dispute. Even if she were to make a finding favorable to the Defendant, the mere fact that testimony is inconsistent is insufficient to justify striking an entire document. After carefully reviewing the entire record in this matter, the parties' submissions, the applicable law, and for the above-stated reasons, Judge D'Agostino denies the Plaintiff's motion seeking conditional FLSA collective certification and the Defendant's motion to strike portions of the Plaintiff's reply submissions. The Clerk will serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 15, 2023 Memorandum-Decision & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdhtb679 from PacerMonitor.com. GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC, FRANK S. GATTUSO, ESQ., Fayetteville, New York, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP, JAMES E. MURPHY, ESQ. -- jmurphy@vandallp.com -- MICHELE A. MORENO, ESQ. -- mmoreno@vandallp.com -- LADONNA LUSHER ESQ. -- llusher@vandallp.com -- New York, New York, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs. FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP, HEATHER Z. STEELE ESQ. -- hsteele@fisherphillips.com -- KATHLEEN MCLEOD CAMINITI, ESQ. -- kcaminiti@fisherphillips.com -- Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Attorneys for the Defendant. PAPA JOHN'S: Amended Bid for Antitrust Suit Deal Approval Ordered ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In Re: Papa John's Employee and Franchisee Employee Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:18-cv-825-BJB (W.D. Ky.), Judge Benjamin Beaton of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division, orders the Plaintiff to submit an amended motion for class-action settlement or otherwise file a joint status report (or extension request). The case involves one of several class actions filed against fast-food chains following an investigation by the Attorney General of Washington State into "nopoach" provisions in restaurant franchise agreements. Resulting settlements with public authorities and corresponding business judgments appear to have sharply curtailed the inclusion (previously common) and enforcement (arguably irregular) of provisions barring franchisors from soliciting the employees of other franchises of the same chain. Many restaurant employees agree with the Washington State Attorney General that these provisions amount to per se anticompetitive restraints that depress wages, benefits, and promotions. And they have filed private lawsuits in parallel with the public antitrust enforcement actions in Washington. The restaurants, by contrast, have cast the agreements as typical incidents of vertical integration that promote training and reflect company-specific investment in workers, ultimately benefiting employees and consumers. Outside Washington State, litigation remains ongoing in several putative class actions, including two within the Seventh Circuit -- Deslandes v. McDonald's USA, LLC, No. 17-cv-4857, 2018 WL 3105955 (N.D. Ill. June 25, 2018), vacated and remanded, No. 22-2333 (7th Cir. 2023) (slip op.); and Conrad v. Jimmy John's Franchise, LLC, No. 18-cv-133, 2021 WL 3268339 (S.D. Ill. July 30, 2021). Papa John's International, Inc. and Papa John's USA, Inc. face similar allegations that their franchisors systematically restricted employee compensation and opportunities by agreeing that individual Papa John's franchises would not seek to hire each other's employees. Before this case was reassigned, the district judge denied a motion to dismiss but granted a motion to compel arbitration against one of the lead plaintiffs. The parties, represented by seasoned counsel, have engaged in substantial discovery and settlement negotiations. Given the mutual costs and risks of class litigation regarding these allegations, the parties have agreed to settle the dispute on behalf of the entire class. The class wide settlement agreement they've proposed for this Court's review would certify a class of similarly situated employees and managers, award $5 million in damages, create a claims and reversion process, require injunctive relief in the form of antitrust training, award attorney fees, and release all claims. The lawyers estimate workers would receive around $33 each, less attorney fees, depending on how long a class member worked at Papa John's. For similar reasons related to litigation risk and business certainty, Papa John's has stopped using and enforcing these no-poach provisions nationwide. Its promise to do so (for five years) is part of the settlement. The company had already taken this step in Washington State, in accordance with its settlement with the Attorney General, but now has agreed to extend that commitment nationwide. The question before the Court is whether to preliminarily certify the class and approve the class wide settlement that would bind absent members. If so, the Court would authorize notice to the class, provide affected persons a chance to object, and schedule a final fairness hearing before deciding whether to enter judgment. That preliminary ruling requires two showings from the parties: that the settlement is likely fair under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2) and that the class is likely permissible under Rule 23(a) and (b). Judge Beaton says while this motion was pending, the Seventh Circuit made good on the prediction of the Plaintiff's counsel that one of the district court class-cert denials would be reversed. In a supplemental filing, the counsel contended that because Deslandes suggests that certification of a litigation class like that sought by the Plaintiff may be appropriate, it would be reasonable for the Court to certify the proposed settlement class in the case. Contrary to the counsel's assertion, the Seventh Circuit's opinion doesn't make this motion (which addresses a settlement class) merely academic. Making the findings required by Rule 23 requires additional information. The parties have, perhaps understandably, focused a considerable amount of attention on the Rule 23(e) factors without a commensurate discussion of 23(a) and (b) factors. The considerations bearing on the Court's preliminary finding include whether the Plaintiff adequately represents the interests of absent class members, how the Plaintiff would prove whether the no-poach agreements at issue amount to a restraint of trade, and where that proof would show such provisions restrain trade. As currently briefed, Judge Beaton opines that the Court lacks adequate information to make these determinations and orders the parties to supplement their filings to allow for a reasoned preliminary decision regarding adequacy, typicality, and predominance. The parties needn't supplement the record with any additional information regarding numerosity, the adequacy of the proposed notice, the qualifications of class counsel, or superiority, all of which appear satisfactory. Judge Beaton instead invites the Plaintiff to submit an amended motion for class-action settlement or otherwise file a joint status report (or extension request) within 30 days. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 15, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr2mnwc2 from PacerMonitor.com. PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER: McCarthy Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for CSRs -------------------------------------------------------------- REBECCA MCCARTHY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01562-JPW (M.D. Pa., September 19, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay all straight time wages and overtime wages for all hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a customer service representative (CSR) from October 2019 to May 2021. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency is an operator of a call center based in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com - and - Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT, P.A. 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com PENSKE LOGISTICS: Faces Morgan Suit Over Wage-and-Hour Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- LAUREN MORGAN and ARDAVAN DAVARI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PENSKE LOGISTICS, LLC, and PENSKE TRUCK LEASING, CO. L.P., Defendants, Case No. 8:23-cv-01750 (C.D. Cal., September 19, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to accurately calculate and pay overtime wages, meal and rest period violations, failure to maintain employee records, failure to provide itemized wage statements, failure to pay all wages upon termination, failure to timely pay wages, and unlawful business practices. Penske Logistics, LLC is a subsidiary of Penske Corporation that provides logistics services, with its principal place of business in Reading, Pennsylvania. Penske Truck Leasing, Co. L.P. is a global transportation services provider, with its principal place of business in Reading, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aaron M. Zigler, Esq. Nidya S. Gutierrez, Esq. ZIGLER LAW GROUP, LLC 308 S. Jefferson Street | Suite 333 Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 535-5995 Facsimile: (312) 535-5773 E-mail: aaron@ziglerlawgroup.com nidya@ziglerlawgroup.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Drugs Can't Treat Nasal Congestion, Kleiman Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ CATHY KLEIMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00590-DRC (D. Ohio, September 19, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of contract, strict product liability for misrepresentation, fraud, and fraudulent misrepresentation. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of tablet style phenylephrine medicine, "Vicks Dayquil" branded products, containing phenylephrine. The Defendant markets PE drugs to consumers as an effective oral nasal decongestant, but according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, PE is no more effective as an oral nasal decongestant than a placebo. By purchasing PE drugs, the Plaintiff and the Class did not receive a product that was effective at treating nasal congestion, says the suit. Procter & Gamble is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew S. Baker, Esq. THE BAKER LAW GROUP 89 E. Nationwide Blvd. 2nd Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 228-1882 Facsimile: (614) 228-1862 E-mail: andrew.baker@bakerlawgroup.net - and - Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq. Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. Blake G. Abbott, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 E-mail: roy.willey@poulinwilley.com paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com blake.abbott@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com PURFOODS LLC: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Emmert Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- RONALD EMMERT, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PURFOODS LLC d/b/a MOM'S MEALS, Case No. 4:23-cv-00365-RGE-SBJ (S.D. Iowa, Sept. 19, 2023) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard the Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information (PHI) and personally identifiable information (PII) stored within the Defendant's information network. The information includes customer names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, state identification numbers, financial account and payment card information, medical record numbers, health information, treatment information, diagnosis codes, meal categories and costs, health insurance information and patient identification numbers. While Defendant claims to have discovered the breach as early as February 22, 2023, the Defendant did not begin informing victims of the Data Breach until August 2023. Indeed, the Representative Plaintiff and Class Members were wholly unaware of the Data Breach until they received letters from Defendant informing them of it. The Notice received by Representative Plaintiff was dated August 30, 2023, the Plaintiff asserts. The Representative Plaintiff seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause the Representative Plaintiff and, at least, 1,237,6813 other similarly situated persons in the massive cyberattack. The Representative Plaintiff further seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for not ensuring that the PHI/PII was maintained in a manner consistent with industry, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 Privacy Rule, the HIPAA Security Rule and other relevant standards. The Defendant produces "refrigerated ready-to-eat meals" and delivers them to "any U.S. address."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin T. Erickson, Esq. GREFE & SIDNEY, P.L.C 500 E. Court Ave, #200, Des Moines, IA 50309 Telephone: (515) 245-4334 Facsimile: (515) 245-4452 E-mail: berickson@grefesidney.com - and - Laura Van Note, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Facsimile: (510) 891-7030 E-mail: lvn@colevannote.com RBS CITIZENS: Filing of Reinig's Renewed Class Cert. Bid Allowed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ALEX REINIG, KEN GRITZ, BOB SODA, MARY LOU GRAMESKY, PETER WILDER SMITH, WILLIAM KINSELLA, DANIEL KOLENDA, VALERIE DAL PINO, AHMAD NAJI, ROBERT PEDERSON, TERESA FRAGALE, DAVID HOWARD, DANIEL JENKINS, MARK ROSS, Plaintiffs v. RBS CITIZENS, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 2:15-CV-01541-CCW (W.D. Pa.), Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania grants the Plaintiffs an opportunity to file a renewed motion for class certification specific to their PMWA Regular Rate Claim. Before the Court are two disputes between the parties that stem from the case's complex procedural history: (1) how many of the Plaintiffs named in the operative Second Amended Complaint have individual claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") that they can pursue at trial; and (2) whether and to what extent the Plaintiffs may pursue class relief on a narrow subset of their original claims under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"). Plaintiffs Alex Reinig, Ken Gritz, and Bob Soda -- three former Mortgage Loan Officers ("MLOs") at RBS Citizens, N.A. -- initiated the action by filing an individual, Rule 23 class, and FLSA collective action complaint against Citizens on Nov. 23, 2015. Much has happened in the nearly eight years since. The Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint on Dec.r 21, 2016, pursuant to a stipulation with Citizens. The amendment added nine new named plaintiffs: Mary Lou Gramesky, Peter Wilder Smith, William Kinsella, Daniel Kolenda, Valerie Dal Pino, Ahmad Naji, Robert Pedersen, Teresa Fragale, and David Howard, each of whom was a former Citizens MLO. In the amended complaint, the 12 named Plaintiffs alleged that they and similarly situated MLOs were underpaid, especially for overtime, in violation of the FLSA and corresponding state laws in Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Ohio, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Michigan, and New Hampshire. The Plaintiffs brought their claims individually, but also sought to represent similarly situated parties in a collective action for the FLSA claims and in a class action for the state law claims. The day after the Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint, District Judge Arthur Schwab, then presiding, appointed David R. Cohen as Special Master to consider motions for summary judgment and certification of the proposed collective and class actions. On Aug. 22, 2017, after the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint adding Mark Ross and Daniel Jenkins as plaintiffs -- bringing the total to 14 -- but not otherwise changing the Plaintiffs' substantive allegations, Judge Schwab issued an order adopting the Special Master's Report and Recommendation. Citizens petitioned for leave to appeal from that order, at least to the extent that it certified class and collective actions for the Plaintiffs' Off-the-Clock Claims. The Court of Appeals remanded the case with instructions that the District Court conduct a 'rigorous' examination of the factual and legal allegations underpinning the Plaintiffs' claims before deciding if class certification is appropriate. On remand, the case was eventually reassigned to Judge Wiegand who then proceeded to consider the issue of class certification, consistent with the Third Circuit's remand. She denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, highlighting significant differences between MLOs' circumstances. After a period of discovery, the Court scheduled the case for trial, which is currently set for Oct. 30, 2023. Most recently, the Court adjudicated two motions for reconsideration concerning rulings from before the case was reassigned. In the first, Citizens moved for decertification of the FLSA collective action for the Plaintiffs' Off-the-Clock claims, which Judge Schwab had certified in his order adopting the Special Master's Report and Recommendation and which the Third Circuit had declined to consider on appeal. The Court granted Citizen's reconsideration motion, concluding that decertification of the FLSA collective was appropriate because the members of the proposed collective were not "similarly situated." In the second motion, the Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the order adopting the Special Master's recommendation that summary judgment be entered on the Plaintiffs' Recapture Claims. The Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion insofar as they sought to revive their Recapture Claims in full. Nevertheless, it agreed that summary judgment should not have been entered against the Plaintiffs to the extent that they alleged that Citizens violated the PMWA by using a multiplier of 0.5 to calculate overtime pay rates rather than a multiplier of 1.5. The Court thus reversed summary judgment on that narrow aspect of the Recapture Claims -- what it referred to as the Plaintiffs' PMWA "Regular Rate Claim" -- and allowed it to proceed. The Court's reconsideration rulings prompted the instant disputes. The first issue before the Court is whether all fourteen of the named Plaintiffs in the Second Amended Complaint may pursue their FLSA claims at trial now that the collective action has been decertified. Judge Wiegand holds that the Court's decertification of the FLSA collective in this case did not result in the dismissal of the individual FLSA claims raised by the fourteen named Plaintiffs in the Second Amended Complaint. Those 14 named Plaintiffs may pursue their individual claims at trial, whether brought under the FLSA or a corresponding state law. The second issue before the Court is whether and to what extent the Plaintiffs may pursue a class action as to their PMWA Regular Rate Claim, which the Court recently revived in granting in part their motion for reconsideration. Judge Wiegand holds that offers the Plaintiffs the opportunity to file a renewed motion for class certification limited to their PMWA Regular Rate Claim. Doing so, she says, allows them to seek class certification on their PMWA Regular Rate Claim and allows Citizens the opportunity to contest the appropriateness of class certification. Of course, litigating class certification and, if necessary, providing notice to absent class members ahead of an October 30, 2023 trial is not possible. Judge Wiegand, accordingly, vacates the Oct. 30, 2023 trial and its accompanying deadlines by separate order. Judge Wiegand concludes that: (1) each of the 14 named Plaintiffs in the Second Amended Complaint have individual claims to pursue at trial under the FLSA and corresponding state law; and (2) although there is not presently a certified PMWA class, the Plaintiffs will have an opportunity to move for limited class certification regarding their PMWA Regular Rate Claim. Accordingly, Judge Wiegand orders that: 1. All fourteen named plaintiffs in the Second Amended Complaint may pursue their individual claims under the FLSA and corresponding state law at trial, to the extent that those claims have not been dismissed by a prior order of the Court. 2. The Plaintiffs is granted an opportunity to file a renewed motion for class certification specific to their PMWA Regular Rate Claim. The parties will meet and confer regarding a proposed schedule for promptly resolving the Plaintiffs' forthcoming renewed motion and will file a joint status report regarding the same. To the extent that the parties disagree regarding the appropriate next steps, they will set forth their respective positions. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 15, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/47jj4r93 from PacerMonitor.com. RECKITT BENCKISER: Decongestants "Ineffective," Jones Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARI JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RECKITT BENCKISER PHARMACEUTICALS INC. and RECKITT BENCKISER LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-04807-SK (N.D. Cal., September 19, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, fraud, unjust enrichment, negligence, negligence per se, and violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and state consumer protection laws. The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of over-the-counter oral nasal decongestants, containing the active ingredient Phenylephrine. The Defendants market PE drugs to consumers as an effective oral nasal decongestant, but a U.S. Food and Drug Administration Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee has concluded that PE is no more effective as an oral nasal decongestant than a placebo. By purchasing PE Drugs, the Plaintiff and the Class did not receive a product that was effective at treating nasal congestion. Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a pharmaceutical company, with its principal place of business at 10710 Midlothian Turnpike, Suite 430, Richmond, Virginia. Reckitt Benckiser LLC is a manufacturer of cleaning products, with its principal place of business at 399 Interpace Parkway, Parsippany, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allan Kanner, Esq. KANNER & WHITELEY, L.L.C. 701 Camp Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 524-5777 E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com RECKITT BENCKISER: Nyanjom Sues Over Decongestants' False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------- HAROLD NYANJOM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RECKITT BENCKISER PHARMACEUTICALS INC., RECKITT BENCKISER LLC, and BAYER CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02426-HLT-TJJ (D. Kan., September 19, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of express warranties, breach of implied warranties, fraud, negligent misrepresentation and omission, unjust enrichment, negligence, negligence per se, and violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and state consumer protection laws. The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of over-the-counter oral nasal decongestants, containing the active ingredient Phenylephrine. The Defendants market PE drugs to consumers as an effective oral nasal decongestant, but a U.S. Food and Drug Administration Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee has concluded that PE is no more effective as an oral nasal decongestant than a placebo. By purchasing PE Drugs, the Plaintiff and the Class did not receive a product that was effective at treating nasal congestion. Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a pharmaceutical company, with its principal place of business at 10710 Midlothian Turnpike, Suite 430, Richmond, Virginia. Reckitt Benckiser LLC is a manufacturer of cleaning products, with its principal place of business at 399 Interpace Parkway, Parsippany, New Jersey. Bayer Corporation is a pharmaceutical and biotechnology company, with its principal place of business at 100 Bayer Blvd., Whippany, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stacy A. Burrows, Esq. Seth K. Jones, Esq. BARTON AND BUROWS, LLC 5201 Johnson Drive, Suite 110 Mission, KS 66205 E-mail: stacy@bartonburrows.com seth@bartonburrows.com SAFECO INSURANCE: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Dow -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN DOW, v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, A LIBERTY MUTUAL COMPANY; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; and LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00031-SPW (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Susan P. Watters entered an order granting Safeco's motion for summary judgment. The Court only entered summary judgment as to Plaintiff Susan Dow as the class representative, not as to the class as a whole. The Court further ordered Class Counsel to identify a new class Representative within 60 days of the Order. On July 18, 2023, Class Counsel notified the Court that it had been unable to identify a new class representative. Safeco provides auto insurance, homeowners insurance, and liability insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44SCOYV at no extra charge.[CC] SANDS POINT: Fails to Pay Caddies' Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- TROY FLACK, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. SANDS POINT GOLF CLUB, INC., ROBERT GLICK, and ERIC BEAL, Case No. 1:23-cv-06940 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and unpaid regular hourly wages pay, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Before and after a round of golf, when Mr. Flack (and the other caddies) were waiting for an assignment, management directed him to perform miscellaneous tasks, such as transporting bags from members' cars to the clubhouse or removing caddy carts from around the premises. The Defendants did not pay anything to Mr. Flack or the other caddies for their grueling, physical labor. Instead, the Defendants simply suggested to each Sands Point member that they pay their caddies at the rate of $120.00 per person, per round. These suggested rates - which were enumerated, but not actually paid, by the Defendants - were Mr. Flack and other caddies' only compensation, the Plaintiff alleges. The Individual Defendants assigned the caddies their hours and instructed the caddies to begin prior to the course's opening at 7:00 am. Although the caddies were theoretically allowed to leave work whenever they chose, in reality they were not permitted to leave until 3:00 pm at the very earliest. Because the Defendants did not pay the caddies, this meant that each caddie had no choice but to work full days every day, otherwise they would find themselves without any income, the Plaintiff asserts. Mr. Flack worked more than 56 hours per week throughout his employment. Nonetheless, at no time did Sands Point pay him overtime at a rate of 1.5 times his regular hourly rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work week, the Plaintiff adds. Accordingly, all the class members were subject to the same corporate practices of the Defendants, including willfully failing and refusing to pay class members the minimum federal or state minimum wage, and willfully failing and refusing to pay class members one-and-one-half times their regular hourly rate for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek for work they provided. Mr. Flack was hired by the Sands Point in April 2020 as a caddie working at Sands Point's golf course. Sands Point owes, operates, maintains and controls a golf course, including grounds, facilities, and houses, located at 130 Middle Neck Road, Port Washington, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian L. Greben, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN L. GREBEN 316 Great Neck Road Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 304-5357 SAVE MART: Parties Seek to Modify Certification Briefing Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE LUNA, KATHERINE BAKER, EDGAR POPKE, and DENNY G. WRASKE, Jr., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS, Case No. 3:22-cv-04645-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the parties stipulate to and propose the following slight modification to the class certification briefing and hearing schedule in order to set all briefing deadlines on a court date and to set the hearing on a date consistent with the Court's law and motion calendar: Event Prior Date Proposed New Date Motion for Class March 22, 2024 Same Certification Opposition April 21, 2024 April 22, 2024 Reply May 12, 2024 May 13, 2024 Hearing May 29, 2024 May 30, 2024 Save Mart is an American grocery store operator founded and headquartered in Modesto, California. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 7, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EIBcXa at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anne B. Shaver, Esq. Michelle A. Lamy, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 275 Battery St. Fl. 29 San Francisco CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 - and - James P. Keenley, Esq. Emily A. Bolt, Esq. BOLT KEENLEY KIM LLP 2855 Telegraph Ave., Suite 517 Berkeley CA 94705 Telephone: (510) 225-0696 Facsimile: (510) 225-1095 - and - Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Mikael H. Stahle, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 200 Manhattan Beach CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-190 The Defendant is represented by: Michael B. Slade, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 300 N La Salle Dr Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 862-2000 SELIP & STYLIANOU: Bid for Summary Judgment in Tomaine Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ANTHONY TOMAINE, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SELIP & STYLIANOU, LLP, Defendant, Civ. No. 20-00156 (KM) (JBC) (D.N.J.), Judge Kevin McNulty of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denies Selip & Stylianou, LLP's motion for summary judgment. Selip attempted to collect a debt held by Tomaine. Tomaine then sued Selip, claiming that these attempts violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692-1692o. Selip now moves for summary judgment on the grounds that Tomaine lacks standing. Selip collects personal, family, and household debt on behalf of creditors. Tomaine defaulted on a financial obligation to Discover Bank, which was incurred in connection with a credit card account. This action arises out of Selip's collection efforts with respect to Tomaine's defaulted credit card account. In May 2010, a lawsuit was filed in state court on behalf of Discover Bank to recover $11,646.39 related to the defaulted credit card account. The following month, the state court entered a default judgment against Tomaine in the amount of $11,951.32, which included the principal, interest, attorney's fees, and costs. By the end of the year, Tomaine filed for bankruptcy and listed the Discover Bank debt among his financial obligations. From January 2019 through April 2019, Selip sought to execute the state court judgment, submitting a proposed writ for $14,645.36 and obtaining a $278.75 levy against a bank account held by Tomaine. It also filed a motion to turn over the funds in the levied bank account and, in support of the motion, it submitted a certificate that showed an outstanding balance of $14,857.26. Two months later, Selip sent a collection letter to Tomaine requesting the outstanding balance. Since that time, Tomaine has testified that he believes he still owes $13,857 in connection with the state court judgment. In January 2020, Tomaine filed the lawsuit against Selip for alleged violations of the FDCPA—specifically, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(2)(B), 1692e(5), 1692e(10), 1692f, and 1692f(1). Among other things, Tomaine alleges that the proposed writ "sought to collect more than it was entitled to collect," that the certificate in support of the motion to turn over the levied bank funds included a number "in excess of the amount actually owed by the Plaintiff," and that the collection letter "once again sought to collect post-judgment interest in excess of what Defendant was entitled to collect on behalf of the creditor." Tomaine alleges that the proposed writ, the certificate, and the collection letter overstated the amounts owed to Discover Bank. Even taking that fact as true, Judge McNulty must find that Tomaine did not suffer a concrete injury as a direct result of the proposed writ, the certificate, or the collection letter. He holds that the allegations of harm based on the proposed writ, the certificate, and the collection letter do not set forth a basis for standing. As Selip correctly points out, there is no indication that a member of the public ever denied any financial or other concrete benefit to Tomaine as a result. Nor is there any indication of a loss akin to reputational harm, which involves information that invites "hatred, contempt, or ridicule," such as reports that flag potential terrorist status. Selip also acknowledges that the bank levy was issued in an amount greater than the judgment. This improper hold on funds may have been a corrected or correctable mistake, but the lack of access to assets amounts to a monetary harm, however slight. Indeed, courts in this and other circuits have noted that a relatively insignificant monetary loss is sufficient to establish an injury-in-fact. On this basis, Tomaine has standing to sue Selip for violations of the FDCPA. For these reasons, the motion for summary judgment is denied. A separate order will be issued. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 15, 2023 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/bddpxpw5 from PacerMonitor.com. SEMPER LASER: Class Cert. Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martinez, et al., v. Semper Laser Holdings LLC Denver, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00320 (D. Colo., Filed Feb. 3, 2023), the Hon. Judge Daniel D. Domenico entered an order referring motion to certify class plaintiffs' unopposed motion and stipulation for conditional certification of FLSA collective action and notice to members to Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Equal Pay Act. Semper Laser is a healthcare company that provides laser treatments with advanced technology.[CC] SPOKEO INC: Keliman Allowed to File Second Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AVIVA KELLMAN, et al., v. SPOKEO, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-08976-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order granting motion for leave to filed second amended complaint. In this putative class action, the Plaintiffs assert that Spokeo violated various state laws by publicizing the plaintiffs' personal information on the defendant's website. The plaintiffs previously amended their complaint, and the briefing schedule for the motion for class certification has been extended several times. The plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on May 3, 2023, and Spokeo's opposition is currently due on September 19, 2023. Spokeo asserts that it will be prejudiced by the amendment in part because it will further delay litigation. Though permitting amendment will delay the class certification schedule slightly, as Spokeo will have to depose Williams and possibly seek new discovery, Spokeo would have to take these actions whether Williams adds his claims to this suit or files a separate one. Spokeo is a people search website that aggregates data from online and offline source. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46fhCxj at no extra charge.[CC] SPORTS RESEARCH: Capaci Must File Class Cert. Bid by Dec. 4 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Frank Capaci, et al. v. Sports Research Corporation, Case No. 2:19-cv-03440-FMO-FFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order that: 1. All pending deadlines and proceedings are hereby vacated. 2. The Plaintiff shall file a Motion for Class Certification and Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement no later than December 4, 2023. 3. The Plaintiff is advised that the court will not grant the Motion unless it includes a discussion of the Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requirements, including but not limited to evidentiary support, where appropriate, regarding the following issues: (A) All class and FLSA certification requirements, including (i) declarations from proposed class representatives as to the adequacy of their representation of the class; and (ii) any differences between the settlement class and the class proposed in the operative complaint (if the class has already been certified, the difference between the settlement class and the previously certified class), and an explanation as to why the differences are appropriate. (B) Whether the settlement is within a range of possible judicial approval, including (i) the fairness of its terms; (ii) the anticipated class recovery under the settlement; (iii) the potential class recovery if plaintiffs had fully prevailed on each of the claims that are the subject of the settlement; and 4. With respect to any settlement involving claims pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), Cal. Labor Code sections 2698, et seq., the parties shall address whether the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency received notice of the settlement, and any response to such notice. 5. Failure to file the motion for preliminary approval by the deadline set by the court shall result in dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute and/or to comply with a court order. 6. All pending motions are denied as moot. Sports Research is a U.S.-based nutraceutical company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PpLqjU at no extra charge.[CC] STAGHORN PETROLEUM: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 19, 2024 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARVIN B. DINSMORE and SHERIDAN DOWNEY, III, as administrators of the Estate of David D. Dinsmore, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. STAGHORN PETROLEUM II, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00282-CVE-JFJ (N.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Claire Eagan entered an order: Event Scheduled Deadlines Motions for leave to amend or add October 20, 2023 additional parties Documents previously produced by parties May 20, 2024 shall be deemed authenticated except as to those objected to Class Certification Motion filed with all June 19, 2024 Supporting evidence, including expert disclosures Class Certification Response filed with August 19, 2024 all supporting evidence, including expert disclosures Class Certification Reply filed with any September 17, 2024 rebuttal evidence, including rebuttal expert disclosures, if any Class Certification Discovery Cutoff September 17, 2024 Parties are encouraged to complete all merits discovery by this date as well Class Certification Hearing October 1, 2024 Staghorn is an exploration and production company currently focused in the Anadarko Basin. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48iTls4 at no extra charge.[CC] STATE FARM: Sisia Files Renewed Bid for Conditional Class Status ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY K. SISIA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:21-cv-02376-ELR (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for conditional class certification. On May 19, 2009, Plaintiff sustained injuries in an automobile accident when the vehicle she was driving was struck in the rear by another vehicle in Fulton County. Following her May 2009 automobile accident, the Plaintiff sought and obtained chiropractic and physical therapy care to treat her injuries she sustained in the accident. The Plaintiff first incurred expenses in the amount of $1,343.00 for chiropractic care at the Kosa Clinic, Inc., $3,510.00 for chiropractic care at Fish Family Chiropractic, and $3,195.00 for physical therapy at Physiotherapy Associates. State Farm paid $1,284.00 of the expense charged by the Kosa Clinic but declined to pay the remaining $50.00. State Farm offers vehicle, auto, accident, homeowners, condo owners, renters, life and annuities, fire and casualty, health, disability, flood, business, and boat insurance products and services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t6e8Pi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ford, Sr., Esq. JAMES LEE FORD, P.C. 3330 Cumberland Boulevard, Suite 600 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (678) 281-8750 Facsimile: (404) 446-9377 E-mail: jlf@jlfordlaw.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 25, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Sweeny, Margaret Behlow, Sheryl Bennett, Mike Christophersen, Catherine Murphy, Robert Cole, Monika Galganek-Kulaga, Lisa Moreau, Christina BalmerGage, Valerie Chatmon, Martha Jane Grubbs, and Octavio Trujillo, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00949-SPG-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett entered an order granting stipulation regarding class action schedule: July 3, 2024 Last day for Plaintiffs to present experts for deposition Aug. 15, 2024 Last day for Defendant to present experts For deposition Oct. 25, 2024 Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion Due Dec. 9, 2024 Defendant's opposition to class certification due Jan. 29, 2025 Hearing on class certification and Daubert motions Toyota retails and sells new and used automotive. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3refLKv at no extra charge.[CC] TRAEGER PELLET: Court Certifies Two Classes in Yates Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Yates, et al., v. Traeger Pellet Grills, Case No. 2:19-cv-00723-BSJ (D. Utah), Hon. Judge Bruce S. Jenkins entered an order granting motion to certify class. The Court certifies a Utah Class and a California Class. The Utah Class is defined as: "All persons who purchased Traeger's Mesquite or Hickory wood pellets from any retail outlet in the State of Utah after October 1, 2015, and prior to January 1, 2021, including, but not limited to, persons who purchased directly from Defendant or other Utah- based retailers online, or who resided in Utah at the time they made online purchases of Traeger's Mesquite or Hickory wood pellets after October 1, 2015, and prior to January 1, 2021." Excluded from the Utah Class are the Defendant, its officers and directors at all relevant times, members of Defendant's immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in which the Defendant has or had a controlling interest. Second, the California Class is defined as: "All persons who purchased Traeger's Mesquite or Hickory wood pellets from any retail outlet in the State of California after October 1, 2015, and prior to January 1, 2021, including, but not limited to, persons who do not reside in California but purchased Traeger's Mesquite or Hickory wood pellets from a California-based retailer online, or who resided in California at the time they made online purchases of Traeger' s Mesquite or Hickory wood pellets after October 1, 2015, and prior to January 1, 2021." Excluded from the California Class are the Defendant, its officers and directors at all relevant times, members of Defendant's immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in which the Defendant has or had a controlling interest. The action brought by individual consumers who purchased bags ofTreager's wood pellets for use as a source of fuel and flavor in Plaintiffs' home grills. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ziq393 at no extra charge.[CC] TRIBUCHA INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to March 28, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN BURKE, HUY TRAN, NADIA ALI, and DARRYL MAULTSBY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TRIBUCHA, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-00406-M-KS (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Kimberly A. Swank entered an order amending the case management order previously entered to extend the class certification deadlines as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs shall file any motions for class certification by the earlier of the following dates: March 28, 2024, or within 90 days of the court's ruling on Defendant's motion to dismiss. 2. Any response in opposition to class certification (including disclosure of any class action expert witnesses and submission of any reports thereof pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)) shall be due within 28 days of the filing of any motion for class certification. 3. Any reply in support of class certification shall be due within 21 days of the filing of any response. Tribucha is in the Beverage Services, Direct Sales business. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45UQu6W at no extra charge.[CC] TYSON FOODS: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in IPREH Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Burton v. IPREH, LLC d/b/a Innovative Production USA, Case No. 4:23-cv-04132-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows: -- Rule 16 scheduling conference The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference approximately 30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is filed. The conference will generally be conducted by telephone. -- Discovery plan The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least three calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference If the parties agree on all matters contained in the discovery plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16 scheduling conference be cancelled. -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most hearings by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to appear for an in-person hearing. -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the discovery deadline has already passed The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all discovery disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even if the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to conduct discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the Court, they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived. -- Settlement conferences and mediation The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to Judge Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or mediation. Tyson is a protein-focused food company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sVdJ2q at no extra charge.[CC] TYSON FOODS: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Nims Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nims v. Tyson Foods Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-04119-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows: -- Rule 16 scheduling conference The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference approximately 30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is filed. The conference will generally be conducted by telephone. -- Discovery plan The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least three calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference If the parties agree on all matters contained in the discovery plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16 scheduling conference be cancelled. -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most hearings by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to appear for an in-person hearing. -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the discovery deadline has already passed The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all discovery disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even if the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to conduct discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the Court, they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived. -- Settlement conferences and mediation The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to Judge Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or mediation. Tyson is a protein-focused food company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rgBFN4 at no extra charge.[CC] UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS: Joseph Sues Over Unprotected Info -------------------------------------------------------------- ALANA JOSEPH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS CHAN MEDICAL SCHOOL, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-40120 (D. Mass., September 19, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and financial information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated clients stored within its network system following a data breach on or no later than May 27, 2023. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the PII of the Plaintiff and Class members were compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. The University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School is a research university located at 55 N Lake Ave, Worcester, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Erica C. Mirabella, Esq. MIRABELLA LAW, LLC 132 Boylston Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 580-8270 Facsimile: (617) 583-1905 E-mail: erica@mirabellallc.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Oct. 10 Extension to File Class Cert Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERYL YSLAS and MICHAEL SPRAGUE, on behalf of themselves and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., d/b/a SAM'S CLUB, and SAM'S CLUB, a division of WAL-MART STORES, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01880-WJM-NRN (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their unopposed motion for extension of time to file reply in support of motion and any other relief the Court deems necessary. -- Should the Court grant Plaintiffs' motion, the Plaintiffs will file their reply by the deadline of October 10, 2023. On July 29, 2022, the Plaintiff Yslas filed her class and collective action complaint on behalf of herself and all other past and present Membership Representative and Sales and Training Manager employees of Defendants. The Plaintiff's complaint seeks unpaid overtime and other wages and additional damages on behalf of herself and other allegedly similarly situated employees. On September 27, 2022, the Defendants answered the Complaint. On December 5, 2022, Judge N. Reid Neureiter, on referral from the District Court, entered Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint on the record, which added Michael Sprague as an additional Named Plaintiff. On January 4, 2023, Defendants answered the First Amended Complaint. On January 7, 2023, Plaintiffs submitted their Motion and Memorandum in Support of Stage-One Conditional Certification of a Collective Action Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). On August 8, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Toll Statute of Limitations for Absent Class Members. On August 29, 2023, Defendants submitted their brief in opposition. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 6, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LrCGsK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel D. Engelson, Esq. John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 7900 E. Union Avenue, Suite 1100 Denver, CO 80237 E-mail: sengelson@billhornlaw.com jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Naomi G. Beer, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1144 15th Street, Suite 3300 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 572-6549 E-mail: BeerN@gtlaw.com WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Reply ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERYL YSLAS and MICHAEL SPRAGUE, on behalf of themselves and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., d/b/a SAM'S CLUB, and SAM'S CLUB, a division of WAL-MART STORES, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01880-WJM-NRN (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their amended unopposed motion for extension of time to file reply in support of motion and any other relief the court deems necessary. -- Should the Court grant their motion, they will file their reply by the deadline of October 10, 2023, the Plaintiffs contend. On July 29, 2022, Plaintiff Yslas filed her class and collective action complaint on behalf of herself and all other past and present Membership Representative and Sales and Training Manager employees of Defendants. The Plaintiff's Complaint seeks unpaid overtime and other wages and additional damages on behalf of herself and other allegedly similarly situated employees. On September 27, 2022, the Defendants answered the Complaint. On December 5, 2022, Judge N. Reid Neureiter, on referral from the District Court, entered the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint on the record, which added Michael Sprague as an additional Named Plaintiff. On January 4, 2023, the Defendants answered the First Amended Complaint. On January 7, 2023, Plaintiffs submitted their Motion and Memorandum in Support of Stage-One Conditional Certification of a Collective Action Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). On August 29, 2023, Defendants submitted their brief in opposition. The Plaintiff is cognizant of the District's Local Rule 7.1 which requires a reply brief to be filed within 14 days of service of an opposition brief. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46jKCnP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel D. Engelson, Esq. John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 7900 E. Union Avenue, Suite 1100 Denver, CO 80237 E-mail: sengelson@billhornlaw.com jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Naomi G. Beer, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1144 15th Street, Suite 3300 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 572-6549 E-mail: BeerN@gtlaw.com WASHINGTON: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Apr. 10, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAMARIO RASHEED STERLING et al., v. CAMI L. FEEK, Commissioner, Washington State Employment Security Department, in her individual capacity, and in her official capacity, Case No. 3:22-cv-05250-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge David G. Estudillo entered an order granting in part the Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time pursuant to the Court's order on the Defendant's motion for summary judgment: Event Date (Current New Date Case Schedule) Deadline for joining additional May 31, 2023 Dec. 4, 2023 Parties and to amend pleadings Plaintiff's disclosure of experts July 14, 2023 Jan. 17, 2024 related to class certification Defendant's disclosure of experts Aug. 11, 2023 Feb. 14, 2024 related to class certification Plaintiff's disclosure of Aug. 11, 2023 Feb. 14, 2024 rebuttal experts related to class certification Deadline to complete expert Sept. 15, 2023 Mar. 20, 2024 depositions Plaintiffs motion for class Oct. 6, 2023 Apr. 10, 2024 certification due Defendant's response to Nov. 3, 2023 May 8, 2024 Plaintiff's motion for class certification due Plaintiff's reply due Nov. 17, 2023 May 22, 2024 The Defendants shall timely respond to any discovery requests that remain outstanding. To the extent there are any disputes regarding any outstanding discovery, the parties shall employ the discovery dispute procedure previously outlined by the Court. Washington State Employment is a government agency for the U.S. state of Washington that is tasked with management of the unemployment system. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45TpogN at no extra charge.[CC] WELLS FARGO: Bid to Dismiss First Amended Kafka Complaint Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOSEPH A. KAFKA and TODD KAFKA, Plaintiffs v. WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 22-CV-1034-LTS (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss in its entirety. The Kafkas bring this purported class action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, against Defendant Wells Fargo Securities, LLC ("WFS"), seeking to recover hundreds of millions of dollars in trading losses suffered by investors in certain investment funds and limited partnerships, to which WFS provided clearing and execution services as a futures commission merchant. They principally allege that WFS, in response to a temporary market volatility event on Feb. 5, 2018, unlawfully forced the liquidation of an entire portfolio of investments, and plead seventeen causes of action including gross negligence, negligent supervision, tortious interference with contractual and business relations, breach of contract, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. Before the Court are the Defendant's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") and an alternative motion to strike class claims. WFS primarily argues that, because it had no customer, contractual, or other relationship with the Plaintiffs, and dealt solely with the funds in which they held investments and/or partnership interests, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for relief as to all counts. The Kafkas bring this action on their own and on behalf of a putative class comprised of all persons who, on Feb. 5 and 6, 2018, held (1) shares in the LJM Preservation and Growth Fund and (2) limited partnership interests in any of the LJM Partnership Funds (collectively, "LJM"). The former fund was a public mutual fund that invested primarily in call and put options on the Standard & Poor's ("S&P") 500 Futures Index, and the latter funds were organized as Delaware limited partnerships and as commodity pools that traded commodity futures, contracts, and options on futures on various exchanges, including the Chicago Mercantile Exchange ("CME"). To conduct options trading, LJM entered so-called "Futures and Cleared Swaps Agreements" with WFS, under which WFS was to provide only certain limited non-discretionary and ministerial clearing and execution services as a futures commission merchant ("FCM"). On Feb. 5, 2018, the stock market suffered a steep decline, associated with a "spike" in the volatility index. The Kafkas allege that, for over 20 years preceding this volatility event, LJM had "successfully implemented" various risk management protocols to counter market volatility, such as closing out positions over the course of the day to maintain the "hedged nature" of the portfolio, and they cite an August 2011 incident from which LJM was able to fully recover. In line with this approach, on Feb. 5, 2018, LJM responded to the "significant unrealized losses" in its portfolio by executing "risk-reducing trades." By the end of February 6, because of WFS' "untimely unauthorized and self-interested instructions," LJM had completely unwound the portfolio, purportedly delivering more than $500 million and as much as $800 million in losses to the Kafkas and other Class members. The Kafkas plead 17 counts against WFS: gross negligence (Count One), fraud based on a concealment theory (Count Two), tortious interference with contractual relations (Count Three), tortious interference with business relations (Count Four), negligent supervision (Count Five), breach of contract based on a derivative liability theory (Counts Six, Eight, and Ten), breach of contract as intended third-party beneficiaries (Counts Twelve, Fourteen, and Sixteen), breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Counts Seven, Nine, and Eleven), and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty (Counts Eighteen, Nineteen, and Twenty). WFS moves to dismiss the FAC and, in the alternative, to strike the Plaintiffs' class claims. First, Judge Taylor dismisses Count Two as abandoned. She finds that the Plaintiffs neglected to respond in their opposition papers to WFS' challenges to the fraud claim asserted in Count Two of the FAC. When a plaintiff offers no factual or legal argument in opposition, dismissal is appropriate. Second, Judge Taylor dismisses Count One. She finds that the FCM Agreements disclaim any duty running to third parties, and therefore the "scope" of WFS' duty of care as an FCM handling its customers' funds, even if alleged to arise in tort rather than contract, does not include duties to LJM's investors. Where there is no duty, there is no negligence claim. The Plaintiffs have also clearly failed to meet their plausibility burden, and WFS is correct to note that they cannot rely solely on "magic words without further factual enhancement." Therefore, Count Five is dismissed. As the Plaintiffs fail to plead plausibly either of their negligence claims, Judge Taylor need not and does not address WFS' argument that the claims are further barred by the economic loss doctrine. Third, the Plaintiffs' boilerplate allegations that WFS interfered with their business relations with LJM do not meet the requisite plausibility burden for that claim. Hence Count Four is dismissed. And without any factual specifics -- i.e., that WFS acted with specific animus, or otherwise singled out the Plaintiffs or their contracts -- the Kafkas' allegations are simply insufficient to state a claim for interference. Thus, Count Three is dismissed. Fourth, Judge Taylor dismisses Counts Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Fourteen, and Sixteen, which assert various breach of contract claims. She says the Kafkas had no contract with WFS, nor are they intended third-party beneficiaries under the contracts between LJM and WFS, and thus any claim for breach of the implied covenant fails. Lastly, the Kafkas' theory of liability turns Judge Taylor's analysis on its head, as it seeks to comingle the primary violation conduct with the aiding and abetting conduct, and is ultimately, for purposes of their claim as against WFS, inconsistent with the elements of an aiding and abetting claim. Thus, Counts Eighteen, Nineteen, and Twenty are dismissed. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Taylor grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the FAC in its entirety and denies the Defendant's motion to strike class claims as moot. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions at docket entry nos. 27 and 30, enter judgment in favor of the Defendants, and close case no. 22-CV-1034. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 15, 2023 Memorandum Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdfxpuw7 from PacerMonitor.com. WESTFIELD, MA: Perron Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Westfield. The case is styled as Jason Perron, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. City of Westfield, Case No. 2379CV00470 (Mass. Super. Ct., Hampden Cty., Sept. 19, 2023). The case type is stated as "Administrative Civil Actions." Westfield -- https://www.cityofwestfield.org/ -- is a city in Hampden County, in the Pioneer Valley of western Massachusetts, United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Morneau, Esq. CONNOR AND MORNEAU, LLP 273 State St., Second Floor Springfield, MA 01103 The Defendant is represented by: Erik Valdes, Esq. City of Westfield 59 Court St Westfield, MA 07091 WILCO LIFE: Hearing on Grundstrom's Class Cert Bid Set for Nov. 3 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE GRUNDSTROM, v. WILCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-03445-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney entered an order granting in part and Denying in part the Defendant's motion for summary judgment: Wilco's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part, as follows: (1) on Grundstrom's claims for declaratory judgment, the motion is granted; (2) on Grundstrom's financial elder abuse claim, the motion is granted; (3) on Grundstrom's breach of contract claim, the motion is denied. The hearing on Grundstrom's motion for class certification is set for November 3, 2023. Wilco provides life, accident, and health insurance services to individuals. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 5, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48jeQsD at no extra charge.[CC] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***