/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231019.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, October 19, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 210
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Cotton Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Dennison Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Hales Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Insect Repellent Contains Benzene, Bloomfield Says
3M COMPANY: Ragless Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Ramos Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Vanover Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
ACADIA HEALTH: Fails to Properly Secure Personal Info, Jolla Says
ADESA INC: E.D. New York Dismisses St. John Suit Without Prejudice
AGA HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Minimum Wages, Mejia Says
ALASKA AIRLINES: Vigil Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ALCO WINDOWS: Class Cert Deadline Extended to Nov. 6
ALLIED WASTE: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Continued to Nov. 1
ALPHABET INC: Class Cert Hearing Set for Oct. 24
AMARIN CORP: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Alleged Drug Monopoly
AMAZON WEB: Dorian Must File Class Cert Bid by Mar. 18, 2024
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Filing Extended to April 19, 2024
AMAZON.COM INC: Storey Sues Over Failure to Meet Delivery Times
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Del Rio Appeals Summary Judgment in Labor Suit
AMERICAN CRUISE: Bid for Class Certification Due March 8, 2024
AMERICOR FUNDING: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Feb. 12, 2024
ANNETA GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carpena Alleges
ANYWHERE REAL ESTATE: Settles Antitrust Class Actions for $83.5MM
ARBOR GREEN: Bid for Preliminary Class Status Due April 5, 2024
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Must File Class Cert Opposition by Dec. 1
ARRIBA JUNTOS: Kidd Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ARROW DRILLERS: Lewis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Sued Over CA Labor Law Violations
ASPEN GROUP: Class Settlement in Stewart Suit Gets Initial Nod
AVANT GARDNER: Avchukov Files Suit in S.D. New York
AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL: Ruano Suit Removed to C.D. California
BANK OF AMERICA: $2.67MM in Fees & Costs Awarded in Checchia Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: $8M Class Settlement in Checchia Suit Has Final OK
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Court Narrows Claims in Sidhu FAC
BEAUMONT INDEPENDENT: Murphy Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Bid
BEAUMONT INDEPENDENT: Murphy Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
BLUE CROSS: Powers Sues Over Unauthorized Disclosure of PII
BOARD OF ELECTIONS: Sherr Sues Over Underpaid Overtime Compensation
CAPRI NAILS: Bid to Certify Class Referred to Magistrate Judge
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Nix Class Certification Bid Partly OK'd
CIOX HEALTH: Faces Chisholm Suit Over Alleged Labor Law Violations
COMPASS GROUP: Subject Matter Jurisdiction Exists in Bosco Suit
CONTRACT LAND: Crager Files Bid for Conditional Certification
CORSAIR GAMING: Must Oppose Class Cert. Bid by Dec. 1
COSTCO WHOLESALE: $6.5MM in Fees and Costs Awarded in Corker Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Final Judgment and Order Issued in Corker Suit
D & B CORP: Jenks Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
DATA MEDIA ASSOCIATES: Walsh Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
DEL MONTE: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 17, 2024
DG IN PB: Stores Get $862K in Attys' Fees in Outlaw Class Suit
DONALD J. TRUMP: Collier Files Appeal
DT BRANDS & CO: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DUKE UNIVERSITY: Franklin Sues Over ERISA Violations
DX ENTERPRISES: Class Cert Discovery Stayed Until Nov. 6
EBY LLC: Court Extends Time to File Class Status Bid
EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Faces Lowe Suit Over Mislabeled Sunscreens
ENCOMPASS HEALTH: Norman Seeks Case Manager Employees' Unpaid OT
ERNST & YOUNG: Jacobs Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
EVOLVE VACATION: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Chattopadhyay Suit
FARMERS INSURANCE: Order on Class Cert Bids Entered in Ruffulo
FCA US LLC: Delaware Court Narrows Claims in Diaz Consumer Suit
FLIFF INC: Nessim Suit Seeks Provisional Class Certification
FORD MOTOR: E.D. Michigan Dismisses Diaz Suit Over Bushing Defect
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Bailey Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Coyle Balks at Deceptive Sale of Decongestants
GOOD FAT: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Extended to Dec. 15
GRAND CANYON UNIV: Hannibal-Fisher Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial
HOME PARTNERS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 4
HOSPITAL SISTERS: Bid Certify Classes Due July 12, 2024
IQVIA INC: Class Cert. Hearing Scheduled for Nov. 30
IT'S JUST LUNCH: Vrugtman Appeals Ruling in Fraud Suit to 9th Cir.
JAMES LEBLANC: Humphrey Bid to Strike Class Cert Exhibit Denied
JAMES LEBLANC: Wins Bid To Strike Certain Evidence in Humprey Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Ward Sues Over Decongestants' False Ads
LITIGATION PRACTICE: Beech Files Class Cert Reply
LONGNECKER PROPERTIES: Baker Suit Moved to E.D. Louisiana
MAESTRO CONSULTING: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due June 3, 2024
MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Faces Armstrong Suit Over Securities Law Breach
MOHAMMAD REZA: Lalabekyan Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
NEW ENGLAND BIOLABS: Faces Jackson Suit Alleging Fiduciary Breaches
NEW YORK ENVIRONMENTAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bunay Says
NEW YORK, NY: Court Enters Class Cert Scheduling Order
NORTH CAROLINA: Summary Judgment Bid in Guill v. Allen OK'd in Part
PELICAN STATE: M.D. Louisiana Narrows Claims in Foster Class Suit
PEPSICO INC: Bell Sues Over Misrepresentations of Juice Products
PETERSON'S OIL: Federated's Summary Judgment Bid Allowed in Part
PILOT CATASTROPHE: Final Settlement in Pleasants Suit Due Nov. 21
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Faces Jones Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info
RPKG HOLDINGS: General Pretrial Management Entered in Jimenez Suit
SARAYA USA: Class Cert Bid Deadline Extended to March 21, 2024
SCOUT ENERGY: Filling for Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 18, 2024
SLT LENDING SPV: Elder Suit Transferred to N.D. Indiana
SPARROW HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Desgrange Says
SUN LIFE: Genesett Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
SUNVALLEYTEK INTL: Court Certifies Class in Oh Product Suit
SUTHERLAND GLOBAL: Faces Lee Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SWIFTFUNDS FINANCIAL: Ratcliff Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
TARGET CORP: Davis Seeks to Certify Progression Team Member Class
TAYLOR FARMS: Magallan Suit Removed to N.D. California
TENTMAX MANUFACTURING: Morales Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
TERRA GROUP: Normand Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Settles Consolidated Shareholder Suit
TRAVEL GUARD: Seeks Reconsideration of Denial on Bid to Seal
ULTA BEAUTY: Overcharges Customers for Goods Delivered, Mora Claims
UNICE INC: Jones Seeks Extension of Class Certification Deadline
UNION UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: Chatelain Files Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
UPSTREAM REHABILITATION: Moffa Files Suit in N.D. Alabama
WILLIE ROWE: Chaplin Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
WONWON GROUP: Court Conditionally Certifies Harrelson Suit
WOODMAN'S FOOD: Parties in Wyngaard Seek Class Certification
WORKFORCE 7: Filing for Class Cert Bid Revised to Feb. 21, 2024
XTO ENERGY: Bid for Summary Judgment in Brusamonti Suit Granted
*********
3M COMPANY: Cotton Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Cotton, 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-04979-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 4, 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
prostate 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:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Dennison Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Dennison, and Daniel Dennison by the Proposed Administrator
and Next-of-Kin, Adam Dennison, 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-04979-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 4,
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 Decedent's exposure to
Defendants' AFFF 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 Adam Dennison is the proposed personal
representative/administrator/executor of the Estate of Daniel
Dennison 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
prostate 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:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Hales Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Hales, as Surviving Spouse and Heir to the Estate of Stanley
Lee Hales, 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-04918-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 2,
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 Carol Hales is the Surviving Spouse of, and Heir to
the Estate of, Stanley Lee Hales, 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: Insect Repellent Contains Benzene, Bloomfield Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
GREG BLOOMFIELD; CRYSTAL MOORE; and RICHARD USLANDER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01818-BTM-KSC (S.D. Cal., Oct.
2, 2023) alleges that the Defendants product, the Ultrathon Insect
Repellent 8 (Spray) ("Ultrathon") contains benzene, a known human
carcinogen.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's Ultrathon product has
been independently tested and shown to be adulterated with
excessive levels of benzene, a known human carcinogen. Excessive
levels of benzene are present in all of Defendant's Ultrathon
aerosol spray products; a fact that was not disclosed in the
product's labeling, advertised, or otherwise, in violation of
California and Maryland common law.
Had the Plaintiff known that the Ultrathon product was adulterated
with benzene, he would not have purchased the product, says the
suit.
3M COMPANY conducts operations in electronics, telecommunications,
industrial, consumer and office, health care, safety, and other
markets. The Company businesses share technologies, manufacturing
operations, marketing channels, and other resources. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
S. Mary Liu, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 E. Main St., Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
Facsimile: (850) 916-7449
Email: mliu@awkolaw.com
- and -
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
Robert N. Fisher, Esq.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (805) 270-7100
Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
rfisher@bradleygrombacher.com
3M COMPANY: Ragless Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------
Timmie Ragless, 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-04981-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 4, 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
kidney 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:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Ramos Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Ramos, 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-04982-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 4, 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
prostate 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:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Vanover Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Vanover, as Personal
Representative/Administrator/Executor of the Estate of Lowell
Carmen Vanover deceased, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN
AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; L.N. CURTIS &
SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILIKEN &
COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY
SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.;
PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET
MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC;
SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, 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.); VERIDIAN
LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP,
Case No. 2:23-cv-04999-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 5, 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 Christine Vanover is the proposed personal
representative/administrator/executor of the Estate of Lowell
Carmen Vanover 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 prostate 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
ACADIA HEALTH: Fails to Properly Secure Personal Info, Jolla Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LATRIS JOLLA and CARLIYAH BRACKEN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ACADIA HEALTH, LLC
D/B/A JUST KIDS DENTAL, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01370-SDD-EWD
(M.D. La., Sept. 26, 2023) arises from the Defendant's failure to
properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately
destroy Plaintiffs' and Class Members' sensitive personal
identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its
business purposes.
According to the complaint, this failure to secure and monitor its
network resulted in an August 2023 data breach of highly sensitive
documents and information stored on the computer network of Just
Kids Dental, an organization that provides medical treatment and/or
employment to individuals, including Plaintiffs and Class Members.
Despite learning of the August 2023 data breach and determining
that private information was involved in the breach, Defendant did
not begin sending notices of the data breach until September 1,
2023. The data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols necessary to protect individuals' private information
with which it was entrusted for either treatment or employment or
both, says the suit.
As a result of the data breach, Plaintiffs and Class Members have
been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and
identity theft. The Plaintiffs and Class Members must now and for
years into the future closely monitor their financial accounts to
guard against identity theft. Through this complaint, Plaintiffs
seek to remedy these harms on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated individuals whose private information was
accessed during the data breach.
Acadia Health, LLC, d/b/a Just Kids Dental, provides dental health
care to all children ages birth-21, through the collaboration of
general dentist, pediatric dentist, and endodontic specialist.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
M. Palmer Lambert, Esq.
PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN
1100 Poydras Street, Suite 2225
New Orleans, LA 70163-2225
Telephone: (504) 355-0086
Facsimile: (504) 355-0089
E-mail: plambert@pbclawfirm.com
- and -
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
Lisa A. White, Esq.
MASON LLP
5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
dperry@masonllp.com
lwhite@masonllp.com
ADESA INC: E.D. New York Dismisses St. John Suit Without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ANDERSON ST. JOHN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ADESA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-01257-GRB-AYS (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Gary R.
Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York grants the motion to dismiss, without prejudice to its
refiling in state court.
Plaintiff Anderson St. John worked as a tow truck driver from 2016
to late 2020 for ADESA, Inc., a car auction company with three
locations in New York State. Defendant ADESA Inc. is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in Indiana. The
Plaintiff's duties included driving a tow truck to locations to
pick up cars, loading the cars onto the truck, and then driving
them to a lot where they would be put up for auction. The Plaintiff
alleges that he spent more than twenty-five percent of his shift
engaging in manual labor, but was paid on a biweekly basis for his
work.
ADESA Inc. managed its nationwide operations through subsidiary
LLCs organized in the various states in which it operates. ADESA
Inc. managed its operations in New York through a wholly owned
subsidiary, ADESA NY, LLC. The Plaintiff alleges that ADESA Inc.
and ADESA NY are part of a single integrated enterprise that
jointly employed him and the proposed class members.
Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that all job openings in New
York are posted on a single website, ADESA.com, and that his
paystubs included an address for ADESA NY in Indiana, the same
location where ADESA Inc. is headquartered. He further alleges
ADESA Inc. maintained a central human resources office in Indiana
from which it managed the human resources needs of all of its
nationwide operations, including for ADESA NY.
After the filing of the complaint in March 2022, ownership of ADESA
NY was transferred to ADESA US Auction, LLC, which is wholly owned
by Carvana Operations HC, LLC. Thus, ADESA Inc. was no longer part
of ADESA NY's ownership structure following the sale.
The Plaintiff alleges that ADESA Inc. violated New York Labor Law
("NYLL") Section 191 and Section 193 by failing to pay timely wages
and by unlawfully deducting wages. He now seeks relief against
ADESA, Inc., on behalf of himself and a class of "[a]ll persons who
work or have worked as Manual Workers for Defendant in New York
between the date six years before the commencement of this action
and the date of final judgment in this matter."
The asserted basis for jurisdiction is the Class Action Fairness
Act of 2005 ("CAFA"). Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that the
value of the matter exceeds $5 million, there are over 100 members
in the class, the vast majority--if not all of the members--reside
in New York, and the vast majority of the class are citizens of
different states than the Defendant.
Following the filing of the Plaintiff's complaint on March 8, 2022,
Defendant ADESA Inc. filed a letter seeking a pre-motion conference
before Judge Brown. In its letter, ADESA Inc. requested that the
Court join ADESA NY, LLC, as a defendant under Rule 19(a) or
20(a)(2) and, once joined, decline to exercise jurisdiction over
this matter under both the Local Controversy and Home State
exceptions to CAFA, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(3) & (4).
Alternatively, ADESA Inc. sought to dismiss the complaint under
Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of standing and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. By letter dated May
24, 2022, the Plaintiff responded and opposed ADESA Inc.'s
contemplated motion.
On June 29, 2022, the Court held a pre-motion conference and set a
briefing schedule for ADESA Inc.'s motion to join ADESA NY under
Rule 19, and, if joined, to dismiss for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction under Federal Rule 12(b)(1). On Sept. 19, 2022, the
Defendant filed its motion, the Plaintiff's opposition, and the
Defendant's reply. This opinion follows.
In this Memorandum of Decision & Order, Judge Brown finds that
ADESA NY is a necessary party.
Judge Brown notes that complete relief cannot be accorded between
the existing parties as the Plaintiff seeks relief until the date
of final judgment in this matter, but Defendant ADESA Inc. no
longer owned ADESA NY as of May 2022. Even accepting the
Plaintiff's theory that ADESA NY and ADESA Inc. jointly employed
him, the subsequent sale of ADESA NY would vitiate the application
of the single employer doctrine, and, therefore, joint and several
liability at that time.
Without joining ADESA NY, the party responsible for the alleged
conduct occurring after May of 2022, Judge Brown says complete
relief cannot be accorded between the already existing parties.
Thus, ADESA NY is a necessary party.
Because ADESA NY is a necessary party, the Court must consider if
joinder is feasible without destroying subject-matter jurisdiction,
citing Mazzocchi v. Windsor Owners Corp., No. 11 Civ. 7913 (AT),
2014 WL 594085 at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2014). At the time the
complaint was filed, the Plaintiff was a citizen of New York;
Defendant ADESA Inc. was a citizen of Delaware and Indiana; and
absentee ADESA NY was a citizen of New York.
Judge Brown finds that joining ADESA NY would not destroy
subject-matter jurisdiction as there is still minimal diversity
between the Plaintiff, a citizen of New York, and ADESA Inc., a
citizen of Delaware and Indiana. Thus, joining ADESA NY is feasible
under Federal Rule 19(a).
Having established that ADESA NY both must be joined and can be
joined, the Court considers whether the exceptions to CAFA
jurisdiction nonetheless mandate dismissal of the action.
Under the Local Controversy Exception, a court will decline to
exercise jurisdiction over a class action in which, among other
things, at least one defendant is a defendant from whom significant
relief is sought by members of the plaintiff class, and the
principal injuries resulting from the alleged conduct or any
related conduct of each defendant were incurred in the state in
which the action was originally filed.
Judge Brown finds that ADESA NY is a defendant from whom
significant relief is sought and that its conduct also forms a
significant basis for the Plaintiff's alleged claims. The Court
also finds that ADESA NY is a citizen of New York for the purposes
of assessing jurisdiction under CAFA, and that the principal
injuries occurred solely in New York.
Thus, all of the requirements of the Local Controversy Exceptions
are met and the Court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over
this matter.
Hence, Judge Brown rules that the Defendant's motion to join ADESA
NY as a necessary party is granted and the Defendant's motion to
dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) is granted. As such, this
matter is dismissed without prejudice to its refiling in state
court.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum of Decision & Order
dated Sept. 21, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/46stncj4
from PacerMonitor.com.
Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum -- maimon@jhllp.com -- Denise A.
Schulman -- denise@jhllp.com -- Josef Nussbaum --
jnussbaum@jhllp.com -- Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP, 32 Broadway,
Suite 601, in New York City, NY 10004, Attorneys for the
Plaintiffs.
Eli Z. Freedberg -- efreedberg@littler.com -- Miguel A. Lopez --
malopez@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., 900 Third Avenue,
in New York City, NY 10022, Attorneys for the Defendant.
AGA HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Minimum Wages, Mejia Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
CRISTINA MEJIA, KATHY VENTURA, KAROLINA GARCIA, and DEMMIE SJOSTROM
Plaintiffs v. AGA HOSPITALITY LLC, a Florida limited liability
company d/b/a ZOI RESTAURANT & LOUNGE, Defendant, Case No.
182654297 (Fla. Cir., 11th Judicial, Miami-Dade Cty., Sept.26,
2023) is a class action against the Defendant for refusing to
properly compensate Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, for
minimum wage in violation of the Florida Minimum Wage Act, and for
failing to comply with the "tip-credit" requirements under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed as servers and bartenders and,
therefore, have first-hand personal knowledge of the pay violations
alleged in this case, notes the complaint.
AGA Hospitality LLC, a Florida limited liability company d/b/a Zoi
Restaurant & Lounge, is a Mediterranean and Turkish
restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Chad E. Levy, Esq.
Harris Nizel, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF LEVY & LEVY, P.A.
2844 North University Drive
Coral Springs, FL 33065
Telephone: (954) 763-5722
Facsimile: (954) 763-5723
E-mail: chad@levylevylaw.com
harris@levylevylaw.com
ALASKA AIRLINES: Vigil Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alaska Airlines,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Johnathan Vigil, an individual,
on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Does 1 through 50, Inclusive,
Case No. CGC23609451 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Oct. 3,
2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Alaska Airlines -- https://www.alaskaair.com/ -- is a major
American airline headquartered in SeaTac, Washington, within the
Seattle metropolitan area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas James Blouw, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037-3107
Phone: 858-952-0354
Fax: 858-551-1232
Email: DeBlouw@bamlawca.com
ALCO WINDOWS: Class Cert Deadline Extended to Nov. 6
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIFIORE v. ALCO WINDOWS
AND DOORS LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-21522 (S.D. Fla., Filed April 23,
2023), the Hon. Judge Jose E. Martinez entered an order granting
joint motion for extension of time.
-- The new class certification deadline is Nov. 6, 2023.
ALCO provides services for the installment of the impact windows,
doors, and garage doors.[CC]
ALLIED WASTE: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Continued to Nov. 1
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chen v. Allied Waste
Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00099 (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Jinsook Ohta entered an order granting joint motion to
continue hearing date on Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
-- The hearing on motion for class certification is continued to
November 1, 2023 at 3:30 PM in Courtroom 4C before Judge
Jinsook
Ohta.
The nature of suit states Contract - Other Contract.
Allied offers collection and disposal of refuse systems.[CC]
ALPHABET INC: Class Cert Hearing Set for Oct. 24
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: ALPHABET, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 3:18-cv-06245 (N.D. Cal., Filed Oct. 11,
2018), the Hon. Judge Trina L Thompson entered an order rescinding
the Order at 212 and will not consider supplemental brief.
-- The motion on class certification was fully briefed on August
14,
2023 and the hearing date is scheduled for October 24, 2023.
The nature of suit securities fraud.
Alphabet is an American multinational technology conglomerate
holding company headquartered in Mountain View, California.[CC]
AMARIN CORP: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Alleged Drug Monopoly
------------------------------------------------------------
Amarin Corporation PLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that it was named as a defendant in
six antitrust class action lawsuits in the District Court for the
District of New Jersey where Amarin was a defendant in a class
action lawsuit filed by Uniformed Fire Officers Association Family
Protection Plan Local 854 and the Uniformed Fire Officers
Association for Retired Fire Officers Family Protection Plan, on
behalf of indirect purchasers, in the District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 21-12061.
The suit alleges that Amarin and its co-defendant suppliers
violated state and federal antitrust laws by monopolizing and
engaging in a conspiracy to restrain trade in the "icosapent ethyl"
drug and active pharmaceutical ingredient markets.
Amarin Corporation PLC is a pharmaceutical company focused on the
commercialization and development of therapeutics to improve
cardiovascular health.
AMAZON WEB: Dorian Must File Class Cert Bid by Mar. 18, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACINDA DORIAN, v. AMAZON
WEB SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00269-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge John H. Chu entered a Scheduling order regarding class
certification as follows:
Event Deadline
Completion of Fact Discovery Oct. 30, 2023
(Merits Issues and Class
Certification Issues)
Disclosure of Plaintiff's Expert(s) Nov. 27, 2023
and Expert Report(s) regarding
Class Certification
Disclosure of Defendant's Expert(s) Jan. 2, 2024
and Expert Report(s) regarding
Class Certification
Completion of Expert Discovery Feb. 19, 2024
regarding Class Certification
Plaintiff's Deadline to Move for Mar. 18, 2024
Class Certification
Defendant's Deadline to Respond Apr. 18, 2024
to Motion for Class Certification
Plaintiff's Deadline to Reply in May 9, 2024
support of Class Certification
Amazon provides on-demand cloud computing platforms and APIs to
individuals, companies, and governments.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 4, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZHCiMk at no extra charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Filing Extended to April 19, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAELI GARNER, et al., v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and AMAZON.COM SERVICES
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No.
2:21-cv-00750-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Lasnik
entered an order extending current discovery and pretrial deadlines
as follows:
Event Former Deadline New
Deadline
Fact discovery cut-off Oct. 30, 2023 Feb. 27,
2024
Last day to file motion for Dec. 22, 2023 Apr. 19,
2024
class certification (including
expert report in support of
class certification)
Last day to file opposition to Feb. 27, 2024 Jun. 26,
2024
class certification (including
expert report in opposition to
class certification)
Last day to file reply in support Mar. 28, 2024 July 26,
2024
of class certification (including
reply class certification expert
report limited to any new subjects
introduced in opposition report)
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 Oct. 4, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZJCZF2 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bradley S. Keller, Esq.
BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP
1000 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 622-2000
Facsimile: (206) 622-2522
E-mail: bkeller@byrneskeller.com
- and -
Michael P. Canty, Esq.
Carol C. Villegas, Esq.
Guillaume Buell, Esq.
David Saldamando, Esq.
Danielle Izzo, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
E-mail: mcanty@labaton.com
cvillegas@labaton.com
gbuell@labaton.com
dsaldamando@labaton.com
dizzo@labaton.com
- and -
Paul J. Geller, Esq.
Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
Mark Dearman, Esq.
Nicolle Brito, Esq.
Alexander C. Cohen, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
225 NE Mizner Blvd., Suite 720
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 750-3000
Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
nbrito@rgrdlaw.com
acohen@rgrdlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Brian D. Buckley, Esq.
Y. Monica Chan, Esq.
Tyler G. Newby, Esq.
Laurence F. Pulgram, Esq.
Jedediah Wakefield, Esq.
Armen N. Nercessian, Esq.
Garner F. Kropp, Esq.
Melissa Lawton, Esq.
Esther Galan, Esq.
FENWICK & WEST LLP
401 Union Street, 5th Floor
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: 206.389.4510
Facsimile: 206.389.4511
E-mail: bbuckley@fenwick.com
mchan@fenwick.com
tnewby@fenwick.com
lpulgram@fenwick.com
jwakefield@fenwick.com
anercessian@fenwick.com
gkropp@fenwick.com
mlawton@fenwick.com
egalan@fenwick.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Storey Sues Over Failure to Meet Delivery Times
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tonny Storey, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
23-2-17644-8 SEA (Wash. Super. Ct., King Cty., Sept. 15, 2023), is
brought as a remedy to a systematic failure by Amazon to meet
promised "Guaranteed Delivery" times and/or dates for products
purchased on Amazon's website.
The Plaintiff and millions of other customers have elected to pay
Amazon additional shipping fees when purchasing products on the
Amazon.com online retail platform in response to Amazon's written
offer, for a designated price, of a Guaranteed Delivery of their
purchases on or before a specific date or during a designated time
period on a specific date.
Despite its promise of a "Guaranteed Delivery," Amazon sometimes
fails to deliver products by the date or time promised. Amazon
acknowledges as much in its "Guaranteed Delivery Terms and
Conditions," which state that Amazon will refund a customer's
shipping fees if it fails to meet its promised delivery date or
time. As Plaintiff experienced, however, the promised refund is not
always provided.
The Plaintiff recently purchased a product from Amazon. On the
checkout page, Plaintiff was offered the option of paying $2.99 for
a guarantee to receive the product between 4:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m.
the following day. Plaintiff accepted the offer and was charged the
additional shipping fee. Later that evening, Amazon's own tracking
reports stated that "a carrier delay has occurred," and indeed
Plaintiff's purchase wasn't delivered until after the Guaranteed
Delivery period the next day.
Even though Amazon acknowledged the delayed delivery, and promised
a refund, Plaintiff's shipping fees were never returned, either to
his credit card account or to his Amazon account. Amazon breached
its promise to Plaintiff to deliver by the guaranteed time, and
breached its promise in its terms and conditions to issue a refund
to Plaintiff when the Guaranteed Delivery was not provide, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff selected for purchase a product sold by Amazon.com
Services, LLC on March 27, 2023.
Amazon is the largest e-commerce market in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam J. Berger, Esq.
Lindsay L. Halm, Esq.
Lily Ramseyer, Esq.
SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER
401 Union Street, Suite 3400
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 622-8000
Fax: (206) 682-2305
- and -
Irwin B Levin, Esq.
Scott D Gilchrist, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: (317) 636-6481
Email: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Del Rio Appeals Summary Judgment in Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Javier Del Rio, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Order dated September 20, 2023 entered in the
lawsuit styled JAVIER DEL RIO, et al., Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM
SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-1152, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit was
removed from the State of Connecticut, Superior Court at Hartford,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on
August 27, 2021. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged
violations of Connecticut law by failing to pay the Plaintiffs for
the time they spent waiting for and going through the Defendants'
mandatory security screening during their unpaid meal periods or at
the end of their shift.
On December 6, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify
class. On the same day, the Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment.
On September 20, 2023, Judge Kari A. Dooley signed an Order
granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment. JUDGMENT was
entered in favor of Amazon.com Services, LLC, Amazon.com, Inc.,
Amazon.com.dedc LLC against Aaron Delaroche, Colin Meunier, Javier
Del Rio. The Court also found as moot Plaintiff's motion to certify
class in light of the Court's decision granting Defendants' motion
for summary judgment.
The appellate case is captioned as Del Rio v. Amazon.com Services,
Inc., Case No. 23-1337, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, filed on September 27, 2023.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Colin Meunier, et al., on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated Employees, are represented
by:
Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSEMORE, LLC
750 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 522-8888
Defendants-Appellees Amazon.com.dedc LLC, et al., are represented
by:
Anita C. Di Gioia, Esq.
DI GIOIA BERGER LLC
657 Orange Center Road
Orange, CT 06477
Telephone: (203) 693-3636
- and -
Daniel Benjamin Klein, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
Seaport East, Two Seaport Lane
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 946-4840
AMERICAN CRUISE: Bid for Class Certification Due March 8, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARIU KIRK, ON BEHALF OF
HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. AMERICAN CRUISE
LINES, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01057-VAB (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge
Victor A. Bolden entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- Initial disclosures due by: Oct. 13, 2023
-- Joinder of parties due by: Dec. 8, 2023
-- Amended pleadings due by: Dec. 8, 2023
-- Plaintiff's motion for class March 8, 2024
certification due by:
-- Opposition to Class April 5, 2024
Certification due by:
-- Fact discovery shall be June 28, 2024
completed by:
-- Disclosure of affirmative July 26, 2024
expert reports due by:
-- Disclosure of rebuttal Aug. 30, 2024
expert reports due by:
-- Depositions of expert Oct. 4, 2024
witnesses shall be
completed by:
-- All discovery shall close by: Oct. 4, 2024
American Cruise specializes in U.S. River & Coastal cruising.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45cC0hK at no extra charge.[CC]
AMERICOR FUNDING: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Feb. 12, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Moser v. Americor Funding,
LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-10008 (S.D. Fla., Filed Feb. 7, 2023), the
Hon. Judge K .Michael Moore entered an order setting a deadline for
Plaintiff to move for class certification and continuing the
current discovery deadlines.
-- The Plaintiff shall file a Motion Feb. 12, 2024
for Class Certification by:
-- Trial in this case is continued to Sept. 23, 2024
the two-week trial period of:
-- Counsel shall now report to their Sept. 10, 2024
final pretrial conference on:
The nature of suit states Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Americor is a debt relief company that has been in business since
2006.[CC]
ANNETA GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carpena Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
CLAUDIA Y. CARPENA; and CRUZ GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANNETA GROUP, LP,
Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-02009 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 2, 2023) is an
action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide
accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as a general worker.
ANNETA GROUP, LP is a company doing business in California. It
provides renovations and design of residential properties. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James M. Dore, Esq.
JUSTICIA LABORAL, LLC.
6232 N. Pulaski Rd. Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60646
Telephone: (773) 415-4898
Email: jdore@justicialaboral.com
ANYWHERE REAL ESTATE: Settles Antitrust Class Actions for $83.5MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anywhere Real Estate Inc. has entered into a settlement agreement
to resolve all claims asserted against the Company in the Burnett
and Moehrl antitrust class action litigation.
Under the terms of the proposed nationwide settlement, which is
subject to both preliminary and final court approval, Anywhere has
agreed to provide monetary relief of $83.5 million, substantially
in line with the Company's financial planning as well as injunctive
relief. The Company does not expect the terms of the proposed
settlement to have a material impact on its results of operations,
liquidity, or cash flows.
The proposed settlement resolves, on a nationwide basis, all claims
asserted against Anywhere in the Burnett and Moehrl cases and
releases the Company, all subsidiaries, brands, affiliated agents,
and franchisees.
Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Anywhere has agreed to
deposit into the settlement fund (i) $10 million within 14 business
days after preliminary court approval is granted; (ii) $20 million
within 14 business days after the court approval of fees and costs,
which is typically granted with final approval; and (iii) the
remaining balance within 21 business days after final court
approval and all appellate rights are exhausted.
While the Company does not control the timeline, a hearing for
preliminary approval of the settlement is expected to occur in
November 2023 with final court approval expected in mid-2024.
"I am pleased that Anywhere has reached a nationwide settlement
with the plaintiffs in the Burnett and Moehrl cases," said Ryan
Schneider, Anywhere chief executive officer and president. "We
believe this is the right course of action to remove future
uncertainty and ongoing legal expense, serving the best interests
of the company, our affiliated agents and franchisees, and
shareholders, and enabling Anywhere to focus on moving real estate
to what's next."
"The proposed settlement provides releases for our owned brokerage
operations and agents as well as our franchisees and their
affiliated agents, a priority for Anywhere in resolving these
claims," said Sue Yannaccone, chief executive officer and
president, Anywhere Brands and Anywhere Advisors.
The proposed settlement includes injunctive relief requiring
practice changes in Anywhere Advisors, the Company's owned
brokerage operations, which includes Coldwell Banker Realty,
Corcoran, and Sotheby's International Realty, for a period of five
years following final court approval. Anywhere has also agreed to
recommend and encourage these same practice changes to its
independently owned and operated franchise network across the
Better Homes and Gardens(R) Real Estate, CENTURY 21(R), Coldwell
Banker(R), Corcoran(R), ERA(R), and Sotheby's International
Realty(R) brands. The practice changes are consistent with
positions for which Anywhere has previously indicated support in
the industry.
"Anywhere has been adopting or calling on the industry to adopt
many of the settlement's proposed practice changes, which promote
more transparency and simplification for both consumers and real
estate agents," continued Yannaccone. "As an industry leader,
Anywhere strongly believes in the value of both buyer and seller
agents to help consumers successfully navigate one of life's most
expensive and impactful transactions, and that consumers will make
the choice to pay for their valuable service without mandatory
rules. We remain fully committed to supporting all agents as they
expertly serve their clients."
First, in the injunctive relief, Anywhere has agreed to make three
practice changes consistent with rule changes that the National
Association of REALTORS(R) made in its 2020 settlement with the
Department of Justice (DOJ), which the DOJ subsequently revoked:
* Anywhere will prohibit company-owned brokerages and their
affiliated agents from claiming buyer agent services are free.
* Anywhere will require company-owned brokerages and their
affiliated agents to include the listing broker's offer of
compensation for prospective buyers' agents as soon as possible in
each active listing, consistent with MLS rules and/or capabilities
of third-party website operators.
* Anywhere will prohibit company-owned brokerages and their
affiliated agents from using any technology (or manual methods) to
sort listings by offers of compensation, unless requested by the
client.
Second, Anywhere has agreed to advise and remind company-owned
brokerages, franchisees, and affiliated agents that the Company has
no rule requiring offers of compensation. Anywhere continues to see
the economic benefits that offers of compensation bring to both
sellers and buyers and the importance of making sure that both
buyers and sellers have access to the professional services that
agents provide.
"It is in the economic best interests of both buyers and sellers to
work with experienced trusted advisors," said Yannaccone. "We
strongly believe in sellers making offers of compensation to
buyers' agents to bring more eligible buyers to a listing, which
increases the likelihood of a successful transaction. Certain MLSs
that have already removed the mandatory requirement or eliminated a
minimum amount have helped facilitate seller choice in those
markets as well as provide for continued access to both buyer and
seller agent services."
Third, Anywhere has agreed to several other practice changes:
* Anywhere will not require company-owned brokerages,
franchisees, or affiliated agents to belong to the National
Association of REALTORS(R) or follow the NAR Code of Ethics or MLS
Handbook.
* Anywhere will require company-owned brokerages and their
agents to clearly disclose to clients that commissions are not set
by law and are fully negotiable.
* Anywhere will eliminate any minimum client commission
requirements that company owned brokerages may have.
Finally, Anywhere has agreed to develop training materials for
company owned brokerages, franchisees, and affiliated agents that
support all the practice changes outlined in the injunctive
relief.
About Anywhere
Madison, NJ-based, Anywhere Real Estate Inc (NYSE: HOUS) provides
franchise and brokerage operations as well as national title,
settlement, and relocation companies and nationally scaled mortgage
origination and underwriting joint ventures. Anywhere's brand
portfolio includes Better Homes and Gardens(R) Real Estate, CENTURY
21(R), Coldwell Banker(R), Coldwell Banker Commercial(R),
Corcoran(R), ERA(R), and Sotheby's International Realty(R). Moody's
expects 2023 revenue of over $5.5 billion.
ARBOR GREEN: Bid for Preliminary Class Status Due April 5, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRIS HOLDEN, DREW LULOW
and SAMUEL SCHMUCKER, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. ARBOR GREEN, INC., et al., Case No.
3:23-cv-00461-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Stephen L. Crocker
entered a preliminary pretrial conference order:
1. Amendments to the pleadings: Nov. 17, 2023
2. Motion for Preliminary Class April 5, 2024
Certification:
3. Motion & Brief to Certify Classes: Oct. 4, 2024
4. The deadline for plaintiffs to seek
certification of a Rule 23 class or
for defendant to seek decertification
of a conditional FLSA class:
Responses: Nov. 1, 2024
Replies: Nov. 15, 2024
5. Disclosure of liability experts:
Plaintiffs: Nov. 8, 2024
Defendants: Jan. 31, 2025
6. Deadline for filing dispositive April 4, 2025
motions:
7. Disclosure of Damages Experts:
Plaintiffs: June 9, 2025
Defendants: July 15, 2025
8. Settlement Letters: Aug. 15, 2025
9. Discovery Cutoff: Aug. 15, 2025
10. First Final Pretrial Conference: Sept. 23, 2025
11. Second Final Pretrial Conference: Sept. 30, 2025
12. Trial: Oct. 6, 2025
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 5, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48XTGB1 at no extra charge.[CC]
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Must File Class Cert Opposition by Dec. 1
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Crawford v. Arizona
Beverages USA LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00220 (S.D. Ill., Filed Feb. 6,
2022), the Hon. Judge David W. Dugan entered an order granting
consent motion for extension of time.
-- The Defendant may file its opposition brief to Plaintiff's
Motion
for Class Certification by Dec. 1, 2023.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Fraud.
Arizona is an American brand based in New York City, who produce a
range of teas, energy drinks and sodas.[CC]
ARRIBA JUNTOS: Kidd Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arriba Juntos, et al.
The case is styled as Katrina Kidd, 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. CGC23609456
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Oct. 2, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Arriba Juntos -- http://www.arribajuntos.org/-- is dedicated to
promoting economic self-sufficiency for San Franciscans and their
families through occupational training and employment.[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
ARROW DRILLERS: Lewis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arrow Drillers, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Dillon Lewis, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Arrow Drillers, Inc., Case No.
23CV008436 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Sept. 13, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Arrow Drillers, Inc. -- https://www.arrowcon.com/ -- designs,
builds, and maintains concrete sidewalks, curbs, gutters,
driveways, manholes, drain inlets, and wet and dry utilities.[BN]
ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Sued Over CA Labor Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in August 9, 2023, that in May
2023 the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Contra Costa, requested additional briefing from the parties to
determine whether the case should be maintained, dismissed, or the
class de-certified. Said brief was held August 7, 2023.
On December 20, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against one
of the company's hotel management companies alleging violations of
certain California employment laws, which class action affects nine
hotels owned by subsidiaries of the company. The court has entered
an order granting class certification with respect to a statewide
class of non-exempt employees of its managers who were allegedly
deprived of rest breaks as a result of a written policy requiring
its employees to stay on premises during rest breaks and a
derivative class of non-exempt former employees who were not paid
for allegedly missed breaks upon separation from employment.
Notices to potential class members were sent out on February 2,
2021. Potential class members had until April 4, 2021 to opt out of
the class, however, the total number of employees in the class has
not been definitively determined and is the subject of continuing
discovery. The opt out period has been extended until such time
that discovery has concluded.
Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc., is a real estate investment trust
currently consisting of upscale hotels and upper upscale
full-service hotels. It also owns lodging investments through
Ashford Hospitality Limited Partnership.
ASPEN GROUP: Class Settlement in Stewart Suit Gets Initial Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kristen Stewart, v. Aspen
Group Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00818-DLR (D. Ariz.),
the Hon. Judge Douglas L. Rayes entered an order preliminarily
approving Proposed Settlement:
1. The Stipulation is incorporated by reference in this Order
and
all terms defined in the Stipulation will have the same
meaning
in the Order.
2. The Stipulation and Proposed Settlement are preliminarily
approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best
interests of the Settlement Class.
3. Contingent on final approval of the Proposed Settlement and
Plaintiff complying with her obligations under the
Stipulation,
and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the
Plaintiff's request for preliminary class certification is
granted, with the following Settlement Class conditionally
certified for settlement purposes only:
"All persons who, during the Class Period, (a) were in the
Cohort or (b) had otherwise completed more than 15 hours
enrolled in Aspen's BSN Prerequisite Program in Arizona, but
could not enter the BSN Core Program or continue with the BSN
Prerequisite Program because of the Arizona Board of
Nursing's
regulatory actions taken against Defendants.
Excluded from the Settlement Class are:
(1) Defendants and their affiliates, officers, and directors;
(2) members of the judiciary (and their staff) to whom this
Action is assigned;
(3) those persons who have previously asserted individual
claims
against Defendants arising out the same factual predicate
alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint in this action;
(4) those persons who have received a reimbursement of
tuition
from Defendants, or have otherwise previously settled
their
claims against Defendants arising out the same factual
predicate alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint in this;
(5) those persons who were, as of February 2022, permitted to
continue their enrollment in the BSN Core Program; and
(6) those persons who choose to exclude themselves from the
Settlement Class under the opt-out procedures set forth
in
Section VI.
"BSN Core Program" means the second- and third-year nursing Core
components and curriculum offered to students in preparation for
taking the NCLEX, or The National Council Licensure Examination.
"BSN Prerequisite Program" means the first-year pre-professional
nursing component and curriculum offered to students that have
completed less than the required 41 pre-requisite general education
credits for entry into the BSN Core Program.
"Class Period" means February 15, 2022, through September 20,
2022.
"Cohor" means the 53 students who were enrolled in Aspen’s
Arizona BSN Program during the Class Period and had been admitted
to, but could not commence, Aspen's BSN Core Program because of the
Arizona Board of Nursing's regulatory actions taken against
Defendants.
The Plaintiff is preliminarily appointed as a representative of the
Settlement Class, and the Court preliminarily finds that the
following attorneys for Plaintiff satisfy the adequacy requirement
of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and appoints such counsel as
counsel for the Settlement Class:
Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq.
BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
7301 N. 16th Street, Suite 102
Phoenix, AZ 85020
Telephone: (602) 274-1100
Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
- and -
William F. King, Esq.
Gallagher & Kennedy, P.A.
2575 E. Camelback Rd.
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 530-8000
Facsimile: (602) 530-8500
Aspen is a privately-held secondary education company offers
approximately two monthly payment programs.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 4, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3F5qN85 at no extra charge.[CC]
AVANT GARDNER: Avchukov Files Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avant Gardner LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Alexandra Avchukov, Quentin Chappat,
Sandra Maesta Pereira, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Avant Gardner LLC, EZ Festivals LLC, Jurgen
Bildstein, Case No. 1:23-cv-08197-VM (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 15, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Fraud.
Avant Gardner -- https://www.avant-gardner.com/ -- is a live music
entertainment brand, renowned for its annual Electric Zoo music
festival on Randall's Island in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan Corbett, Esq.
CORBETT RIGHTS, P.C.
5551 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 1248
Los Angeles, CA 90028
Phone: (310) 684-3870
Fax: (310) 675-7080
Email: jon@corbettrights.com
AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL: Ruano Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Carlos Ruano, an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL LLC, a
Delaware company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
22STCV39521 was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on Oct. 3, 2023, and assigned Case
No. 2:23-cv-08462-MCS-E.
The Complaint alleges the following Labor Code violations: failure
to pay overtime in violation of Labor Code; failure to pay minimum
wage in violation of Labor Code; failure to provide meal breaks in
violation of Labor Code; failure to authorize and permit rest
breaks in violation of Labor Code; failure to timely pay wages at
the time of separation (waiting time penalties) in violation of
Labor Code; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in
violation of Labor Code; unreimbursed business expenses in
violation of Labor Code; and failure to pay unused vested vacation
in violation of Labor Code.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jennifer G Redmond, Esq.
Gal Gressel, Esq.
Nina Montazeri, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
A Limited Liability Partnership
Including Professional Corporations
Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
Phone: 415.434.9100
Facsimile: 415.434.3947
Email: jredmond@sheppardmullin.com
ggressel@sheppardmullin.com
nmontazeri@sheppardmullin.com
BANK OF AMERICA: $2.67MM in Fees & Costs Awarded in Checchia Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania awards Class Counsel $2,666,666.66 in
attorneys' fees and $8,187.35 in costs in the lawsuit titled STEVEN
CHECCHIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-03585-RBS (E.D. Pa.).
The matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's Unopposed
Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement and Application for
Service Award, Attorneys' Fees, and Costs.
Judge Surrick holds that the Action satisfies the applicable
prerequisites for class action treatment under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b). The Action is finally certified as a
class action against Bank of America, N.A., on behalf of a Class
defined as follows:
i. All Accountholders of BANA consumer checking and/or
savings accounts ("Accounts") in the United States who,
during the Class Period, paid and were not refunded a NSF
Fee and/or OD Fee in connection with: (a) an ACH entry on
their Account that was submitted by the merchant or the
merchant's bank with a "REDEP CHECK" indicator; or (b) a
physical check (not an ACH transaction) that was
re-presented for payment after having initially been
returned for non-sufficient funds and charged an NSF Fee
within the preceding 28 calendar days.
Excluded from the Settlement Class is BANA, its parents,
subsidiaries, affiliates, officers and directors, all
Settlement Class members who make a timely election to
optout, and all judges assigned to this litigation and
their immediate family members;
ii. Within the Settlement Class Period beginning on May 19,
2017 and ending on the date of Preliminary Approval.
A list of the individuals, who have opted-out of the Settlement is
attached as Exhibit A. Those individuals (1. DR. SEYMOUR BACHMAN
REVOCABLE TRUST; 2. TARA T. NGUYEN; 3. CARMEN WILLOUGHBY; 4.
CHRISTOPHER TRICOCHE; 5. DONNA A. MCALISTER; and 6. ROSE M.
HURLIHE) will not be bound by the Agreement or the Releases
contained therein.
Because the Court grants Final Approval of the Settlement set forth
in the Agreement as fair, reasonable, and adequate, the Court
authorizes and directs implementation of all terms and provisions
of the Settlement.
The appointment of Plaintiff as Class Representative is affirmed.
The appointment of Jeff Ostrow and Jonathan M. Streisfeld of
Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A., Jeffrey D. Kaliel of KalielGold PLLC, and
Kenneth J. Grunfeld of Golomb Spirt Grunfeld, P.C., as Class
Counsel is affirmed.
Judge Surrick enters judgment dismissing the Action with prejudice,
on the merits, and without taxation of costs in favor of or against
any Party.
If, consistent with the plan of distribution set forth in the
Settlement, any Residual Funds exist after the first distribution,
the residue will go to Settlement Class Members by way of a
secondary distribution, if economically feasible. Otherwise, the
residue will go to an appropriate cy pres recipient, either a
consumer protection or financial services charity, to be decided by
the Court.
The Class Representative is awarded a Service Award of $5,000, such
amount to be paid from the Settlement Fund in accordance with the
terms of the Settlement.
Class Counsel is awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of
$2,666,666.66 and costs in the amount of $8,187.35, such amounts to
be paid from the Settlement Fund in accordance with the terms of
the Settlement.
The Court also approves, among other things, the payment of
Settlement Administration Costs from the Settlement Fund.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Sept. 21, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2854e3we from PacerMonitor.com.
BANK OF AMERICA: $8M Class Settlement in Checchia Suit Has Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum granting the
Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement
and Application for Service Award, Attorneys' Fees, and Costs in
the lawsuit styled STEVEN CHECCHIA, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-03585-RBS (E.D. Pa.).
In this class action, Plaintiff Steven Checchia brings claims on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated against Defendant
Bank of America, N.A. (BANA). The Plaintiff alleges that BANA
breached its account agreements, violated the North Carolina Unfair
and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, N.C.G.S. Section 75.1-1, et
seq., and violated the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law by charging non-sufficient
funds fees (NSF Fees) and overdraft fees (OD Fees) on checks that
were re-presented for payment after having initially been rejected
for non-sufficient funds.
BANA removed the case from the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County to this Court on Aug. 11, 2021. The Parties
extended the deadlines for BANA to respond to the Plaintiff's
Complaint and for him to file a motion to remand while the parties
participated in early mediation and engaged in informal discovery,
including data analysis that now forms the basis of the proposed
class settlement.
On Feb. 18, 2022, following discovery, the Parties mediated the
matter before the Hon. Diane M. Welsh (Ret.), and agreed on
settlement terms. The parties filed a notice of settlement on March
11, 2022. On June 9, 2022, the Plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement and For Certification
of Class. On Feb. 16, 2023, the class settlement was preliminarily
approved.
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, prior to May 25, 2023, Class
Counsel sent the Court-approved Class Notice to individuals, who
paid and were not refunded an NSF Fee and/or
OD Fee in certain situations from May 19, 2017, through the
preliminary approval date. Notice was mailed or emailed to 358,248
Class Members.
In addition, the Settlement Administrator established a website
containing detailed information about the lawsuit and the
settlement. Class Members could also call a toll-free telephone
number for this information. At least 90 percent of the
identifiable Settlement Class Members received direct notice of the
Settlement. Of those who received notice, none of the Settlement
Class Members objected, and there were only six opt-outs at the
time of the Final Fairness Hearing.
Under the proposed Settlement Agreement, BANA agrees to (1) pay a
total Settlement Amount of $8,000,000, and (2) continue to not
assess the disputed fees for at least five years (the "Practice
Change"). The Settlement Fund will be distributed to the Settlement
Class--those who paid and were not refunded an NSF Fee and/or OD
Fee in certain situations from May 19, 2017, through the
preliminary approval date--and will be used to pay for settlement
administration costs, attorneys' fees and potential costs awarded
to class counsel, and any service award this Court might award to
the class representative.
Payments to Settlement Class Members will be made proportionately
based on BANA's data on who was assessed the fees. Any excess funds
remaining after 240 days will be distributed to those Settlement
Class Members, who cashed their initial settlement checks or
received a credit to their accounts. Any remaining funds will be
distributed to a consumer protection or financial services
organization with no reversion to BANA.
Class Counsel requests $2,666,666.66 in attorneys' fees, $8,187.35
for litigation costs, and a $5,000 service award for the Plaintiff.
BANA does not oppose these requests.
The Court finds that the class meets all requirements of Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It also finds that the
settlement is clearly fair and reasonable under the Girsh factors,
citing Girsh v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153 (3d Cir. 1975).
The parties have agreed to a $5,000 Service Award for the Class
Representative, $2,666,666.66 for attorneys' fees (representing
33.33% of the cash Settlement Amount), $8,187.35 for litigation
costs, and approval of payment of Settlement Administration Costs
from the Settlement Fund. The Court finds all of these requests to
be reasonable.
Based upon the time and effort expended by Representative Plaintiff
in bringing this action and obtaining benefits for the Class, the
Court is satisfied that the $5,000 Service Award is reasonable.
For these reasons, Judge Surrick grants the Plaintiff's Unopposed
Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement and Application for
Service Award, Attorneys' Fees, and Costs.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Sept. 21,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yy9vub89 from
PacerMonitor.com.
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Court Narrows Claims in Sidhu FAC
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PRIYA SIDHU, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BAYER HEALTHCARE
PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-01603-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order granting in part
and denying in part motion to dismiss first amended class action
complaint as follows:
1. The Defendant's motion to dismiss on the ground that
Plaintiff
lacks Article III standing, including standing to assert
claims
on behalf of a nationwide class, is denied;
2. The Defendant's motion to dismiss on the ground that
Plaintiff’s
claims are preempted by the FDCA is denied;
3. The Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s equitable
claims
on the ground that the Court lacks equitable jurisdiction is
granted. The Plaintiff's claims for unjust enrichment and
violations of the UCL and FAL are DISMISSED, as is
Plaintiff’s
CLRA claim to the extent Plaintiff seeks equitable relief.
4. The Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims, to the
extent the claims are premised on a duty to warn patients
(rather than physicians), on the ground that the learned
intermediary doctrine bars such claims is granted.
5. The Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's remaining
claims,
i.e., breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraud,
and
violation of the CLRA (to the extent Plaintiff seeks legal
remedies, for failure to state a claim is denied.
6. The Defendant's motion to dismiss or strike Plaintiff’s
claim
for punitive damages is denied.
7. The Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff’s class
allegations
is denied.
The Plaintiff has alleged a nationwide class defined as "all
persons in the United States who were prescribed and used the
Mirena IUD," as well as a state subclass defined as "all persons
who reside in the state of California and who were prescribed and
used the Mirena IUD."
The Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant failed to warn doctors
of the alleged increased risk of breast cancer caused by the Mirena
IUD by failing to update prescribing information after December
2015, despite the publication of studies allegedly showing the
increased risk.
The Mirena IUD is a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system
("LNG-IUS").
The Defendant manufactures, markets, distributes, sells, and makes
the
Mirena IUD available for prescription throughout the United States
and the State of California.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 5, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rOb9L9 at no extra charge.[CC]
BEAUMONT INDEPENDENT: Murphy Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREG MURPHY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. BEAUMONT
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT and SHANNON ALLEN, Case No.
1:22-cv-00135-MAC (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for
leave to file motion his motion for class certification.
The Defendants are Beaumont Independent School District and Shannon
Allen.
Beaumont Independent is a U.S. public school district serving
Beaumont in Southeast Texas.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 4, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PL3xRH at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon P. Monk, Esq.
THE MONK LAW FIRM
4875 Parker Drive
Beaumont, TX 77705
Telephone: (409) 724-6665
Facsimile: (409) 729-6665
E-mail: brandon@themonklawfirm.com
- and –
Laurence ("Larry") Watts, Esq.
WATTS & COMPANY, LTD
Missouri City, TX 77459
Telephone: (281) 431-1500
Facsimile: (877) 797-4055
E-mail: Wattstrial@gmail.com
BEAUMONT INDEPENDENT: Murphy Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREG MURPHY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. BEAUMONT
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT and SHANNON ALLEN, Case No.
1:22-cv-00135-MAC (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting his motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff moves the Court for a determination that this case
may proceed as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 to pursue claims against the Defendants.
The action arises from the Defendants' violation of the BISD
policy, which authorized just compensation under both the Texas and
United States Constitutions for Premium Pay wages earned for time
worked during school closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Plaintiff seeks to certify Plaintiff Class defined as follows:
"BISD Nonexempt Essential Employee Class: All BISD employees
within
the district from who, on or during the COVID-19 school closures
were deprived of earned wages for hours worked during the
pandemic."
Nonexempt employees of BISD were entitled to Premium Pay for
Disasters according to the BISD policy in effect at the time of the
closure. The employee required to work during an emergency closing
for a disaster is to be paid at the rate of one- and one-half times
their regular rate of pay for all hours worked up to 40 hours per
week.
As nonexempt, essential workers, (i.e. custodians, plumbers, food
service workers, electricians and support and maintenance
personnel) at the time of the COVID-19 emergency school closure,
which began on or about March 23, 2020, the Plaintiffs were
entitled to be paid Premium Pay, pursuant to BISD policy. The
closure continued for months without pay being made consistent with
the BISD policy.
The BISD Nonexempt Essential Employee Class intends to pursue a
common claim against Defendants under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for
due process and first amendment violations.
Systemic conditions of Premium Pay policy violations amidst the
COVID-19 pandemic placed all proposed class employees at
substantial risk of serious harm and deprivation of due process
rights and calls for systemic remedies.
Beaumont Independent is a U.S. public school district serving
Beaumont in Southeast Texas.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 4, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46gMgXr at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon P. Monk, Esq.
THE MONK LAW FIRM
4875 Parker Drive
Beaumont, TX 77705
Telephone: (409) 724-6665
Facsimile: (409) 729-6665
E-mail: brandon@themonklawfirm.com
- and –
Laurence ("Larry") Watts, Esq.
WATTS & COMPANY, LTD
Missouri City, TX 77459
Telephone: (281) 431-1500
Facsimile: (877) 797-4055
E-mail: Wattstrial@gmail.com
BLUE CROSS: Powers Sues Over Unauthorized Disclosure of PII
-----------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Powers, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF ILLINOIS INC., Case No.
1:23-cv-14470 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 3, 2023), is brought arising out of
Defendant's unauthorized disclosure of the confidential Personally
Identifying Information ("PII" or "Private Information") of
Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members (the "Data Breach"),
including their names, dates of birth, group numbers, subscriber
numbers, addresses, phone numbers, claim numbers (DCN), medical
services information, and Social Security Numbers.
The On June 15, 2023, BCBSIL discovered that Plaintiff and Class
Members' PII was disclosed to an unauthorized third party during
the period September 19, 2022 through May 18, 2023. Plaintiff and
Class Members' PII was disclosed through an unnamed third party
vendor of BCBSIL. It took BCBSIL nearly 9 months to discover the
Data Breach, and nearly a full year to inform impacted individuals
that their PII was disclosed to an unauthorized third party.
BCBSIL failed to undertake adequate measures to safeguard the PII
of Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members, including by failing
to implement industry standards for data security, and failing to
properly train employees on cybersecurity protocols, resulting in
the Data Breach.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failures to protect
Plaintiff's and the Class Members' sensitive PII and warn them
promptly and fully about the Data Breach, Plaintiff and the
proposed Class have suffered widespread injury and damages
necessitating Plaintiff seeking relief on a class wide basis, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff received a letter, dated September 5, 2023, from Blue
Cross Blue Shield of Illinois notifying Plaintiff that her PII was
involved in the Data Breach.
BCBSIL is Illinois' only statewide, customer-owned health
insurer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 866.252.0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Jason M. Wucetich, Esq.
WUCETICH & KOROVILAS, LLP
222 N. PCH Blvd., Suite 2000
El Segundo, CA 90245
Phone: (310) 335-2001
Facsimile: (310) 364-5201
Email: jason@wukolaw.com
BOARD OF ELECTIONS: Sherr Sues Over Underpaid Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon D. Sherr, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. BOARD OF ELECTIONS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No.
1:23-cv-08693 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 3, 2023), is brought pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), alleging that the Defendant
violated the FLSA, and that the Defendant is liable to the
Plaintiff and Party Plaintiffs for unpaid or underpaid overtime
compensation and such other relief available by law.
The Plaintiff worked for the Board of Elections m the City of New
York approximately 45-60 hours per week. The Defendant willfully
failed to pay the Plaintiff $22.00 per hour. The Plaintiff worked
more than forty hours each workweek, yet the Defendant willfully
failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation of one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from October through
November 2020 as a poll worker performing preliminary and
postliminary elections work.
The Board of Elections in the City of New York is a government
instrumentality established pursuant to the New York State Election
Law.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
277 Broadway, Suite 408
New York, N.Y. 10007-2036
Phone: (212) 229-2249
Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com
CAPRI NAILS: Bid to Certify Class Referred to Magistrate Judge
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Li v. Capri Nails & Eco
Spa Inc. et. al., Case No. 2:20-cv-06296 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 29,
2020), the Hon. Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto entered an order referring
motion to certify class to a Magistrate Judge.
-- The Motions are referred to Magistrate Judge Steven Tiscione.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Capri Nails is a nail salon.[CC]
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Nix Class Certification Bid Partly OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENT NIX, et al., v. THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, Case No. 7:17-cv-00189-D (E.D.N.C.), the Hon.
Judge James C. Dever, III entered an order:
-- Denying as moot the Defendants' motion fodudgment on the
pleadings;
-- Denying the defendants' motion to stay.
-- Denying the defendants' motions to exclude Plaintiffs' expert
witness testimony of Sunding, Gamble, Gray, and Griffith;
-- Granting the defendants' motion to exclude plaintiffs' expert
witness testimony from Duncklee and from DeWitt and
DeGrandchamp;
-- Granting in part plaintiff's motion for class certification
excluding the alternative diminution-in-value remedy and
excluding the epidemiological study damages subclass;
-- Appointing Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Susman
Godfrey
LLP as co-lead class counsel.
The plaintiffs' claims concern defendants' discharge of wastewater
allegedly containing per.fluorinated compounds ("PFCs"), notably
GenX.
PFCs are chemical compounds in which carbon-fluorine bonds replace
all of the carbon-hydrogen bonds.
The Plaintiffs propose certification of two classes: (1) a "public
utility" class and (2) a "groundwater'' class.
The Plaintiffs define these classes as property owners or renters
whose property:
(1) is serviced by a public water utility servicing Bladen,
Brunswick, Cumberland, New Hanover or Pender Counties that
draws water from or obtains water drawn from the Cape Fear
River downstream of Fayetteville Works; or
(2) receives drinking water from a groundwater source with
quantifiable concentrations of any of the Fayetteville Works
PF
AS.
The Plaintiffs also propose certification of four subclasses:
-- Owner-Occupier/Renter Damages Subclass:
"All Class Members who are currently owner-occupiers of
residential property or currently rent residential property and
have not yet installed both reverse osmosis filters and new
water
heaters on their property.
-- Purchaser Damages Subclass:
"All Class Members who paid for bottled water, water heaters,
and/or reverse osmosis filters from 2017 to present."
-- Long-Time Property Owner Damages Subclass:
"All Class Members who purchased their residential property
prior
to June 2017 and have not installed both reverse osmosis
filters
and new water heaters."
-- Health Study Injunctive and Declaratory Relief Subclass:
"All Class Members who consent to participate in the
epidemiological study."
Chemours was founded in 2014. The company's line of business
includes the manufacturing and production of agricultural
chemicals.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 4, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tob4hR at no extra charge.[CC]
CIOX HEALTH: Faces Chisholm Suit Over Alleged Labor Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Chisholm, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CIOX Health, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
7:23-cv-08623 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 30, 2023) alleges Defendant's
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a records clerk from on
or about July 12, 2021 to on or about September 21, 2023. As a
record clerk, Plaintiff performed a variety of manual and physical
duties such as scanning, packing, lifting, sorting, medical records
as well as handling and shipping packages, etc., throughout her
workday with Defendant. She also worked 45-56 or more hours each
week; 5-6 days each week for Defendant, with the exception of 2-3
weeks each year. However, the Defendant failed and willfully failed
to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation at rates not less than 1.5
times her regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40
hours in a week. Among other things, the Defendant failed to
reimburse Plaintiff for about at least $350 or more which
constitutes an unlawful deduction under the FLSA and NYLL, says the
Plaintiff.
Headquartered in New York, CIOX Health is a data management company
in the business of storage, processing, handling, retrieval and
delivery of medical records. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
215-28 Hillside Avenue
Queens Village, NY 11427
Telephone: (718) 740-1000
Facsimile: (718) 740-2000
E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com
COMPASS GROUP: Subject Matter Jurisdiction Exists in Bosco Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled FERDANINDO BOSCO, et al., Plaintiffs v.
COMPASS GROUP USA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-06909-JXN-JRA (D.N.J.), Magistrate Judge Jose R. Almonte of
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey recommends
that the Court affirm that subject matter jurisdiction exists.
Plaintiffs Ferdanindo Bosco and Claudette Jackson-Goodman,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
initially moved to remand this action to the Superior Court of New
Jersey ("State Court"), (the "Motion"). They, however, subsequently
withdrew the Motion once briefing was complete and agreed to submit
themselves to this Court's jurisdiction.
Defendants Compass Group USA, Inc., Compass One, LLC, and Compass
2K12 Services, LLC, are one of the largest contract foodservice
companies in the world. On Sept. 26, 2022, the Plaintiffs initiated
this action in State Court against the Defendants, seeking to
recover unpaid wages on behalf of themselves and a putative class
of individuals, who worked in New Jersey.
On Nov. 30, 2022, the Defendants removed this action to federal
court asserting general diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(a). On Feb. 13, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed the Motion
to remand this case back to State Court. After the Motion was fully
briefed, the parties filed a letter with the Court stating: the
"Plaintiffs have agreed to withdraw their motion for remand in the
case and agree to submit themselves to this Court's jurisdiction."
Despite the Plaintiffs' willingness to submit to this Court's
jurisdiction, the Court maintains an independent obligation to
assure itself of subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, pursuant
to its bedrock obligation to examine subject matter jurisdiction,
the Court sua sponte asked the Defendants to set forth how they
believed the amount in controversy is satisfied for purposes of
diversity jurisdiction.
On Aug. 15, 2023, the Defendants filed the requested letter. For
the first time, the Defendants raised Class Action Fairness Act
("CAFA") (Section 1332(d)) as the basis for subject matter
jurisdiction, and they remained silent as to the amount in
controversy related to general diversity jurisdiction (Section
1332(a)), the initial basis for removal.
The Defendants calculated the amount in controversy to be in excess
of $5 million, as required by CAFA, based on a review and analysis
of their own records that revealed over 500 class members, as well
as the Plaintiffs' representation in a prior submission that the
amount in controversy ranged from approximately $1,300 to $5,000
per class member.
Although the Court provided the Plaintiffs the express opportunity
to submit their own amount in controversy calculation, no such
filing was made. The Plaintiffs have not otherwise objected to the
Defendants' Aug. 15, 2023 letter or the assertion of CAFA
jurisdiction made therein.
The Defendants initially removed this case under the general
diversity jurisdiction provision, Section 1332(a). But then, after
several exchanges between the parties and the Court, it appears
that both parties have abandoned their arguments related to Section
1332(a). The Defendants now assert that this Court has jurisdiction
pursuant to CAFA, and the Plaintiffs filed no opposition to the
Defendants' arguments. The Court will, therefore, analyze whether
it has subject matter jurisdiction under Section 1332(d), that is,
under CAFA.
Although the Amended Complaint reveals facts satisfying CAFA's
diversity requirement, it does not reveal facts satisfying CAFA's
numerosity requirement, Judge Almonte finds. Nor does the Amended
Complaint provide a clear statement of the damages sought or
sufficient facts from which damages can be readily calculated.
As to numerosity, the Amended Complaint defines its class as hourly
wage employees of the Defendants, who were deprived wages for
employment that took place in the State of New Jersey since at
least 2009 and into the present. The Amended Complaint does not
estimate or calculate the potential size of this class. As to the
amount in controversy, the Amended Complaint specifically alleges
that the amount in controversy is less than five million dollars.
Although the Amended Complaint alleges that the Defendants failed
to properly pay their hourly-wage employees as promised, Judge
Almonte finds that it fails to allege any quantity of unpaid hours
or employee payrate, let alone the alleged loss per plaintiff.
Because the Amended Complaint reveals neither a basis from which to
calculate individual damages nor the number of workers allegedly
effected, it does not inform the Defendants "to a substantial
degree of specificity" that the amount in controversy exceeds $5
million.
In fact, the Amended Complaint explicitly states that the amount in
controversy is less than $5 million. Therefore, Judge Almonte
holds, the four corners of the Amended Complaint did not trigger
the thirty-day removal clock per Section 1446(b)(1).
Judge Almonte notes that it was not until March 27, 2023, that the
Plaintiffs informed the Defendants, via reply brief, that the
amount in controversy ranged from $1,300 to $5,000 per class
member. In other words, March 27, 2023, was the first time that the
Defendants "received" a statement from the Plaintiffs regarding the
alleged damages per class member.
But that information was insufficient because the Defendants still
needed to know the potential size of the class to ascertain the
total amount in controversy, Judge Almonte says. That information
came to light only after the Defendants searched their own records
and determined that the potential class size is comprised of over
500 individuals.
Because the Defendants' review of their own records does not
trigger the thirty-day removal clock under Section 1446(b)(3), the
Court finds that they were timely in invoking CAFA jurisdiction.
Although the Defendants did not file a formal Amended Notice of
Removal, their letter dated Aug. 15, 2023, serves the same purpose,
Judge Almonte holds. Rather than elevate form over substance, the
Court construes the Defendants' letter as an Amended Notice of
Removal.
Having found that the Defendants were timely in raising CAFA as a
basis for jurisdiction, the Court must still decide whether it in
fact has jurisdiction. After examining each jurisdictional element
of CAFA, the Court is satisfied that it has subject matter
jurisdiction over this case.
Judge Almonte says the Plaintiffs passed on the opportunity to
challenge this calculation or provide their own calculation.
Because the Court is satisfied that the amount in controversy
exceeds the $5 million threshold by a "legal certainty," it also
concludes that that amount is satisfied by the preponderance of the
evidence. In sum, subject matter jurisdiction exists under CAFA
regardless of which test applies.
For these reasons, Judge Almonte holds that the Plaintiffs' Motion
is deemed withdrawn. Further, Judge Almonte recommends that the
District Court affirm that subject matter jurisdiction exists in
this matter. The parties have 14 days to file and serve objections
to this Report and Recommendation.
A full-text copy of the Court's Report and Recommendation dated
Sept. 21, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4bkzd9y9 from
PacerMonitor.com.
CONTRACT LAND: Crager Files Bid for Conditional Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER CRAGER,
Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. CONTRACT LAND
STAFF, LLC, Case No. 8:23-cv-01357-VMC-CPT (M.D. Fla.), Crager
files motion for conditional certification.
Crager satisfied her lenient burden to show the DayRate Right of
Way (ROW) Agents are similarly situated. Thus, the Court should
grant Crager's motion and authorize Notice to the Day-Rate ROW
Agents.
Crager requests the certification schedule accommodate follow-up
telephone calls by Class Counsel to those Day-Rate ROW Agents whose
contact information, during the course of the class certification
schedule, is shown to be incorrect or no longer valid.
Crager moves the Court to conditionally certify and authorize
notice to be sent to the following class:
"ROW Agents who worked for CLS, in Florida, who were paid a day
rate with no overtime in the past three years. (Day-Rate ROW
Agents).
Contract Land is a service provider for land services in the
Pipeline, Electric, Public, and Renewable Energies sectors
nationwide.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 5, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45pgWVt at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 751-0025
Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 867-47913634
E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
CORSAIR GAMING: Must Oppose Class Cert. Bid by Dec. 1
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTONIO MCKINNEY, and
CLINT SUNDEEN, each individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. CORSAIR GAMING, INC., Case No.
3:22-cv-00312-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Charles R. Breyer
entered an order modifying the February 24, 2023 Joint Case
Management Schedule and Order as follows:
Case event Original Date New Date
Plaintiffs file class Sept. 1, 2023 N/A
certification motion
Defendant files opposition to Oct. 27, 2023 Dec. 1,
2023
class certification motion
Plaintiffs file reply to class Nov. 17, 2023 Jan. 25,
2024
certification
Fact discovery cutoff Nov. 17, 2023 Jan. 25,
2024
Parties file Daubert motions N/A Jan. 25,
2024
Parties file Daubert oppositions N/A Feb. 8,
2024
Parties file Daubert replies N/A Feb. 15,
2024
Hearing on motion for class Dec. 8, 2023 Mar. 8,
2024
certification and Daubert or as set
by
motions the Court
Deadline to complete mediation Mar. 29, 2023 Apr. 29,
2024
Corsair is an American computer peripherals and hardware company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZFMSnh at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rick Lyon, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
Jonas Jacobsen, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd Ste 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
- and -
Kevin Kneupper, Esq.
A. Cyclone Covey, Esq.
KNEUPPER & COVEY, PC
4475 Peachtree Lakes Dr
Berkeley Lake, GA 30096
Telephone: (657) 845-3100
The Defendant is represented by:
Terence N. Hawley, Esq.
Emily F. Lynch, Esq.
Quynh La, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
101 Second Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94105-3659
Telephone: (415) 543-8700
Facsimile: (415) 391-8269
E-mail: thawley@reedsmith.com
elynch@reedsmith.com
qla@reedsmith.com
COSTCO WHOLESALE: $6.5MM in Fees and Costs Awarded in Corker Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned BRUCE CORKER, et al., on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COSTCO
WHOLESALE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:19-CV-00290-RSL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle,
grants Class Counsel's fee request for $5,837,000 and reimbursement
request for $662,443.
The matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Service Awards.
The Plaintiffs have presented a class action settlement with
Defendant MNS, Ltd. for the Court's approval. The settlement
includes monetary relief totaling $12 million, and injunctive
provisions that institute labeling changes for the products labeled
as Kona coffee sold by MNS, and places obligations on all of MNS's
suppliers with respect to such products.
The settlement with MNS brings the total amount of the settlements
reached in this case to $33.4 million. The Plaintiffs have also
provided a declaration from an expert economist, who estimates that
the value of the injunctive provisions of the settlements with MNS
and other Defendants to Kona farmers is more than $81.2 million
over the next five years.
The Court has reviewed the declaration and finds that the value of
the injunctive relief provided for in the settlements is
quantifiable, and that the expert has presented a reliable
methodology for calculating that value.
Class Counsel have requested attorneys' fees in the amount of
$5.837 million. Together with previously awarded fees, this will
amount to approximately 11.4% of the total economic value of the
settlements reached to date.
Judge Lasnik finds that the requested fees, which fall below the
Ninth Circuit benchmark for successful cases, are fair and
reasonable under the circumstances and for purposes of Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court grants Class
Counsel's request of a fee of $5,837,000 to be paid from the
Settlement Funds generated by the settlement.
Class Counsel has also requested reimbursement of litigation
expenses in the amount of $662,443. The Court has reviewed Class
Counsel's costs and finds that they were reasonably incurred, and
accordingly grants reimbursement of $662,443 from the Settlement
Funds.
Class Counsel requests service awards of $2,500 for each farm whose
owners have served as class representatives in this litigation:
Rancho Aloha, Kanalani Ohana Farm, and Smithfarms.
Judge Lasnik finds that the requested awards are fair and
reasonable. Each class representative invested substantial amounts
of time in this case and have made significant contributions to the
case on behalf of the members of the Settlement Class.
The Court accordingly awards each farm the requested service awards
of $2,500.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Sept. 21, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2mvj7dve from PacerMonitor.com.
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Final Judgment and Order Issued in Corker Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, issued a Final Judgment and Order
of Dismissal in the lawsuit entitled BRUCE CORKER, et al., on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00290-RSL (W.D. Wash.).
The matter comes before the Court upon the Plaintiffs' unopposed
Motion for Final Approval of the Class Settlement.
The Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing their Complaint on
Feb. 27, 2019, and ultimately filed a Third Amended Complaint on
April 30, 2020 ("Complaint"). The Plaintiffs alleged that the
Defendants violated the Lanham Act by misleadingly labeling and
selling coffee not from the Kona region as "Kona" coffee. On Nov.
12, 2019, the Court denied motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
original complaint, and discovery began.
The Plaintiffs have negotiated a class action settlement with
Defendant MNS, Ltd. ("MNS"). The Settlement Agreement was attached
as Exhibit 1 to the declaration of counsel accompanying the Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, filed on April
23, 2023.
Through the Settlement Agreement, MNS will fully and completely
satisfy the claims of Class Members relating to the claims alleged
by the Plaintiffs in the Third Amended Complaint by paying Class
Members a total payment of $12 million, and provide injunctive
relief relating to the labeling of the Kona coffee products at
issue. Attorneys' fees and costs of Class Counsel and
administrative costs will be paid from the Settlement Fund.
By entering into the Settlement Agreement, MNS made no admissions
relating to the claims raised in this lawsuit, nor did the
Plaintiffs make admissions relating to MNS's Defenses.
The Settlement Class, as defined in each of the Settlement
Agreements, includes the following: All persons and entities who,
between Feb. 27, 2015, and the date of Court's order granting
preliminary approval to the settlement (April 25, 2023), farmed
Kona coffee in the Kona District and then sold their Kona coffee.
Excluded from the Settlement Class are any defendants to the
action, as well as any judge assigned to the action, and the
judge's immediate family and staff.
The Settlement Agreement describes the claims that are being
settled on behalf of the Class (defined as the "Settled Claims").
The Settlement Agreement and its terms, including the definitions,
are incorporated into this Final Judgment And Order of Dismissal
(the "Final Judgment") as if fully set forth herein. The Settlement
Agreement and Final Judgment will be referred to collectively
herein as the "Settlement."
The Court entered an Order dated April 25, 2023, directing that
notice of the proposed Settlement be effectuated as to the
Settlement Class ("Preliminary Approval Order"). The Preliminary
Approval Order set a hearing for Sept. 21, 2023, to determine
whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair,
reasonable and adequate.
On Sept. 21, 2023, the Court held a hearing on the proposed
Settlement, at which time all interested persons were given an
opportunity to be heard. Furthermore, the Court has read and
considered all submissions in connection with the Settlement.
In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court concluded that the
Plaintiffs showed that they were likely to satisfy these
requirements. The Court now finds no reason to disturb those
conclusions. As such, the Court certifies the proposed Class.
The Court finds the Settlement to be fair, reasonable, and adequate
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). The Settlement Agreement, including
all of the terms defined therein, including the definitions of
"Settled Claims," is incorporated herein.
Therefore, the Settlement is approved in all respects, and will be
binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, all members of the
Settlement Class.
All Settled Claims are dismissed with prejudice.
Judge Lasnik notes that this Final Judgment may not be used as an
admission by or against MNS of any fact, claim, assertion, matter,
contention, fault, culpability, obligation, wrongdoing or liability
whatsoever.
The Court has, by separate order, granted Class Counsel's "Motion
for Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses." The
amount of Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses awarded to Class
Counsel will be distributed to Class Counsel by the Settlement
Administrator from the Settlement Funds.
The Court reserves jurisdiction over this matter, the Settling
Parties, and all counsel herein, without affecting the finality of
this Final Judgment, including over (a) the implementation,
administration, and enforcement of this Settlement and any award or
distribution from the Settlement Funds; (b) disposition of the
Settlement Funds; and (c) other matters related or ancillary to the
foregoing.
Pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court finds that there is no reason for delay in the entry of this
Final Order and Judgment as a final order and final judgment, and
the Court further expressly directs the Clerk of the Court to file
this Final Order and Judgment as a final order and final judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's Final Judgment and Order dated
Sept. 21, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/257bvpz5 from
PacerMonitor.com.
D & B CORP: Jenks Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against D & B Corp., et al.
The case is styled as Kayla L. Jenks, on behalf of Herself and all
others similarly situated v. D & B Corp., D/B/A The Golden Banana,
Mark Filtranti, as President and Owner of D&B Corp., and Its Other
Corporate Presidents, Case No. 2377CV00938 (Mass. Super. Ct.,
Suffolk Cty., Oct. 2, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Contract/Business Cases."
Dun & Bradstreet helps companies improve their business performance
through data and insights delivered through our Data Cloud and Live
Business Identity.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tod A. Cochran, Esq.
PYLE ROME EHRENBERG PC
2 Liberty Square, 10th Floor
Boston, MA 02109
DATA MEDIA ASSOCIATES: Walsh Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Data Media
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Lily Walsh, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Data Media Associates,
LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04484-MHC (N.D. Ga., Oct. 2, 2023).
The nature of suit is state as Other Contract for Breach of
Fiduciary Duty.
Data Media Associates, LLC (DMA) -- https://www.dma.us/ -- has been
a steadfast partner in revenue cycle management, delivering
comprehensive patient statement and payment solutions that
facilitate revenue flow for over 40-years,.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Brandon Smith, Esq.
CHILDERS, SCHLUETER & SMITH, LLC
1932 North Druid Hills Road, Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30319
Phone: (404) 419-9500
Email: bsmith@cssfirm.com
- and -
Raina C Borrelli, Esq.
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS, LLP -WI
613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: (608) 237-1775
Fax: (608) 509-4423
Email: raina@turkestrauss.com
sam@turkestrauss.com
DEL MONTE: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 17, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LIBBY GATLING-LEE, et al.,
v. DEL MONTE FOODS, INC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00892-JST (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order granting extension of
class certification schedule as follows:
-- The class certification motion and Jan. 17, 2024
Plaintiffs' class certification
expert disclosures are due on or
before:
-- The class certification opposition March 20,
2024
and Defendants' class certification
expert disclosures are due on or
before:
-- The class certification expert April 8, 2024
discovery cut-off is:
-- The class certification reply is due: April 17,
2024
Del Monte is a producer, distributor and marketer of branded
processed food for the U.S. retail market.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZGfufU at no extra charge.[CC]
DG IN PB: Stores Get $862K in Attys' Fees in Outlaw Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Outlaw Laboratory, LP v.
DG IN PB, LLC et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00840-GPC-BGS (S.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel entered an order granting in part
motion for Attorneys' fees and costs of suit. The motion is brought
by Roma Minkha, Inc., doing business as Bobar #2 Liquor; NMRM,
Inc., doing business as Sunset Liquor; and Skyline Market Inc.,
doing business as Skyline Farms Market ("The Stores") against
third-party defendant and counter-defendant Tauler Smith LLP.
-- The Court grants in part The Stores' Motion for Attorneys'
Fees
and Costs of Suit, holding that the Stores are entitled to
$862,314.32 in attorneys' fees and $33,410.48 in costs.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 5, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Q9lATa at no extra charge.[CC]
DONALD J. TRUMP: Collier Files Appeal
--------------------------------------
Plaintiff IRINA COLLIER filed an appeal from the District Court's
Order dated August 11, 2023 entered in the lawsuit styled IRINA
COLLIER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. DONALD TRUMP, et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-01248-DMS-DDL, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California.
Plaintiff Irina Collier has submitted a complaint on July 6, 2023
along with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. The Plaintiff
additionally filed a motion for access to file electronically, on
the same day.
The genesis of Plaintiff's federal actions are two California state
court actions out of Santa Clara County: Collier v. Collier, No.
18FL000889 (Cal. Super. Ct.) (dissolution with minor); Collier v.
Collier, No. 18DV000161 (Cal. Super. Ct.) (domestic violence
prevention with minor). The Court is said to be aware of at least
six civil harassment suits that Plaintiff filed in the recent past.
It is unclear to the Court if these harassment suits stem from
similar facts and theories.
Accordingly, a party initiating a civil action must typically pay
the required filings fees. But a Plaintiff can proceed without
paying the fee if granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. A
"district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the
outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that
the action is frivolous." A complaint is legally "frivolous where
it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." The term
"frivolous," when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the
inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual
allegation.
On August 11, 2023, Chief District Judge Dana M. Sabraw entered an
Order denying Plaintiff's motions to proceed in forma pauperis and
access to electronic filing.
According to the Order, Plaintiff's frivolous filings have placed a
great burden on the Court, and courts across the country. The
lawsuits stem from nearly the same set of facts and the same legal
theories in most cases. Many of the orders explain precisely to
Plaintiff why her claims cannot proceed in federal court. As noted
in many of the orders cited, Plaintiff's claims are frivolous and
the same is true in this case. Therefore, simply based on the face
of the complaint and Plaintiff's litigation history pursuing the
same facts and claims in various federal courts, the Court finds
Plaintiff's action is frivolous. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to
proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a) is DENIED, ruled
the court.
The appellate case is captioned as Collier v. Trump, Case No.
23-2420, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,
filed on September 26, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Fee/IFP was due on October 10, 2023;
-- Entry of Appearance was due on October 10, 2023; and
-- Appellant/Petitioner's brief is due on November 27,
2023.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant IRINA COLLIER, and for all similarly situated,
appears pro se.
DT BRANDS & CO: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DT Brands & Co. The
case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DT Brands & Co, Case No.
1:23-cv-08637-ER (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 2, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Dt Brands & Co (n.i.) Ltd is a Food & Beverages company and has
headquarters in Berkeley, California.[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
DUKE UNIVERSITY: Franklin Sues Over ERISA Violations
----------------------------------------------------
JOY G. FRANKLIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DUKE UNIVERSITY, THE RETIREMENT BOARD FOR
DUKE UNIVERSITY, and JOHN/JANE DOES 1–10, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-00833 (M.D.N.C., Sept. 29, 2023) arises from the
Defendants' violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974.
Plaintiff Franklin accuses the Defendants of unlawfully
shortchanging retirees of the Employees' Retirement Plan of Duke
University by millions of dollars through their use of outdated
mortality tables. By using outdated mortality tables to calculate
joint and survivor annuities and pre-retirement survivor annuities
for Plan participants prior to July 1, 2023, Defendants allegedly
harmed the financial security of its former employees and their
loved ones, to Defendants' financial gain.
The Defendants had a fiduciary duty to act loyally and solely in
the interest of the participants and beneficiaries the duty to act
with care, skill, prudence, and diligence. However, the Defendants
disregarded that duty, electing to use unreasonable and outdated
formulas for determining certain types of pension benefits prior to
July 1, 2023, that substantially underpaid participants of the Plan
for Defendants' own financial gain, the suit alleges.
Duke is a private research university in Durham, NC, is a member of
the Association of American Universities, and is consistently
ranked among the top universities in the country. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana Smith, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
525 North Tryon Street
Suite 1600, #7433
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone: (980) 448-1299
E-mail: dsmith@sirillp.com
- and -
Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
Oren Faircloth, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: lconsidine@sirillp.com
ofaircloth@sirillp.com
DX ENTERPRISES: Class Cert Discovery Stayed Until Nov. 6
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as McClaine v. DX
Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-01168 (S.D. Ill., Filed April
6, 2023), the Hon. Judge David W. Dugan entered an order granting
agreed motion to stay discovery.
-- Discovery in this matter is stayed until November 6, 2023.
-- The parties are directed to file a joint status report on or
before November 6, 2023, detailing their positions on the
continued appropriateness of the stay.
On May 24, 2023, the Plaintiff filed her First Amended Class Action
Complaint alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.
On June 1, 2023, the Court entered its Scheduling and Discovery
Order, setting a November 30, 2023, deadline for filing class
certification motions.
By Motion dated October 4, 2023, Defendant DX Enterprises, with
Plaintiff's consent, seeks a stay of all discovery deadlines in
this matter so the parties can discuss potential settlement.
The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.
DX is a full service staffing company, offering payroll, screening,
training, worker's compensation and, in many cases, on-site
supervision.[CC]
EBY LLC: Court Extends Time to File Class Status Bid
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE WRIGHT, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. EBY LLC, Case No.
3:23-cv-01466-MEM (M.D. Pa.), the Court entered an order granting
the Plaintiff's motion for enlargement of time to file motion for
class Certification:
-- The Plaintiff shall file his Motion for Class Certification on
a
date to be determined by the Court and set forth in any
forthcoming Case Management Order issued by the Court.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 5, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48Ke5ZR at no extra charge.[CC]
EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Faces Lowe Suit Over Mislabeled Sunscreens
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brigette Lowe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Edgewell Personal Care Brands LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01256 (D. Conn., Sept. 26, 2023) arises
from the Defendant's unlawful, fraudulent, and unfair conduct of
marketing its Banana Boat Sport Ultra sunscreen products in
violation of State Consumer Protection Acts, California's Unfair
Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies
Act.
The Defendant sells several products in the "Banana Boat Sport
Ultra" line. One of those products, the "Banana Boat Sport Ultra
Faces" lotion, is prominently labelled "Faces." The front of the
product also prominently touts that the sunscreen is "Oil Free" and
"Non-Greasy." These prominent representations lead reasonable
consumers to believe that the Sport Ultra Faces lotion is
specifically designed for the face. The truth, however, is that the
Banana Boat Sport Ultra Faces lotion is not specifically formulated
for the face. There is nothing special about Banana Boat Sport
Ultra Faces that makes it any better for facial applications than
regular Banana Boat Sport Ultra (which is not specifically
formulated for the face, and instead is designed for full-body
applications). The Defendant is putting the same sunscreen into two
different bottles with different labels, and charging more for one
of them, the suit alleges.
As a result of Defendant's alleged deceptive practices, Plaintiff
and each Class member overpaid for the Banana Boat Sport Ultra
Faces product they purchased and sustained economic injury, asserts
the complaint.
Edgewell Personal Care Brands LLC provides personal care products.
The Company offers shave, grooming, sun care, skin care, and
feminine care products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig A. Raabe, Esq.
Seth R. Klein, Esq.
IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP
29 South Main Street, Suite 305
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 493-6292
Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
E-mail: craabe@ikrlaw.com
sklein@ikrlaw.com
- and -
Simon Franzini, Esq.
Grace Bennett, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: simon@dovel.com
grace@dovel.com
ENCOMPASS HEALTH: Norman Seeks Case Manager Employees' Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRENDA L. NORMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENCOMPASS HEALTH REHABILITATION
HOSPITAL OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA, LLC, and ENCOMPASS HEALTH
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00609-JAG (E.D. Va.,
Sept. 26, 2023) seeks damages for Defendants' failure to pay
Plaintiff time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours
worked over 40 during each seven-day workweek because Defendants
paid her on a salary basis and misclassified her as exempt from the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff began working for Defendants as a full-time case
manager employee on June 14, 2021 through March 31, 2023. She is a
current employee, but is employed in a part time capacity.
Encompass Health Rehabilitation Hospital of Northern Virginia, LLC
provides inpatient rehabilitation for stroke, brain injury, hip
fracture and other neurological and orthopedic conditions with
principal place of business in Birmingham, Alabama.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
Samantha R. Galina, Esq.
BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
E-mail: craig@butlercurwood.com
zev@butlercurwood.com
samantha@butlercurwood.com
- and -
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
WAGE AND HOUR FIRM
5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75254
Telephone: (214) 489-7653
Facsimile: (469) 319-0317
E-mail: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com
rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com
ERNST & YOUNG: Jacobs Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
MYKLE JACOBS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. ERNST & YOUNG INVESTMENT
ADVISERS LLP and BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-08481 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 26, 2023) is a class action lawsuit
against Defendants for their failure to protect Plaintiff's and the
Class' highly sensitive personally identifiable information(PII),
including their names or first initials, and last names, addresses,
financial account information, debit or credit card numbers, Social
Security numbers, and/or or unique government issued identification
numbers.
Ernst & Young provides consulting, advisory, and tax services to
Bank of America. As a part of those services, EY receives and
handles PII, including that of Plaintiff and the Class.
According to the complaint, a well-known cybergang, Cl0p, easily
accessed EY's servers, stealing the PII of Plaintiff and the Class
from May 28, 2023 through May 31, 2023. EY utterly failed to
configure the application to operate in a secure manner in its
independent environment and did not use caution when choosing what
files to transfer and store via MOVEit, that was infiltrated by
cybercriminals. Upon information and belief, EY failed to properly
monitor its networks and systems, failed to properly implement
adequate data security practices, procedures, infrastructure, and
protocols, and failed to encrypt data, the suit says.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk
because of Defendants' alleged negligent conduct as the private
information that Defendants collected and maintained is now in the
hands of data thieves and other unauthorized third parties.
Ernst & Young Investment Advisers is a Delaware limited liability
partnership with its principal place of business located at One
Manhattan West, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
EVOLVE VACATION: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Chattopadhyay Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, grants
the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit captioned AMITABHO
CHATTOPADHYAY, Plaintiff v. EVOLVE VACATION RENTAL NETWORK, INC.,
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-06103-LB (N.D. Cal.).
In this putative class action, the Plaintiff -- who lives in the
United States but isn't a U.S. citizen -- tried to list her
California property on Defendant Evolve's online vacation-rental
platform. Evolve denied her online application because its
underwriting system is capable of supporting only U.S. and Canadian
citizens. The Plaintiff claims that this is discrimination in
violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 (based on alienage) and Cal.
Civ. Code Sections 51 and 51.5 (based on citizenship and
immigration status).
Evolve, a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business
in Colorado, moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) for
lack of personal jurisdiction and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim, generally because the Plaintiff did not
allege that she would have contracted with Evolve but for its
alleged discrimination. Evolve also moved to strike the nationwide
class allegations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) on the ground that
the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over claims by class members
outside of California.
The Court dismisses the case (with leave to amend) under Rule
12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction because the claims here
do not arise from Evolve's contacts with the forum. The Plaintiff
does not oppose the motion to strike the nationwide claims for lack
of personal jurisdiction.
Judge Beeler opines that the Plaintiff also does not plausibly
plead her discrimination claims because she does not plausibly
plead that but for the alleged discrimination, she would have
qualified to contract with Evolve. The dismissal is with leave to
amend within 28 days.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of Singapore and a legal resident of the
United States. She lives in California and owns a residential
property located in California. She does not specify where (it
apparently is in El Dorado County). On March 16, 2022, when she was
in California, she applied online to list her property on Evolve's
vacation-rental platform. The application was denied.
On Oct. 8, 2022, while in Napa County, California, the Plaintiff
applied again to list her property on Evolve's site. The
application was again denied.
The Plaintiff still wants to list her property on Evolve. The
complaint defines (1) a nationwide class of all non-U.S. and
non-Canadian citizens, who applied on Evolve's website to list
their properties and were denied on the basis of their citizenship
status, and (2) a California subclass of all non-U.S. and
non-Canadian citizens, who were in California at the time they
applied online and were denied on the basis of their citizenship
status.
The complaint has three claims of discrimination for violations of
(1) 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 (the Plaintiff and nationwide class
based on citizenship and alienage), (2) California's Unruh Act,
Cal. Civ. Code Section 51 (the Plaintiff and California subclass
based on citizenship and immigration status), and (3) Cal. Civ.
Code Section 51.5 (the Plaintiff and California subclass class
based on citizenship and immigration status).
Evolve is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Denver,
Colorado. It operates a website-based business throughout the State
of California, including in Napa County at www.evolve.com and has
been contracting with Californians and managing vacation rental
properties throughout the State of California.
Evolve directs the Company's activities from its headquarters and
principal place of business in Denver, Colorado, and did so during
the class period from Oct. 17, 2018, to the present. During that
period, it did not have any offices, employees, computer servers,
or property (owned or rented) in California, and it did not hold
any events or conferences in California for customers or for
publicity.
Judge Beeler finds that the Plaintiff has not made a prima facie
showing of personal jurisdiction, and she did not plausibly plead
her claims of discrimination.
The Plaintiff's allegations involve her unilateral application, and
her claims are based on Evolve's policy to restrict its listings to
citizens of the United States and Canada. Judge Beeler notes that
the policy is set by, and enforced from, Evolve's headquarters in
Colorado. Judge Beeler opines that that makes the case different
from parties with an established business relationship and closer
to the cases where the dispute has no connection to the state other
than the fact that the Plaintiff resides there.
And unlike the employment cases, Judge Beeler points out that there
is no relationship that creates obligations such that Evolve
availed itself of the privilege of doing business here. The claims
do not arise out of or are related to Evolve's forum-related
activity.
Hence, the Court dismisses the claims for lack of personal
jurisdiction with leave to amend.
The Plaintiff did not oppose Evolve's motion to strike the
allegations regarding the national class for lack of personal
jurisdiction. The Court strikes the nationwide class allegations
for lack of personal jurisdiction. Judge Beeler says this defect
cannot be cured on amendment.
Judge Beeler notes that the main issue here is whether the
Plaintiff pleaded sufficiently that she would have contracted with
Evolve but for the alleged discrimination. That is, the Plaintiff
must plead that but for the impermissible discrimination, she would
not have suffered the loss of a legally protected right.
Evolve asserts that the Plaintiff did not plead that she satisfies
the requirements to provide a short-term rental, including the
necessary government approvals to operate her home as a short-term
rental. It collects cases that require plaintiffs to allege facts
to show that they met the qualifications for the contract.
The Plaintiff responds that Evolve disqualified her for a
discriminatory reason and that she intended to contract with
Evolve. She does not address the cases that Evolve cites. Judge
Beeler holds that on amendment, the Plaintiff must allege at least
that she otherwise met the requirements for a short-term property
rental.
Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to dismiss with leave to
amend within twenty-eight days. Any amended complaint must attach a
blackline compare of the amended complaint against the current
complaint.
This disposes of ECF No. 15.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Sept. 21, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mrxdwv8x from PacerMonitor.com.
FARMERS INSURANCE: Order on Class Cert Bids Entered in Ruffulo
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES RUFFULO, et al., v.
FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01796-FMO-MAA
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order re
motions for class certification:
-- 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.
-- 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.
Farmers Insurance provides insurance products and services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 5, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3F8GpHX at no extra charge.[CC]
FCA US LLC: Delaware Court Narrows Claims in Diaz Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Evan J. Wallach of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Delaware grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the lawsuit styled GUSTAVO DIAZ, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. FCA US LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00906-EJW (D.
Del.).
Plaintiffs Gustavo Diaz, Joseph Santos, Christian A. Gibson, Gerald
Sinclair, Marvin Leon Veal, Brian Stone, and Michael Kissler with
the Court's leave filed their First Amended and Supplemental Class
Action Complaint ("FASC") against FCA US LLC, as buyers of new or
used rear-wheel-drive "Class Vehicles" from FCA-authorized
dealerships, and "on behalf of all persons in the United States,
and in the alternative, on behalf of all persons in the states of
California, Florida, New Jersey, and Texas who purchased or leased"
Class Vehicles, which allegedly have a "Differential Defect."
The Plaintiffs maintain California (Diaz and Santos) and Florida
(Gibson, Sinclair, and Veal) citizens from their initial Complaint,
add New Jersey (Stone) and Oklahoma (Kissler) citizens, and remove
a New York citizen (Domenick Scorziello).
"Class Vehicles" now includes: Model Year ("MY") 2015-2022 Dodge
Charger Hellcats and Dodge Challenger Hellcats equipped with the
6.2L Supercharged V8 (including Super Stocks, RedEyes, and
Jailbreaks), all 2015-2022 Dodge Challengers and Chargers equipped
with the 6.4L V8 engine (including Scat Packs and 1320's), 2018
Dodge Demons, and any variants of the aforementioned vehicles
equipped with the 6.4L or 6.2L V8 engine.
According to the Plaintiffs' FASC, Class Vehicles contain a rear
differential that is defective in design, materials, and/or
workmanship. The rear differential in the Class Vehicles all have a
common defect, which was latent, but existed at the time that the
Class Vehicles left FCA's possession and control and was present at
the time of sale or lease of the Class Vehicles. The rear
differential in the Class Vehicles is defective in its design,
workmanship, and/or materials in that, among other problems, the
rear differential is not adequately designed for the torque loads
of the engines and transmissions exerted during acceleration.
Accordingly, the high torque loads degrade the differential,
causing the rear differential and its internal components
including, but not limited to, the ring gear, pinion gear and
differential housing to fail (the "Differential Defect" or
"Defect").
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(6), FCA moves
to dismiss the FASC for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.
In its prior Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court dismissed the
Plaintiffs' Complaint "in its entirety without prejudice," Diaz v.
FCA US LLC, No. 21-cv-00906-EJW, 2022 WL 4016744, at *47 (D. Del.
Sept. 2, 2022).
The Parties fully briefed the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss a
proposed first amended complaint, but prior to the Court's
disposition of the Motion, the Plaintiffs requested leave to file
another "to supplement their allegations based on newly discovered
information" "obtained from attending Dodge's reveal of the 2023
Demon 170 [('MY2023 Demon')] on March 20, 2023, in Las Vegas,
Nevada."
After holding a status conference with the Parties, the Court
accepted the additional pleading under Rule 15(d)4 as the
denominated FASC. The Court observes that the Parties did not
request oral argument and concludes that oral argument is
unnecessary here to decide the Motion.
In light of the pleading standards, as well as the claim-specific
standards described here, the Court dismisses with prejudice the
Plaintiffs' claims grounded in fraud (Counts I, II, V, VI, VIII, X,
& XII), as the Plaintiffs fail to plausibly plead FCA's pre-sale
knowledge to allege a required element of fraud.
The Court applies Rule 9(b) to the Plaintiffs' counts relating to
common law fraud by omission or fraudulent concealment (Count I),
common law unjust enrichment (Count II), as well as the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") (Count V) and Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA") (Count VIII),
which are both consumer fraud statutes of the states where the
Plaintiffs purchased their vehicles.
The Court also applies Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading requirements
to the claim under California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL")
(Count VI), as well as to the FASC's newly added consumer fraud
statute claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("NJCFA")
(Count X) and Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("TDTPA") (Count
XII), which are all sounded in fraud here.
The Court denies the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as to the
Plaintiffs' implied warranty of merchantability claims under New
Jersey and Texas law (Counts IX & XI); however, it grants the
Motion as to the Plaintiffs' implied warranty of merchantability
claims under California and Florida law (Counts IV & VII), which
are dismissed with prejudice.
In turn, the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act claim (Count III) is
dismissed without prejudice when based on New Jersey and Texas law,
but it is dismissed with prejudice when based on California and
Florida law. The Court also dismisses with prejudice the
Plaintiffs' requested relief to compel FCA to perform a voluntary
recall according to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
("NHTSA") regulations.
The Court concludes that using state law, as the Plaintiffs are
trying to do here, to obtain declaratory-style recall relief would
create an implied preemption problem, for court ordered recalls
would interfere with the methods set up for recalls by the Safety
Act.
Thus, Judge Wallach holds, the Plaintiffs' requested relief is
dismissed with prejudice as an improper intrusion into federal
governmental operations by state law, to the extent that the
Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Defendant to perform a recall of the
Class Vehicles pursuant to applicable NHTSA guidelines.
For these reasons, Judge Wallach rules that the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss is granted-in-part and denied-in-part. The Motion to
Dismiss is granted with respect to Counts I, II, III, IV, V, VI,
VII, VIII, X, and XII, as well as to the requested relief to compel
FCA to perform a voluntary recall according to NHTSA regulations.
Counts I, II, III (as to Plaintiffs Diaz, Santos, Gibson, Sinclair,
and Veal), IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, X, and XII, as well as to the
requested relief to compel FCA to perform a voluntary recall
according to NHTSA regulations are dismissed with prejudice.
Count III (as to Plaintiffs Stone and Kissler) is dismissed without
prejudice.
The Motion to Dismiss is denied with respect to Counts IX and XI.
The Parties are ordered to confer and file a Joint Letter to the
Court proposing a schedule as to how this case should proceed. The
Court will schedule a Status Conference with the Parties after
receipt of the Joint Letter.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
Sept. 21, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5fwsvvyp from
PacerMonitor.com.
Kelly A. Green -- kgreen@skjlaw.com -- SMITH, KATZENSTEIN &
JENKINS, LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware; Russell D. Paul --
rpaul@bm.net -- Amey J. Park -- apark@bm.net -- Abigail J. Gertner
-- agertner@bm.net -- Natalie Lesser -- nlesser@bm.net -- BERGER
MONTAGUE PC, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Tarek H. Zohdy --
tarek.zohdy@capstonelawyers.com -- Cody R. Padgett --
cody.padgett@capstonelawyers.com -- Laura E. Goolsby --
laura.goolsby@capstonelawyers.com -- CAPSTONE LAW APC, in Los
Angeles, California; Steven Calamusa -- scalamusa@fortheinjured.com
-- Geoffrey Stahl -- gstahl@fortheinjured.com -- Rachel Bentley --
rbentley@fortheinjured.com -- GORDON & PARTNERS, P.A., in Palm
Beach Gardens, Florida, Counsel for the Plaintiffs.
Patrick M. Brannigan -- pbrannigan@eckertseamans.com -- Jessica L.
Reno -- jreno@eckertseamans.com -- ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT
LLC, in Wilmington, Delaware; Stephen A. D'Aunoy --
sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thomas L. Azar --
tazar@thompsoncoburn.com -- Scott H. Morgan --
smorgan@thompsoncoburn.com -- THOMPSON COBURN LLP, in St. Louis,
Missouri, Counsel for the Defendant.
FLIFF INC: Nessim Suit Seeks Provisional Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BISHOY NESSIM,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v.
FLIFF, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-01048-SSS-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting provisional
class certification and preliminary injunction.
Fliff is a play-for-fun social sports betting platform with
promotional games and loyalty rewards.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 4, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rGEmaV at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
Abou B. Amara, Jr., Esq.
Dennis Stewart, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
aamara@gustafsongluek.com
dstewart@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Simon Bahne Paris, Esq.
Patrick Howard, Esq.
SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, & BENDESKY, P.C.
One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor
1650 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 575-3986
E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
phoward@smbb.com
- and -
Conrad B. Stephens, Esq.
STEPHENS AND STEPHENS
518 East Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 93454
Telephone: (805) 922-1951
E-mail: conrad@stephensfirm.com
FORD MOTOR: E.D. Michigan Dismisses Diaz Suit Over Bushing Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge George Caram Steeh of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, grants the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the lawsuit captioned SERGIO DIAZ and RETHA
CONNERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-10029-GCS-EAS (E.D. Mich.).
The Plaintiffs have brought this putative class action against Ford
Motor Company, alleging breach of implied warranty, fraud, and
other claims based upon a safety defect in their Ford vehicles. The
defect is the subject of a voluntary recall. As a result of the
recall, and the Plaintiffs' inability to demonstrate that they
suffered an injury in fact, the Court concludes that the complaint
must be dismissed on standing and mootness grounds.
Plaintiffs Sergio Diaz and Retha Conners own vehicles manufactured
by Ford that they allege contain defective parts. Diaz owns a 2017
Escape and Conners owns a 2014 Escape. Both vehicles are equipped
with defective shift cable bushings, the component that connects a
vehicle's transmission and gear shift. These bushings degrade and
detach over time, allowing the vehicle to slip out of the intended
gear, causing rollaways or other unintended movement. The defective
bushings are identified as Hilex (Hytrel 4556) Shift Bushings.
As a result of the bushing defect, Ford issued a safety recall of
2013-2014 Ford Escape and 2013-2016 Ford Fusion models in 2018.
Since then, Ford has issued four additional recalls, most recently
in June 2022, encompassing nearly 3 million vehicles. The vehicles
affected by the recalls are the following models: 2013-2019 Ford
Escape, 2013-2016 Ford Fusion, 2013-2018 Ford C-Max, 2013-2021 Ford
Transit Connect, and 2015-2018 Ford Edge.
With respect to the 2018 recall, Ford described the problem as
stemming from a certain lubricant and contaminant: "For Fusion and
Escape vehicles built between May 15, 2013 and September 15, 2013,
the supplier applied a lubricant to the bushing that attaches the
shifter cable to the 6F35 transmission during the supplier
component process that, over time, may cause the bushing to
degrade." "For Fusion vehicles built between June 2, 2014 and
August 31, 2015, a contaminant has been identified on bushings
analyzed by Ford. This population is exhibiting an elevated rate of
bushing degradation due to the source of this contamination."
Ford offered to replace the bushings with new bushings "produced
free of known contaminants from a material that is more robust."
The 2022 recall safety report describes a similar bushing defect
but states that the root cause is unknown. Based on Ford's root
cause investigation, heat and humidity have the potential to
contribute to the hydrological breakdown of the bushing material.
Ford has offered to replace the defective bushings with shift
bushings that are manufactured from a different grade material with
a heat stabilizer. Additionally, a cap will be installed over the
shift bushing for protection against contaminants. Ford also
offered to reimburse owners for repairs previously made to fix the
defect.
The Plaintiffs assert that Ford does not know whether the cap fixes
the Bushing Defect, and, on information and belief, the replacement
bushings do not remedy the Bushing Defect. Indeed, owners have
reported that the replacement bushings disintegrated within three
years.
Plaintiff Diaz leased a new 2017 Ford Escape from Sayville Ford in
Sayville, New York, in 2017. Upon expiration of the lease in 2020,
Diaz purchased the vehicle from Sayville Ford, an authorized Ford
dealer. He alleges that, as a result of the bushing defect, he did
not receive the benefit of his bargain and that the value of his
vehicle has been diminished. Diaz does not state whether he has
presented his vehicle for repair, but he asserts that he does not
accept that the replacement Defective Bushings and remedies
provided in Ford's recalls provide a bona fide fix for the Bushing
Defect.
Plaintiff Connors makes similar allegations, with respect to a 2014
Ford Escape she purchased in 2017 from Rock Road Auto Plaza in St.
Louis, Missouri. Neither Plaintiff alleges that the bushing defect
has manifested in his or her vehicle.
The Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of affected
vehicle owners, alleging claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act and state law. Ford seeks dismissal of the Plaintiffs'
complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and
(6).
Ford alleges that the Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue their
claims. Ford contends that they have failed to allege an injury
because the bushing defect has not manifested in their vehicles.
However, Judge Steeh opines, the Plaintiffs need not necessarily
plead the manifestation of the defect in order to establish an
injury. The Plaintiffs allege that Ford concealed the defect, which
diminished the value of their vehicles, and had they known their
vehicles contained a defective part they would have paid less or
not purchased them at all. In general, such allegations establish
an economic injury for Article III standing purposes, Judge Steeh
points out.
As the complaint acknowledges, however, Ford has offered to replace
the defective bushings with new bushings made of a different
material. In light of the availability of this remedy, and the fact
that the defect has not manifested in their vehicles, Judge Steeh
says it is not clear how the Plaintiffs have been injured.
Although the Plaintiffs contend that they were injured by
overpaying for their vehicles at the point of sale, Judge Steeh
finds that they do not plausibly allege that such diminished value
will persist after the defective bushings are replaced by
Ford.
The Plaintiffs claim that because Ford has not precisely diagnosed
the root cause of the problem, its solution is "ineffective." They
allege no factual basis, however, for the proposition that the new
bushings supplied by Ford are defective, prone to degrading, or
will otherwise fail to fix the problem, Judge Steeh opines.
The Plaintiffs' assertion that the defect will remain after the
recall repairs are completed is conclusory and speculative, Judge
Steeh holds.
If the Plaintiffs actually alleged that they suffered such damages,
they would have concrete injuries that could provide a basis for
standing, Judge Steeh says. And they have not plausibly alleged
that the diminished value will remain after the repairs are
completed. Accordingly, the Court finds that the named Plaintiffs
lack standing to assert a claim for damages.
The Plaintiffs also seek appropriate injunctive and/or declaratory
relief, including an order that requires the Defendant to repair
the Class Vehicles and to extend the applicable warranties to a
reasonable period of time, or, at a minimum, to provide the
Plaintiffs and Class members with appropriate curative notice
regarding the existence and cause of the Bushing Defect.
To the extent the Plaintiffs have standing to request such relief,
the Court finds their request to be moot. To the extent that Ford's
promise to remedy the bushing defect does not render the
Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and declaratory relief moot as a
constitutional matter, the Court would find them moot under the
doctrine of prudential mootness, a "cousin" to Article III
mootness.
Here, Judge Steeh finds the Plaintiffs have not alleged a
cognizable danger that that the NHTSA recall process will fail to
provide them with complete relief. At most, they have raised the
"mere possibility" that the new bushings supplied by Ford will not
address the problem or that NTHSA will abdicate its duty to
properly supervise the recall process.
In light of the recall, Judge Steeh says there is nothing left for
the Court to order Ford to do with respect to the Plaintiffs'
claims for injunctive and declaratory relief.
Accordingly, based upon the Plaintiffs' lack of standing and
mootness, Judge Steeh grants Defendant's motion to dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Sept. 21,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mryn3fbc from
PacerMonitor.com.
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Bailey Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Genworth Financial,
Inc. The case is styled as Keith Bailey, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated v. Genworth Financial, Inc., Case No.
3:23-cv-00627-RCY (E.D. Va., Oct. 2, 2023).
The nature of suit is state as Other P.I. for Breach of Fiduciary
Duty.
Genworth Financial -- http://www.genworth.com/-- provides life
insurance, long-term care insurance, mortgage insurance, and
annuities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Jermone Funk, Esq.
Wyatt B. Durrette, Jr., Esq.
DURRETTE ARKEMA GERSON & GILL PC
1111 East Main Street, 16th Floor
Richmond, VA 23219
Phone: (804) 775-6900
Email: kfunk@dagglaw.com
wdurrette@dagglaw.com
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Coyle Balks at Deceptive Sale of Decongestants
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN COYLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. (f/k/a
McNeil-PPC, Inc.); KENVUE INC.; and RECKITT BENCKISER LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-07311 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 29, 2023)
alleges that the Defendants have violated the consumer protection
and implied warranty laws of various states, including the State of
New York, with regards to the deceptive marketing and sale of
products containing phenylephrine for nasal congestion treatment.
Allegedly, the Defendants expressly and impliedly represented and
warranted to the Plaintiff, the Proposed Class/Subclasses and/or
the public that their oral phenylephrine-containing products were
safe and of merchantable quality and fit for the ordinary purpose
for which said products were to be used.
Headquartered in New Jersey, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies,
Inc. engages in the business of manufacturing, marketing, testing,
promoting, selling, and/or distributing certain oral
phenylephrine-containing products, including but not limited to,
Tylenol, Sudafed and Benadryl. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary J. Douglas, Esq.
Michael A. London, Esq.
Virginia E. Anello, Esq.
Anne E. Accettella, Esq.
DOUGLAS & LONDON, P.C.
59 Maiden Lane, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 566-7500
Facsimile: (212) 566-7501
E-mail: gdouglas@douglasandlondon.com
mlondon@douglasandlondon.com
vanello@douglasandlondon.com
aaccettella@douglasandlondon.com
GOOD FAT: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Extended to Dec. 15
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL RYAN and MICHELLE
PIMENTEL individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. THE GOOD FAT CO. LTD., Case No. 3:22-cv-03391-VC (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an amended scheduling
order as follows:
Event Current New
Deadline Deadline
Close of Fact Discovery due Nov. 1, 2023 Dec. 15, 2023
Motion for Class Certification Dec. 15, 2023 Jan. 30, 2024
and Class Certification Expert
Disclosures due
Opposition Briefs and Class Feb. 15, 2024 Mar. 29,
2024
Certification Rebuttal Expert
Disclosures due
Reply Briefs and Class Mar. 1, 2024 Apr. 16,
2024
Certification Expert Discovery
Cutoff due
Motion for Class Mar. 21, 2024 May 16,
2024
Certification Hearing
Joint Case Management Mar. 29, 2024 May 31, 2024
Statement due
Further Case Management Apr. 5, 2024 June 7, 2024
Good Fat provides nutrition products with healthy natural fats.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Q2FGhA at no extra charge.[CC]
GRAND CANYON UNIV: Hannibal-Fisher Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Seth Hannibal-Fisher, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's September 13, 2023 Order entered in the lawsuit
styled Seth Hannibal-Fisher, et al. v. Grand Canyon University,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01007-SMB, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona, Phoenix.
On May 22, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint
against GCU alleging that the university failed to provide proper
refunds of on-campus tuition, fees, and room and board costs after
GCU cancelled in-person courses in response to the COVID-19
pandemic.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge
Susan Brnovich entered an order on September 13, 2023 denying the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class
counsel.
According to the ruling, the claim concerns individual students
that each paid differing amounts of tuition to GCU. Similarly,
precise damages will need to be calculated individually and an
analysis of each individual plaintiff's circumstance will have to
be conducted, thereby making the claims unsuitable to class
certification. Each of these claims will turn on individual facts
that would overwhelm questions common to the putative class.
Accordingly, the predominance element is also not met for the money
had and received claim. The Court found that because both claims
fail the predominance inquiry of Rule 23(b)(3), the class cannot be
certified.
The appellate case is captioned as Seth Hannibal-Fisher, et al. v.
Grand Canyon University, Case No. 23-80081, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on September 27,
2023.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners SETH HANNIBAL-FISHER and DAVID TRAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Gerald Barrett, Esq.
WARD, KEENAN & BARRETT, P.C.
3838 North Central Avenue, Suite 1720
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Telephone: (602) 252-5606
- and -
Clifford Phillip Bendau, II, Esq.
THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC
P.O. Box 97066
Phoenix, AZ 85060
Telephone: (480) 382-5176
- and -
Jae Kook Kim, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
117 E Colorado Boulevard, Suite 600
Pasadena, CA 91105
Telephone: (626) 550-1250
- and -
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LTD
PNC Park
115 Federal Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
- and -
Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
Miami, FL 10019
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Defendant-Respondent GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY, a domestic nonprofit
corporation, is represented by:
Sean P. Healy, Esq.
Kathryn Honecker, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
2929 N Central Avenue, Suite 1700
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Telephone: (602) 385-1040
- and -
Jon P. Kardassakis, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
633 W 5th Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 250-1800
HOME PARTNERS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 4
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK RICHMOND, MICHAEL
MCDERMOTT and KELLEY MCDERMOTT, each individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. HOME PARTNERS HOLDINGS LLC, HP
WASHINGTON I LLC, HPA BORROWER 2017-1 LLC, and OPVHHJV LLC, d/b/a
PATHLIGHT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, Case No. 3:22-cv-05704-DGE (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge David G. Estudillo entered an order granting
extension of deadlines and briefing schedule:
-- Depositions needed for the filing of Nov. 8, 2023
Plaintiffs' class certification motion
and Defendants' Summary Judgment motion
on Plaintiffs' individual claims shall
be completed by:
-- The Plaintiffs shall file their Motion for Dec. 4, 2023
Class Certification by:
-- The Defendants shall file any opposition Jan. 12, 2024
to the Motion for Class Certification by:
-- The Plaintiffs shall file any Reply in Feb. 2, 2024
Support of the Motion for Class
Certification by:
-- The Defendants shall file their Motion Dec. 18, 2023
for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs'
individual claims by:
-- The Plaintiffs shall file any opposition Jan. 22, 2024
to the Motion for Summary Judgment by:
-- The Defendants shall file any Reply in Feb. 12, 2024
Support of the Motion for Summary
Judgment by:
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LN99K4 at no extra charge.[CC]
HOSPITAL SISTERS: Bid Certify Classes Due July 12, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATALIE BRAHM, v. HOSPITAL
SISTERS HEALTH SYSTEMS, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00444-wmc (W.D.
Wis.), the Hon. Judge Stephen L. Crocker entered a preliminary
pretrial conference order.
1. Amendments to the pleadings: By leave of court
2. Disclosure of all experts: To be determined by
the
Parties
3. Motion & Brief To Certify Classes: July 12, 2024
Responses: Aug. 23, 2024
Replies: Sept. 13, 2024
4. Deadline for filing dispositive March 7, 2025
and Daubert motions:
5. Settlement Letters: July 18, 2025
6. Discovery Cutoff: July 18, 2025
7. Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures and July 25, 2025
all motions in limine:
Objections: Aug. 15, 2025
8. First Final Pretrial Conference: Aug. 26, 2025
Hospital Sisters operates a network of 15 hospitals and other
healthcare facilities throughout the midwestern U.S. states of
Illinois, and Wisconsin.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 4, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46xAMyw at no extra charge.[CC]
IQVIA INC: Class Cert. Hearing Scheduled for Nov. 30
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN J. LYNGAAS, D.D.S.,
P.L.L.C., v. IQVIA, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-02370-NIQA (E.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro entered an order that a
hearing on Plaintiff's motions for class certification is scheduled
for November 30, 2023.
IQVIA is an American multinational company serving the combined
industries of health information technology and clinical research.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3S3GwfN at no extra charge.[CC]
IT'S JUST LUNCH: Vrugtman Appeals Ruling in Fraud Suit to 9th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Rosanne Vrugtman, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's August 25, 2023 Order entered in the lawsuit
styled Rosanne Vrugtman, et al. v. It's Just Lunch International
LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-02352-JGB-SP, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Riverside.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit,
filed on November 11, 2020, arises from the Defendant's violation
of California's consumer protection statutes and common law claims
of fraudulent inducement and fraud.
The Defendant positions itself as a premier dating service,
offering to connect individuals interested in romantic
relationships. On its Website, the Defendant claims to have a
process of "6 easy steps" to match members. IJL claims its service
utilizes a "signature matchmaking process" that the Company has
"fine-tuned over the past 29 years."
According to the complaint, the Defendant continues to engage in
false claims that its highly trained experts offer personalized,
sophisticated, and thoughtful matchmaking services. The Defendant
fraudulently induces single professionals, especially women, into
contracts by promising them that it has multiple matches in its
database. The Defendant's members including the Plaintiffs pay
thousands of dollars for its services only to discover that the
Company either selects matches at random or that it lies about
having other members in their region.
On August 25, 2023, Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered an Order: (1)
DENYING Plaintiffs' April 17, 2023 Application to Seal; (2) DENYING
Plaintiffs' April 17, 2023 Motion for Class Certification; (3)
GRANTING Defendant's May 4, 2023 Application to Seal; (4) GRANTING
Defendant's May 15, 2023 Motion for Summary Judgment; (5) GRANTING
Defendant's May 17, 2023 Application to Seal; and (6) VACATING a
September 11, 2023 Hearing. The Plaintiffs' leave to file a third
amended complaint was also DENIED.
The appellate case is captioned as Rosanne Vrugtman, et al. v. It's
Just Lunch International, LLC, et al., Case No. 23-55809, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on
September 26, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants Tammy Gillingwater, Nicole Kruzick and Rosanne
Vrugtman Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 3, 2023;
-- Appellants Tammy Gillingwater, Nicole Kruzick and Rosanne
Vrugtman opening brief is due on November 24, 2023;
-- Appellees IJL Canada, Inc., IJL US, LLC and It's Just Lunch
International, LLC answering brief is due on December 26, 2023;
and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants ROSANNE VRUGTMAN, et al., individually, and
for all others similarly situated, are represented by:
John G. Balestriere, Esq.
BALESTRIERE FARIELLO
225 Broadway
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 374-5401
- and -
Anastasia Mazzella, Esq.
KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP
633 West Fifth Street, Suite 3200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 217-5000
Defendant-Appellee IT'S JUST LUNCH INTERNATIONAL, LLC is
represented by:
William Brown, Jr., Esq.
Matthew K. Wegner, Esq.
BROWN WEGNER LLP
2010 Main Street, Suite 1260
Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone: (949) 705-0080
JAMES LEBLANC: Humphrey Bid to Strike Class Cert Exhibit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN HUMPHREY, ET AL., V.
JAMES LEBLANC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00233-JWD-SDJ (M.D. La.), the Hon.
Judge John W. deGravelles entered an order denying the Motion to
Strike/Exclude Exhibit Offered by Plaintiffs in their Reply in
Support of Motion for Class Certification.
The Plaintiff Humphrey filed this suit on April 15, 2009, asserting
class action allegations and seeking monetary damages related to
Defendant's alleged overdetention of him and others similarly
situated.
The Plaintiffs Giroir and White were later added as named
Plaintiffs.
In Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, the Plaintiffs
define their proposed class as follows:
"All persons who have been remanded to the custody of the DOC
since April 16, 2019, and who were entitled to release at the
time
of the remand (either pursuant to sentencing or parole
revocation),
but who were released by DOC more than 48 hours past the time
they
were remanded to the DOC's custody."
James LeBlanc is the Secretary of the Louisiana Department of
Public Safety and Corrections and the Louisiana Department of
Public Safety and Corrections.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 4, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48Doc2F at no extra charge.[CC]
JAMES LEBLANC: Wins Bid To Strike Certain Evidence in Humprey Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN HUMPHREY, ET AL., V.
JAMES LEBLANC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00233-JWD-SDJ (M.D. La.), the Hon.
Judge John W. Degravelles entered an order granting the Defendant's
motion to strike / exclude certain Evidence offered by the
Plaintiffs in support motion for class certification.
To the extent that Plaintiffs have not yet submitted the entire
deposition transcripts of the proffered depositions, they are
ordered to do so within seven days. In all other respects, the
Defendant's Motion is denied.
The Court finds that this document is not properly authenticated.
While Plaintiffs argue that this is "DOC's own 2019 grant
application to the U.S. Department of Justice," this is not
apparent anywhere on the document.
The Plaintiff Humphrey filed this suit on April 15, 2020, asserting
class action allegations and seeking monetary damages related to
Defendant’s alleged over-detention of him and others similarly
situated.
In Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, Plaintiffs define
their proposed class as follows:
"All persons who have been remanded to the custody of the DOC
since April 16. 2019, and who were entitled to release at the
time
of their remand (either pursuant to sentencing or parole
revocation), but who were released by the DOC more than 48 hours
past the time they were remanded to the DOC’s custody.
James LeBlanc is the Secretary of the Louisiana Department of
Public Safety and Corrections and the Louisiana Department of
Public Safety and Corrections.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 4, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LOkFVF at no extra charge.[CC]
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Ward Sues Over Decongestants' False Ads
----------------------------------------------------------
JOHN JEFFREY WARD, an individual; RUTA TAITO, an individual; and
KAREN SCHWARTZ, an individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., KENVUE, INC., and MCNEIL CONSUMER
HEALTHCARE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-20818 (D.N.J., Sept.
29, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs arising out
of the Defendants' alleged false and misleading advertising of its
oral phenylephrine (PE) products and alleging claims against the
Defendants for breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, and for violations of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
Each of the oral PE Products at issue in Defendants' cold relief
product lines, through their labeling and packaging, and through
Defendants' other advertising and marketing materials, communicate
the same substantive message to consumers: that oral PE Products
provide meaningful nasal congestive relief health benefits.
However, these representations are designed to induce consumers to
believe that Defendants' oral PE Products are capable of providing
meaningful nasal congestion relief, says the suit.
Numerous well designed and well conducted scientific studies have
been conducted on the effects and efficacy of oral PE Products.
These studies have demonstrated that oral PE Products are
ineffective in providing relief of nasal congestion because
PE is too rapidly metabolized by individuals, which does not allow
it to reach the nostrils in time to provide relief. The
Accordingly, Defendants’ nasal decongestion relief health
representations are false, misleading, and deceptive, and its oral
PE Products are worthless. Indeed, On September 12, 2023, a U.S.
Food and Drug Administration advisory panel agreed, voting
unanimously (16-0) that oral PE products are not effective as a
nasal decongestant. Despite knowing this information, the
Defendants continued to market its oral PE Products as providing
nasal congestion relief health benefits, a knowingly false and
misleading statement upon which consumers, including Plaintiffs and
class members, relied upon in purchasing Defendants' oral PE
Products, the suit asserts.
Headquartered in New Jersey, Johnson & Johnson engages in research
and development, manufacturing, and sales of a broad range of
products in the health care field, including oral SUDAFED PE
Products. The company is a global leader in the health care market
with sales of over $95 billion last year. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
Scott G. Braden,Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1234 Camino del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (619) 762-1910
Facsimile: (724) 656-1556
E-mail: todd@lcllp.com
scott@lcllp.com
- and -
Katrina Carroll, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 750-1265
E-mail: katrina@lcllp.com
- and -
Gary Lynch, Esq.
Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
Patrick Donathen, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
kelly@lcllp.com
Patrick@lcllp.com
LITIGATION PRACTICE: Beech Files Class Cert Reply
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROLYN BEECH, on behalf
of herself and the class members described below, v. THE LITIGATION
PRACTICE GROUP, PC; TONY M. DIAB; DANIEL MARSH; VALIDATION
PARTNERS, LLC; RUSS SQUIRES; WES THOMAS; VULCAN CONSULTING GROUP
LLC; JAYDE TRINH; OAKSTONE LAW GROUP PC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00057-HSO-BWR (S.D. Miss.), the Plaintiff submits reply in
support of her Motion for Class Certification with Respect to
Defendants Other Than the Litigation Practice Group, PC
On September 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Class
Certification and memorandum of law in support. Per Local Rule 7,
Defendants responses were to be filed on or before September 26,
2023. As of the date of this filing, no Defendant has filed a
response.
Litigation Practice is a legal firm that deals with bankruptcy,
civil litigation, harassment, and commercial litigation cases.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 4, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZN34Dk at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Graeber, Esq.
JASON GRAEBER LAW OFFICE
250 Beauvoir Road, Suite 4C
Biloxi, MS 39501
Telephone: (228) 207-7117
E-mail: jason@jasongraeberlaw.com
- and -
Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
Matthew J. Goldstein, Esq.
EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60603-1824
Telephone: (312) 739-4200
Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com
LONGNECKER PROPERTIES: Baker Suit Moved to E.D. Louisiana
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MALCOLM BAKER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LONGNECKER
PROPERTIES, INC., D/B/A LONGNECKER RIGGING, Defendant, Case No.
5:23-cv-01022, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana on October 2, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-05601 to the
proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Greg Gerard
Guidry, and referred to Magistrate Michael North.
LONGNECKER PROPERTIES, INC., D/B/A LONGNECKER RIGGING is a
multi-discipline consulting company furnishing oil & gas
consultants thru-out the industry. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
Wage and Hour Firm
5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75254
Telephone: (214) 489-7653
Facsimile: (469) 319-0317
Email: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com
rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kindall C. James, Esq.
LISKOW & LEWIS
Telephone: (713) 651-2945
E-mail: kjames@liskow.com
MAESTRO CONSULTING: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due June 3, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Roberson, et al., v.
Maestro Consulting Services LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00895
(S.D. Ill., Filed Sept. 2, 2020), the Hon. Judge Nancy J.
Rosenstengel entered an order adopting joint stipulation to extend
deadlines for class certification discovery and briefing.
-- The Defendants' class certification May 1, 2024
depositions, if requested, shall be
taken by:
-- The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class June 3,
2024
Certification and Memorandum in
Support shall be filed by:
-- The Plaintiffs' reply to Defendants July 19,
2024
Response, if any, shall be filed by:
The suit involves labor related violations.[CC]
MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Faces Armstrong Suit Over Securities Law Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER ARMSTRONG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDICAL PROPERTIES TRUST, INC.,
EDWARD K. ALDAG, JR., R. STEVEN HAMNER, and J. KEVIN HANNA,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-08597 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 29, 2023) seeks
to recover damages by the Defendants’ violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.
The Plaintiff and other class members have suffered significant
losses and damages as a result of wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities. The Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Recap Transaction was
subject to regulatory approval and had in fact been placed on hold
by the Department of Managed Health Care of the Health and Human
Services Agency of the State of California; (ii) accordingly, MPW
had misrepresented the regulatory process for the Recap
Transaction's approval; (iii) as a result of the foregoing, MPW
overstated the approval prospects and benefits of the Recap
Transaction, says the suit.
MPW is a Maryland corporation with principal executive offices
located in Birmingham, AL. MPW's common stock trades in an
efficient market on the NYSE under the ticker symbol "MPW". MPW is
a self-advised REIT that was formed to acquire and develop
net-leased healthcare facilities. MPW's financing model purportedly
facilitates acquisitions and recapitalizations and allows operators
of hospitals to unlock the value of their real estate assets to
fund facility improvements, technology upgrades, and other
investments in operations. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com
- and -
Joshua E. Fruchter, Esq.
WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP
25 Robert Pitt Drive, Suite 209G
Monsey, NY 10952
Telephone: (845) 290-6818
Facsimile: (718) 504-3773
E-mail: jfruchter@wohlfruchter.com
MOHAMMAD REZA: Lalabekyan Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GAYANE LALABEKYAN,
individually and on behalf of the putative class, v. MOHAMMAD REZA
VAZIRI, Case No. 1:23-cv-01994-JMC (D.D.C.), Lalabekyan asks the
Court to enter an order granting her motion for an extension of
time to file a motion for class certification generally, pending
discovery in this matter and to a date determined in the Initial
Scheduling Conference Order.
The Plaintiff seeks an extension of time because the putative class
is currently in the middle of mass forced displacement from their
homes in the Republic of Artsakh.
The displacement arises following a lightning military offensive on
September 19, 2023, by the Republic of Azerbaijan. After a 10 month
blockade of humanitarian and commercial goods to the region,
Azerbaijan conducted an operation against the Republic of Artsakh
by way of military incursion, bombing, shelling and other actions
aimed at the destruction of the life, safety and property of the
120,000 putative class members in the Republic of Artsakh.
On July 11, 2023, the Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant
Vaziri alleging claims on her own behalf and on behalf of the
putative class. The Complaint alleges claims for (1) aiding and
abetting false imprisonment; (2) aiding and abetting intentional
infliction of emotional distress; and (3) aiding and abetting
violations of the Torture Victims Protections Act.
Reza Vaziri is President/CEO at Anglo Asian Mining PLC.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 4, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46jX86X at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Karnig S. Kerkonian, Esq.
Elizabeth M. Al-Dajani, Esq.
KERKONIAN DAJANI LLP
1555 Sherman Avenue, Suite 344
Evanston, IL 60201
Telephone: (312) 416-6180
Facsimile: (312) 604-7815
E-mail: kkerkonian@kerkoniandajani.com
ealdajani@kerkoniandajani.com
- and -
Aram Ordubegian, Esq.
ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP
1717 K Street NW
Washington, DC 2006
Telephone: (202) 857-6000
Facsimile: (202) 857-6395
E-mail: aram.ordubegian@afslaw.com
NEW ENGLAND BIOLABS: Faces Jackson Suit Alleging Fiduciary Breaches
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA JACKSON, Plaintiff v. NEW ENGLAND BIOLABS, INC., PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF DONALD COMB, JAMES V. ELLARD, RICHARD IRELAND,
COMMITTEE OF NEW ENGLAND BIOLABS, INC. EMPLOYEES' STOCK OWNERSHIP
PLAN, Defendants, and NEW ENGLAND BIOLABS, INC. NON-VOTING STOCK
OWNERSHIP PLAN, Nominal Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-12208 (D.
Mass., Sept. 26, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, on behalf of a
Class and Subclass of certain former employee participants (and
their beneficiaries) in the New England Biolabs, Inc. Employees'
Stock Ownership Plan & Trust, which in 2021 was renamed the New
England Biolabs, Inc. Non-Voting Stock Ownership Plan.
This suit arises from (1) the adoption and implementation of a 2019
Amendment to the Plan that eliminated the right of participants who
are former employees to hold New England Biolabs, Inc. (NEB) stock
in the Plan, and (2) the liquidation of NEB stock in the Plan at
share prices that were less than fair market value.
According to the complaint, the fiduciaries of the Plan had a duty
to assure that participants received fair market value for their
NEB stock when their shares were liquidated. But, in practice, the
fiduciaries of the Plan did little to nothing to ensure that
participants received fair market value. Because of this lack of
oversight, the valuation that served as the basis for establishing
the price at which NEB shares were liquidated (and purchased by
NEB) contained many errors that resulted in participants receiving
less than fair market value for their shares. As a result of
Defendants' breaches and violations, Plaintiffs and the Class
received less than the fair market value of the NEB stock in their
Plan accounts, says the suit.
Additionally, until the 2019 Amendment to the Plan, the written
instrument of the Plan provided that all former employees had the
right to remain as participants in the ESOP and continue to hold
NEB stock in their Plan accounts after they terminated or retired,
at least until age 65. As a result, Plaintiff and the Subclass were
divested of the right to continue to hold NEB stock in their Plan
accounts. Due to Defendants' breaches and violations of ERISA,
Plaintiff and the Subclass have also missed the continued
appreciation in value of NEB stock, the suit asserts.
Plaintiff Jackson was employed by New England Biolabs, Inc. from
April 15, 1994, until September 27, 2019. She contends that she is
a participant of the Plan under ERISA and has a colorable claim for
additional benefits because of the fiduciary breaches and
violations that improperly valued her NEB shares and liquidated her
NEB shares before distribution.
New England Biolabs, Inc. operates as a biotech company. NEB is and
has been since the inception of the Plan, the Sponsor of the Plan,
the designated Plan Administrator of the Plan, and a named
fiduciary of the Plan under ERISA.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Feigenbaum, Esq.
184 High Street Suite 503
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 357-9700
Facsimile: (617) 227-2843
E-mail: jonathan@erisaattorneys.com
- and -
R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
Colin M. Downes, Esq.
BARTON & DOWNES LLP
1633 Connecticut Ave. NW Ste. 200
Washington, DC 20009
Telephone: (202) 734-7046
E-mail: jbarton@bartondownes.com
colin@bartondownes.com
NEW YORK ENVIRONMENTAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bunay Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
GERMAN BUNAY; and EDWARD GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NEW YORK ENVIRONMENTAL
SYSTEMS, INC.; AWL INDUSTRIES, INC.; ROBERT PAVLOVICH; and RALPH
SEVERINO, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-07355 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 2,
2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as staff.
NEW YORK ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS, INC. provides full spectrum
environmental remediation and abatement services and HVAC systems
cleaning across New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Katherine Morales, Esq.
KATZ MELINGER PLLC
370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 460-0047
Facsimile: (212) 428-6811
Email: kymorales@katzmelinger.com
NEW YORK, NY: Court Enters Class Cert Scheduling Order
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELISA W., et al., v. THE
CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-05273-KMW-SLC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kimba M. Wood entered a class
certification scheduling order as follows:
1. The Defendants' submissions are due by: Oct. 30, 2023
2. The Plaintiffs' submissions are due by: Nov. 13, 2023
3. Further discovery shall await the Court's
ruling on Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for
Class Certification
New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RMpliu at no extra charge.[CC]
NORTH CAROLINA: Summary Judgment Bid in Guill v. Allen OK'd in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas D. Schroeder of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina grants in part the Judicial Defendants'
motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit titled KATHERINE GUILL,
on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
BRADLEY R. ALLEN, SR., in his official capacity as Chief District
Court Judge, BRENDA BROWN, KELLY COUNCILMAN, DAVID CRABBE,
DEMETRIUS-JEFFERY EDWARDS, BERTRAM HEATHCOTE, WENDY HUNTER, AMELIA
KNAUFF, BOBBIE NANCE, HELENA RODGERS, KIMESHA THORPE, JOHN
WATTERSON, SUSAN WORTINGER, in their official capacity as
magistrates of the Alamance County District Court, D. THOMAS
LAMBETH, JR., in his official capacity as Senior Resident Superior
Court Judge, and, TERRY S. JOHNSON, in his official capacity as
Alamance County Sheriff, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01126-TDS-LPA
(M.D.N.C.).
The case involves constitutional challenges to the pre-trial
hearing process in criminal cases in Alamance County, North
Carolina. Plaintiff Katherine Guill, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, filed this class action against numerous
defendants in their official capacity as magistrates and judges in
Alamance County (collectively the "Judicial Defendants"), as well
as the Alamance County Sheriff Terry S. Johnson.
The Plaintiffs claim violations of their Fourteenth and Sixth
Amendment rights. Before the Court are cross-motions for summary
judgment on which the Court heard argument on March 3, 2023.
For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the
Court dismisses as moot Counts I, II, and III, which challenge the
County's pretrial procedures under the Fourteenth Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution, given that the County abandoned its 1995 policy
for bail determinations over three years ago in favor of a
substantially different policy that provides virtually all the
relief the Plaintiffs request, and the Court denies the parties'
cross-motions for summary judgment as to Count IV, which challenges
the County's pretrial procedures under the Sixth Amendment's right
to counsel.
The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 12, 2019, accompanied by a motion to
certify a class of "All people who are arrested and charged with
non-domestic violence offenses who are or will be detained in the
Alamance County Detention Center because they are unable to pay
monetary conditions of pretrial release."
The Plaintiffs also moved for a temporary restraining order and a
preliminary injunction. The complaint challenges the pretrial
procedures of Alamance County as set out in the 1995 Policy, a copy
of which is attached to the complaint. The case was initially
assigned to Judge N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.
Count I of the complaint alleges that the Defendants, by enforcing
a policy and practice that jails individuals without regard to
their ability to pay, violate the Plaintiffs' equal protection and
due process rights pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment as
actionable under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Count II alleges that the
Defendants, by denying pretrial detainees their fundamental liberty
interest in a manner not narrowly tailored and by failing to
consider non-wealth-based detention factors, violate the
Plaintiffs' substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment pursuant to Section 1983.
Count III alleges that the Defendants' "total lack of procedures"
for pretrial detention violate the Fourteenth Amendment's due
process guarantees enforceable through Section 1983. Finally, Count
IV alleges that the Defendants, by not providing counsel for bail
determinations, violate the Plaintiffs' Sixth Amendment right to
counsel, pursuant to Section 1983.
On Nov. 14, 2019, the Court denied the motion for a temporary
restraining order and scheduled a hearing on the motion for
preliminary injunction for Dec. 2, 2019, which was continued to
March 16, 2020, by consent of the parties. The case was stayed on
March 3, 2020, until April 30, 2020.
On May 1, 2020, the parties filed a joint motion to "approve
consent order for preliminary injunction," which the Court granted
on May 8, 2020. On Oct. 19, 2021, the Plaintiffs moved to enforce
the preliminary injunction on the ground that funds for contract
counsel at first appearances would not be renewed by the North
Carolina Office of Indigent Defense Services.
On Oct. 25, 2021, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class and defined the class as follows: "All people who
are arrested and charged with non-domestic violence offenses who
are or will be detained in the Alamance County Detention Center
because they are unable to pay monetary conditions of pretrial
release."
The Court denied the motion to enforce the preliminary injunction,
however, on Dec. 3, 2021. In the interim, two of the three
Plaintiffs, Antonio Harrell and Lea Allison, were dismissed from
the action on their own motions.
On June 28, 2022, the case was reassigned to Judge Schroeder. On
July 7, 2022, the Judicial Defendants filed the pending motion for
summary judgment. This was followed by Sheriff Johnson's motion for
summary judgment and the Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary
judgment on Aug. 1, 2022. These motions are fully briefed.
On Oct. 15, 2022, the Judicial Defendants withdrew their jury trial
demand, and the case was set for a bench trial on Jan. 9, 2023. The
parties moved jointly to continue the trial, which motion the Court
granted, and a status hearing was set for March 3, 2023. At the
hearing, the parties agreed there was sufficient evidence from
which the Court could resolve the case on the pending motions for
summary judgment without the need for a bench trial.
The Plaintiffs acknowledged they did not move for summary judgment
as to their Sixth Amendment claim at initial appearances because
they "did not necessarily feel that the evidence was sufficient" to
do so. Later in oral argument, however, the Plaintiffs contended
that the record was sufficient, there are no facts in dispute, and
thus there was no need for a bench trial.
The Court reserved ruling on whether it would allow the Plaintiffs
to seek summary judgment as to the Sixth Amendment claim for
counsel at initial appearances. The Defendants agreed that the
Court could decide the case on the current record, and the Court
allowed the parties to file supplemental briefing.
Having reviewed the record and transcripts, the Court finds that
the Plaintiffs did not properly move for summary judgment as to the
Sixth Amendment claim at initial appearances, and the Court,
therefore, will not address their subsequent contentions as to it.
In light of the pending motions, the Court reviews the Plaintiffs'
requested relief, which include requests for declaratory judgment
that the Defendants violate the Named Plaintiffs' and class
members' constitutional rights by issuing detention orders without
due process, and by operating a system of wealth-based detention
that keeps them in jail because they cannot afford to pay monetary
conditions of release without an inquiry into or findings
concerning ability to pay, without consideration of non-financial
alternatives, and without findings that a particular release
condition--or pretrial detention--is necessary to meet a compelling
government interest.
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' claims in Counts I, II, and
III are moot.
The Court also finds that the Judicial Defendants have met their
stringent burden of showing that the voluntary cessation exception
does not apply. Taken together, Judge Schroeder holds that the
factors under Slakan v. Porter, 737 F.2d 365-66 (4th Cir. 1984)
weigh in the Judicial Defendants' favor. Namely, the Judicial
Defendants have made it plain that they not only do not defend the
1995 Policy, they more importantly have no intention of returning
to it.
Because the Judicial Defendants are not subject to the voluntary
cessation exception, Judge Schroeder holds that the Plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment as to Counts I, II, and III will be
denied without prejudice, and the Judicial Defendants' cross-motion
will be granted to the extent that these claims should be dismissed
without prejudice as moot.
For the same reasons the Court finds the Plaintiffs' claims against
enforcement of the 1995 Policy moot as to the Judicial Defendants,
the Court necessarily finds that the Plaintiffs' claims in Counts
I, II, and III against Sheriff Johnson, who is being sued for
enforcing the 1995 Policy, are moot as well.
Similarly, as to Count IV, Judge Schroeder holds that the parties'
cross-motions for summary judgment as to alleged Sixth Amendment
violations are denied. Johnson raises separate arguments in his
briefing, however, that he enjoys sovereign immunity against suit
and otherwise should not be included in this dispute. The Court,
therefore, considers those contentions as to the Plaintiffs' claims
against him in Count IV.
For the reasons stated in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, Judge
Schroeder holds that the Plaintiffs' claims challenging the
enforcement of Alamance County's 1995 Policy on pretrial procedures
under the Fourteenth Amendment is moot. Those procedures have been
replaced by the 2020 Bond Policy that substantially, if not fully,
provides the relief which the Plaintiffs sought in their complaint,
and it is clear that there is no reasonable likelihood that the
Judicial Defendants, who are responsible for maintaining the
policy, will revert to the complained of practices.
The Court, therefore, rules that the Plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment challenging the Defendants' application of the 1995 Policy
in Counts I, II, and III is denied as moot. The Judicial
Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted in part and that
that Plaintiffs' claims in Counts I, II, and III are dismissed
without prejudice as moot.
The Judicial Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to Count IV
of the complaint is denied. The Plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment as to Count IV of the complaint is denied. Sheriff
Johnson's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and that
the Plaintiffs' claims in Counts I, II, and III are dismissed
without prejudice as moot, and it is denied as to the Plaintiffs'
claims in Count IV.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
Sept. 21, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdfrc8mz from
PacerMonitor.com.
PELICAN STATE: M.D. Louisiana Narrows Claims in Foster Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John W. deGravelles of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana grants in part and denies in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled LEONTINE FOSTER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
PELICAN STATE CREDIT UNION, Case No. 3:22-cv-00368-JWD-RLB (M.D.
La.).
The Court holds that the Motion is granted with respect to the
breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims, and these claims
are dismissed. However, dismissal will be without prejudice, and
the Plaintiff will be given leave to amend to cure those
deficiencies. In all other respects, specifically as to the
Regulation E claim and the Defendant's argument about preemption,
the Motion is denied.
Judge deGravelles notes that the well-pled allegations in the
Plaintiff's Amended Class Action Complaint ("Complaint") are
assumed to be true for purposes of this motion.
The Plaintiff is a Louisiana domiciliary, who entered into an
agreement with the Defendant for bank account deposit, checking,
and debit card services. The Defendant is a Louisiana credit union
with branches in Louisiana. The Plaintiff signed the "contract,"
which includes the "Membership and Account Agreement" ("Membership
Agreement"), "What You Need to Know about Overdrafts & Overdraft
Fees" ("Opt-In form"), and "What Else You Should Know About
Overdraft Privilege" ("Overdraft Disclosure"). Prior to signing the
contract, the Plaintiff signed "prior materially similar
contracts."
During the time that she had a bank account with the Defendant,
before Nov. 1, 2021, the Plaintiff had multiple transactions that
were authorized on a positive available balance but were settled
with a negative available balance. She was assessed an overdraft
fee for each of these instances. She claims that these
transactions, "Authorize Positive, Settle Negative" transactions,
were assessed overdraft fees in breach of her contract with the
Defendant.
The Plaintiff is bringing suit on her own behalf and as a class
action on behalf of those similarly situated individuals, who held
accounts with the Defendant between June 6, 2012, and Oct. 31,
2021, and were assessed similar fees. The Membership Agreement
attached to the Complaint defines the terms "available balance" and
"actual balance."
According to the Membership Agreement, the determination of whether
there are sufficient funds in an account is based on the available
balance. The Plaintiff pleads that the contract indicates that this
determination is made at the time of authorization, which is when
the account holder swipes their card. She alleges that the
Defendant made determinations of overdraft fees at the time of
settlement in violation of the contract. She makes a claim for the
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
stemming from the Defendant's actions in breach of the contract.
The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendant violated 12 C.F.R.
Section 1005 ("Regulation E") by not accurately describing its
overdraft practices. Finally, she pleads an unjust enrichment
claim. She asserts this in the alternative and only if the Court
determines that the contract is unconscionable or unenforceable.
Further, she alleges that the Defendant benefitted from
misrepresenting its overdraft fee practices to the detriment of the
Plaintiff and other class members.
In sum, the Court will grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in part
and deny in part. First, Judge deGravelles opines, the Plaintiff's
state law claims are not preempted by federal law because her
claims are not challenging the Defendant's overdraft disclosure
practices. Thus, in this respect, the Defendant's Motion is
denied.
Second, the breach of contract claim fails because, under Louisiana
contract law, the three documents that make up the contract between
the Plaintiff and the Defendant may be read together. The terms of
the contract, when read as a whole, create no ambiguity and
accurately reflect the overdraft practices that the Plaintiff
claims the Defendant employs.
Judge deGravelles points out that there can be no breach of the
implied duty of good faith and fair dealing when there is no
underlying breach of contract. Thus, in this respect, the
Defendant's Motion is granted. Third, the Plaintiff's unjust
enrichment claim fails because there is a valid contract between
the parties, which creates a remedy at law, precluding an unjust
enrichment claim under Louisiana law. Thus, in this respect, the
Defendant's Motion is granted.
Finally, Judge deGravelles holds that the Regulation E claim
survives the Motion because an Opt-In form must be read segregated
from all other information, and the Plaintiff pled enough facts to
give rise to the inference that there was a Regulation E violation.
The Defendant is not covered by the safe harbor provision of
Regulation E, as the Plaintiff is not challenging the form in which
the disclosures were made. Thus, in this respect, the Defendant's
Motion is denied.
Accordingly, the Court rules that the Motion to Dismiss filed by
Pelican State Credit Union is granted in part and denied in part.
With respect to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's
Regulation E claim and the Defendant's federal preemption argument,
the Motion is denied. With respect to the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss all other claims, the Motion is granted, and the
Plaintiff's breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims are
dismissed without prejudice.
The Plaintiff will have 28 days from the Court's ruling on the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in which to cure the deficiencies. If
the Plaintiff fails to do so, her breach of contract and unjust
enrichment claims against the Defendant will be dismissed with
prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Ruling and Order dated Sept. 21,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2kcn6w6p from
PacerMonitor.com.
PEPSICO INC: Bell Sues Over Misrepresentations of Juice Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Bell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PepsiCo, Inc. Defendant, Case No.
7:23-cv-08600 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 29, 2023) arises from the
Defendant's alleged misrepresentations on the labels of its fruit
juice products. Plaintiff Bell alleges claims against the Defendant
for violations of state consumer protection statutes, the
California's False Advertising Law, the California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, and the California's Unfair Competition Law.
The Defendant formulates, manufactures, advertises, and sells its
Ceres "100% Juice Blend" juices throughout the United States,
including in California. It markets these products in a
systematically misleading manner by conspicuously misrepresenting
on the labels of the products that they: (1) are made from a "100%
Juice Blend” and (2) contain "No Preservatives." Defendant
reinforces these misrepresentations by adding vignettes and the
names of the fruits on the labels. Unbeknownst to consumers,
however, the said products all share a common ingredient that
belies their "100% Juice Blend" and "No Preservatives"
representations: ascorbic acid--a well-documented synthetic
ingredient, says the suit.
PepsiCo, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of North
Carolina with its headquarters at 700 Anderson Hill Road, Purchase,
NY. PepsiCo, Inc., through its wholly-owned subsidiary Ceres Fruit
Juices (Pty) Ltd, manufactures, packages, labels, advertises,
markets, distributes and/or sells the juice products in New York
and throughout the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adrian Gucovschi, Esq.
GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC
140 Broadway, Suite 4667
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 884-4230
E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com
PETERSON'S OIL: Federated's Summary Judgment Bid Allowed in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Denise J. Casper of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts issued a Memorandum and Order allowing in part the
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit titled
FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff v. PETERSON'S OIL
SERVICE, INC., HOWARD WOOD PETERSON, J.R., KRISTEN PETERSON HALUS,
and SHEENA MARANDINO, SEAN MARANDINO, NANCY CARRIGAN, CLAIRE FREDA,
KELLEY FREDA, ALICE HART, ROBERT F. HART, TORRE MASTROIANNI, and
CONGREGATION OF BETH ISRAEL OF WORCESTER, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated, Defendants, Case No.
4:22-cv-10517-DJC (D. Mass.).
Plaintiff Federated Mutual Insurance Co. filed this lawsuit against
Defendants Peterson's Oil Service, Inc., Howard Wood Peterson, Jr.
and Kristen Peterson Halus (collectively, the "Peterson
Defendants") and Sheena Marandino, Sean Marandino, Nancy Carrigan,
Claire Freda, Kelley Freda, Alice Hart, Robert F. Hart, Torre
Mastroianni, and Congregation of Beth Israel of Worcester as
representatives of a similarly situated class (collectively,
"Claimants") seeking a declaratory judgment that Federated is not
liable under any insurance policy issued to the Peterson Defendants
for the Claimants' claims against them in an underlying state court
class action.
Federated has moved for summary judgment on its claims and
counterclaims. For the reasons stated in this Memorandum and Order,
the Court denies the motion as to a declaratory judgment that there
is no coverage under the CGL Policy (and the Umbrella Policy)
(Counts I and IV) and allows it as to the alternative bases of
coverage (Counts II and III) and the Mass. Gen. L. c. 93A and c.
176D counterclaim (Counterclaim II) asserted by the Claimants.
The Claimants allege that the Peterson Defendants sold the
Claimants fuel for home heating that contained more than 5%
biodiesel from 2012 to present. The Claimants further allege that
fuel containing more than 5% biodiesel does not meet industry
standards and caused damage to their home heating equipment. The
Peterson Defendants allegedly did not disclose the presence of
biodiesel in their fuel, despite knowing the risk posed by
high-biodiesel blended fuel.
In February 2019, a local news channel aired an investigative
report ("I-Team Report") regarding the Peterson Defendants' sale of
fuel with high biodiesel content. During the program, reporters
allegedly presented Howard Peterson with evidence the Marandinos,
who are among the claimants here, had received fuel containing more
than 80% biodiesel. The Claimants further allege that in an
interview, a former employee of Peterson's Oil said he spent
countless hours repairing heating equipment that had malfunctioned
from Peterson Oil's fuel and admitted that he had lied to
customers.
On March 11, 2019, the Marandinos filed a class action complaint in
Suffolk County Superior Court. A week later, on March 18, 2019, the
Claimants' counsel served a demand letter pursuant to Mass. Gen. L.
c. 93A ("Demand Letter") on behalf of the Marandinos and the
putative class.
In relevant part, the Demand Letter asserted that the Marandinos
and the putative class experienced heating system shut downs and
sought compensation for the cost of service calls by furnace repair
technicians to remedy clogged filters and other problems caused by
the high biodiesel content of Peterson's fuel.
The Claimants have amended the complaint in the underlying
litigation several times. The Worcester Superior Court has since
certified the Claimants' class as consisting of "customers who
received fuel from [Peterson's Oil] containing more than five
percent biodiesel" at any point between 2012 until the present,
with two subclasses for those who received fuel between 2012 and
Feb. 28, 2019, and for those who received fuel from March 1, 2019,
to the present.
The Policy Federated issued the Peterson Defendants several
insurance policies that became effective on July 5, 2019, and which
have all been renewed through the present. These policies include a
Commercial Package Policy ("CPP Policy") containing, inter alia,
Commercial General Liability ("CGL Policy"); a Business Auto Policy
("BAP Policy"); a Commercial Package Policy affording coverage for
certain automobiles garaged in Rhode Island ("Rhode Island Policy")
and a Commercial Umbrella Liability Policy (the "Umbrella
Policy").
Federated instituted this action on April 7, 2022. At the Dec. 5,
2022 scheduling conference, the Court stayed discovery pending
resolution of Federated's present motion for summary judgment. On
April 14, 2023, the Court heard the parties on the pending motion,
and took the matter under advisement.
Judge Casper notes that by the plain terms of the CGL Policy, if
the Peterson Defendants were aware of property damage that began
prior to July 5, 2019 (the effective date of the Policy), there is
no coverage for any continuation of that damage during the policy
period, even if the claims were not actually adjudicated.
Nevertheless, the Court concludes that the no-knowledge requirement
does not preclude coverage of all the Claimants' property damage.
Relying on the phrase "in whole or in part," Federated asks the
Court to treat all the Claimants' harm as a monolith, such that the
Peterson Defendants' awareness of a specific Claimant's property
damage is sufficient to establish knowledge of all the Claimants'
property damage. Typically, courts do not read "in whole or in
part" to deem the insured aware of damage to all parties based on
knowledge of damage to a single party.
According to the Memorandum and Order, the Peterson Defendants were
aware, prior to the CGL Policy's inception that a potential class,
not merely individuals named in the Demand Letter or early
complaints, had begun to suffer property damage due to Peterson
Oil's unsuitable fuel. By July 5, 2019, the Peterson Defendants had
reason to be "aware" of property damage suffered by the Claimants,
who received fuel prior to July 5, 2019, including a Demand Letter
on behalf of a putative class, class action complaint and local
media coverage. Under the plain language of the Policy, the
Peterson Defendants received a written demand or claim for damages
because of the "property damage" suffered by a class of Claimants,
who received fuel prior to July 5, 2019.
In short, Federated argues that the Peterson Defendants' knowledge
of property damage resulting from fuel deliveries to the
Marandinos, Carrigan and a class of similarly situated Claimants
sufficiently establishes knowledge of property damage to the
Claimants, who received fuel after the policy start date.
Judge Casper says it does not appear that any case interprets the
known loss provision (and the associated deeming clauses) so
broadly. Because Federated has a duty to defend at least claims
brought by the Claimants, who received high-biodiesel fuel from the
Peterson Defendants after July 5, 2019, Judge Casper holds that
Federated has a duty to defend the entire underlying lawsuit.
Federated also seeks summary judgment that it has no duty to
indemnify the Peterson Defendants in the underlying lawsuit based
on its asserted lack of any duty to defend.
The Court has already concluded that Federated has a duty to
defend. Because the underlying lawsuit has not reached its
conclusion or otherwise been resolved, summary judgment on its duty
to indemnity is denied as premature.
Accordingly, the Court denies Federated's motion for summary
judgment for a declaratory judgment that it has no duty to defend
or indemnify under the CGL Policy, Count I.
Federated contends that the BAP Policy and Rhode Island Policy only
cover property damage caused by "an 'accident' and resulting from
the ownership, maintenance or use of a covered "auto."
Here, Judge Casper notes, the Claimants urge that because their
damage "resulted from deliveries made using Peterson Oil's trucks,"
their losses were "caused by an 'accident' resulting from the use
of a covered auto." Claimants, however, allege that their property
damage was caused by the chemical composition of the Peterson
Defendants' fuel, not by any part of the delivery process.
Given the allegations in the underlying litigation, Judge Casper
finds that the Peterson Defendants and the Claimants have not
established that coverage is available under the BAP Policy or the
Rhode Island Policy for "use" of a covered automobile. Accordingly,
the Court allows Federated's motion for summary judgment with
respect to its lack of any duty to defend or indemnify for the
Claimants' property damage under the BAP Policy or Rhode Island
Policy, Counts II and III.
The parties do not dispute that the Umbrella Policy provides
additional insurance limits for property damage that is covered by
the CGL Policy or the BAP Policy. Because the Court concludes that
there is coverage under the CGL Policy for the reasons stated, the
Court denies Federated's motion for summary judgment regarding the
Umbrella Policy, Count IV.
Federated also moves for summary judgment on the Claimants'
counterclaims for unfair insurance claim settlement practices under
Massachusetts law.
Although the Court denies Federated's motion for summary judgment
with respect to coverage under the CGL Policy and Umbrella Policy,
the Court, nevertheless, concludes that Federated adopted a
plausible interpretation of the known loss provision. Given the
case law on similar known loss and loss-in-progress insurance
provisions, Judge Casper says Federated's liability was not
reasonably clear. Accordingly, the Court allows Federated's summary
judgment motion on the Claimants' counterclaims.
For these reasons, the Court allows Federated's motion for summary
judgment as to Counts II and III (declaratory judgment that
Federated has no duty to defend or indemnify the Peterson
Defendants under the BAP Policy or Rhode Island Policy) and as to
Count II of the Claimants' counterclaims (unfair settlement
practices under Mass. Gen. Laws. c. 93A, c. 176D).
The Court otherwise denies Federated's motion for summary judgment
as to Counts I and IV as the Court concludes that Federated has a
duty to defend Peterson in the underlying suit under the CGL Policy
(and any additional limits under the Umbrella Policy) and its
motion as to its duty to indemnify is not yet ripe.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Sept.
21, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4fzrfvk4 from
PacerMonitor.com.
PILOT CATASTROPHE: Final Settlement in Pleasants Suit Due Nov. 21
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kristi K. DuBose of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Alabama, Southern Division, directs the parties to
submit their final settlement agreement by Nov. 21, 2023.
In the lawsuit captioned SONYA GLADNEY PLEASANTS, Individually and
for Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. PILOT CATASTROPHE
SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00132-KD-MU (S.D.
Ala.), Judge Kristi K. DuBose of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division, directs the
parties to submit their final settlement agreement by Nov. 21,
2023.
Plaintiff Sonya Gladney Pleasants brought an individual and
collective action to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Relying upon the
terms of two arbitration agreements executed by Pleasants, Pilot
Catastrophe Services, Inc., moved the Court to compel arbitration
of Pleasants' individual claims pursuant to the Federal Arbitration
Act.
Pilot also moved to stay this action pending completion of
arbitration as provided in 9 U.S.C. Section 3, and to dismiss all
class action claims and consolidated and/or collective actions
claims. In response, Pleasants stated that after review of the
motion and supporting evidence, she did not oppose arbitration.
However, Pleasants incorrectly stated that Pilot moved this Court
to arbitrate the Plaintiff's individual and class action claims.
Instead, Pilot moved to dismiss the class action claims. The Court
ordered Pleasants to clarify whether she opposed dismissal of her
class action claims and consolidated and/or collective actions
claims. The Court ordered Pleasants to clarify whether she opposed
dismissal of her class action claims and consolidated and/or
collective actions claims.
In response, the parties filed a Joint Status Report, wherein they
report that Pleasants does not oppose dismissal of the class or
collective action claims. The parties also report that they have
reached a settlement agreement in principle as to Pleasants' claims
under the FLSA and request 60 days within which to finalize their
agreement.
In the Eleventh Circuit, Judge DuBose says there are only two ways
in which back wage claims arising under the FLSA can be settled or
compromised by employees. Specifically, under the supervision of
the Secretary of Labor or by the district court entering a
stipulated judgment after scrutinizing the settlement for
fairness.
Accordingly, Judge DuBose rules that the action is stayed and the
parties will submit on or before Nov. 21, 2023, their final
settlement agreement for the Court's review.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Sept. 21, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2cm5y7h9 from PacerMonitor.com.
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Faces Jones Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, PENSION
BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC d/b/a PBI RESEARCH SERVICES, and SUN LIFE
AND HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY (U.S.), Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-12203 (D. Mass., Sept. 26, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard
personally identifiable information(PII) including, but not limited
to, Plaintiff and Class Members' names, dates of birth, and Social
Security numbers.
Defendant PBI possessed and controlled Plaintiff's PII because,
upon information and belief, PBI processes information for
Plaintiff's retirement and annuity plans. Upon information and
belief, Sun Life entrusted Plaintiff's PII to Defendants PBI and
Progress along with the PII of tens of thousands of others.
On August 21, 2023, PBI notified certain Sun Life customers,
including Plaintiff, that they were affected by a data breach
involving the MOVEit software. As a result of the breach,
unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained access to and
obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, says the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of himself
and those similarly situated to address Defendants' inadequate
safeguarding of Class Members' private information that they
collected and maintained.
Progress Software Corporation is an American public company that
offers software for creating and deploying business
applications.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 482-3700
Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
E-mail: kristenj@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Sean R. Matt, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
sean@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (513) 345-8291
Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
- and -
Charles Schaffer, Esq.
Nicholas J. Elia, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
nelia@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
THE LYON FIRM
2754 Erie Ave.
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Telephone: (513) 381-2333
Facsimile: (513) 766-9011
E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
RPKG HOLDINGS: General Pretrial Management Entered in Jimenez Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VANESSA JIMENEZ, v. RPKG
HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06559-JLR-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial
management:
-- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related
to
scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or
for
judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary
judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23)
must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this
Court's
Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's
website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.
Parties
and counsel are cautioned.
-- Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must
be
initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery
set
by the Court.
-- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting
discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need
for
such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil
Rule
37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices.
It
is the Court's practice to decide discovery disputes at the
Rule
37.2 conference, based on the parties' letters, unless a party
requests or the Court requires more formal briefing.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 4, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48FdFUM at no extra charge.[CC]
SARAYA USA: Class Cert Bid Deadline Extended to March 21, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAQUISHA SCOTT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SARAYA USA, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-05232-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick entered an order granting joint stipulation
to request order Changing time pursuant to civil L.R. 6-2.
1. The deadline for Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
shall be continued from November 30, 2023, to March 21,
2024.
2. The deadline for Defendant’s Class Certification Opposition
shall be continued from January 3, 2024, to April 24, 2024.
3. The deadline for Plaintiff’s Class Certification Reply
shall be
continued from February 7, 2024, to May 29, 2024.
4. The date set for the Class Certification Hearing shall be
continued from March 27, 2024, at 2:00 PM to July 17, 2024 at
2:00 PM.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 4, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZLbKdb at no extra charge.[CC]
SCOUT ENERGY: Filling for Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 18, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE COOPER-CLARK
FOUNDATION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Case No.
5:22-cv-04048-KHV-ADM (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Angel Mitchell
entered an amended scheduling order for the class certification
stage of the case:
Event Deadline/Setting
Class certification motion filed with Jan. 18, 2024
All supporting evidence, including
Expert disclosures
Response in opposition to class
Certification filed with all supporting Apr. 22, 2024
Evidence, including expert disclosures
Reply in support of class certification June 6, 2024
Plaintiff's settlement proposal July 18, 2024
Defendant's settlement counter-proposal Aug. 1, 2024
Jointly filed mediation notice, or Aug. 8, 2024
Confidential settlement reports to
Magistrate judge
All other provisions of the original Class Certification Stage
Scheduling Order remain in effect.
Scout is a private energy investment manager and an upstream oil
and gas operator.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 4, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PIQj8a at no extra charge.[CC]
SLT LENDING SPV: Elder Suit Transferred to N.D. Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jamelah Elder, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SLT Lending SPV, Inc. doing business
as: Sur La Table, Case No. 5:23-cv-01059 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana on Oct. 2,
2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00334-PPS-JPK to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor
Vehicle.
SLT Lending SPV, Inc. doing business as Sur La Table, Inc. --
https://www.surlatable.com/ -- is a privately held retail company
based in Seattle, Washington, that sells kitchenware including
cookware, cutlery, cooks' tools, small electrics, tabletop and
linens, bakeware, glassware and bar, housewares, food, and outdoor
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
Brandon Pierce Jack, Esq.
Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
CLAYEO ARNOLD APLC
6200 Canoga Avenue, Suite 735
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (747) 777-7748
Fax: (916) 924-1829
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew D. Pearson, Esq.
BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP
600 Anton Boulevard Suite 900
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (310) 820-8800
- and -
Eric L. Barnum, Esq.
BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP
1170 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 2400
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 946-9780
SPARROW HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Desgrange Says
---------------------------------------------------------
BRENTON DESGRANGE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPARROW HEALTH SYSTEM d/b/a
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN HEALTH-SPARROW, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-01040 (W.D. Mich., Oct. 2, 2023) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Desgrange was employed by the Defendant as an emergency
medical technician.
SPARROW HEALTH SYSTEM d/b/a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN HEALTH-SPARROW
is a comprehensive, integrated health care organization located in
Central Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer L. McManus, Esq.
FAGAN MCMANUS, PC
25892 Woodward Avenue
Royal Oak, MI 58067-0910
Telephone: (248) 542-6300
Email: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
SUN LIFE: Genesett Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Genesett Corporation, as Trustee of the Genesett
Trust Dated 10/23/01, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, Case No.
2:23-cv-05417 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on Oct. 3, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12276-AK to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.
Sun Life -- https://www.sunlife.com/en/ -- is a financial services
company providing financial planning, life insurance, health
insurance, investments and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
Glenn Bridgman, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 789-3100
Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
Email: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
gbridgman@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Seth Ard, Esq.
Ryan Kirkpatrick, Esq.
Zach Savage, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (212) 336-8330
Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
Email: sard@susmangodfrey.com
rkirkpatrick@susmangodfrey.com
zsavage@susmangodfrey.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Christopher Thomas Casamassima, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 443-5374
Fax: (213) 443-5400
Email: chris.casamassima@wilmerhale.com
- and -
Jessica L. Lewis, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
One Front Street, Suite 3500
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (628) 235-1160
Email: jessica.lewis@wilmerhale.com
- and -
Robert K. Smith, Esq.
Sonja q Sujanani, Esq.
Timothy J. Perla, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP (BOS)
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: (617) 526-6759
Email: robert.smith@wilmerhale.com
sonja.sujanani@wilmerhale.com
timothy.perla@wilmerhale.com
SUNVALLEYTEK INTL: Court Certifies Class in Oh Product Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID OH, v. SUNVALLEYTEK
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-00866-SVK (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Susan Van Keulen entered an order certifying the
following class:
"All individuals who purchased an electronics product sold by a
Sunvalleytek International, Inc. Amazon storefront, while living
in
California."
The class includes those individuals that purchased products
during
the applicable statute for the UCL, CLRA, and unjust enrichment
claims:
-- UCL claim: February 10, 2018, to present
-- CLRA claim: February 10, 2019, to present
-- Unjust enrichment claim: February 10, 2019, to present.
The Court further orders that Plaintiff David Oh is appointed as
the class representative, and Plaintiff’s counsel, Jonas
Jacobson, Simon Franzini, and Alexander Erwig of Dovel & Luner LLP
are appointed as class counsel.
The parties are directed to meet and confer on a case schedule
through trial, including further ADR proceedings, and submit a
joint statement by November 7, 2023. A status conference is set for
November 14, 2023 at 9:30 a.m.
The Plaintiff Oh alleges that Defendant Sunvalleytek, which makes,
sells and markets consumer electronics, paid for high ratings and
reviews of its products on websites like Amazon.com without
disclosing this information to consumers.
Sunvalleytek is a California corporation with its principal place
of business in San Jose, California. Sunvalleytek specializes in
the Consumer Electronics area.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RLiLso at no extra charge.[CC]
SUTHERLAND GLOBAL: Faces Lee Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
DARNELL LEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUTHERLAND GLOBAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 6:23-cv-06549 (W.D.N.Y., Sept. 26, 2023) arises from the
Defendant's failure to pay wages, including proper overtime, on
time and in full for all hours worked in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Sutherland Global Services, Inc.'s Kronos-based timekeeping and
payroll systems were affected by a service outage in December 2021,
like many other companies across the United States. That outage led
to problems in timekeeping and payroll throughout Sutherland
Global's organization. The complaint asserts that Sutherland
Global's workers, including Plaintiff, who were not exempt from
overtime under federal law, were not paid for all overtime hours
worked and/or were not paid their proper overtime premium on time,
if at all, for all overtime hours worked during and after the onset
of the Kronos outage.
Plaintiff Lee worked for Sutherland Global during the Kronos outage
and was affected by these pay practices -- just like Sutherland
Global's other nonexempt workers.
Sutherland Global Services, Inc. provides business process and
technology management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) WORKERS
Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com
- and -
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 999-5228
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
SWIFTFUNDS FINANCIAL: Ratcliff Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Ratcliff, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. SWIFTFUNDS FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
CACE-23-019186 (Fla. 17th Judicial Ct., Broward Cty., Oct. 3,
2023), is brought for the Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA") as a result to the Defendant's
unlawful debt collection.
On a date better known by Defendant, Defendant began attempting to
collects debt (the "Consumer Debt") from Plaintiff. The Consumer
Debt is an obligation allegedly had by Plaintiff to pay money
arising from a transaction between the creditor of the Consumer
Debt and Plaintiff (the "Subject Service"). The Subject Service was
primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. Defendant is
a business entity engaged in the business of soliciting consumer
debts for collection.
The Defendant does not possess a valid Consumer Collection Agency
license With the Florida Department of State, whereby Defendant is
required to possess a valid license to lawfully collect debts from
Florida consumers.
On June 28, 2023, Plaintiff notified Defendant in writing (the
"Notice") that: My name is Christopher Ratcliff. My phone number is
(561) 670-8818 and I am represented by attorney Jibrael Hindi. His
phone number is 954-907-1136. Please only contact him regarding any
matters." The Defendant received the Notice on or about June 28,
2023.
Upon receipt of the Notice, Defendant knew that it could not
communicate with Plaintiff directly in connection with the
collection of the Consumer Debt. The Defendant knew Plaintiff was
represented by an attorney with respect to the Consumer Debt. The
Defendant knew it could not attempt to collect the Consumer Debt
from Plaintiff directly. By and through the Notice, Defendant had
knowledge of, or could readily ascertain, the name, phone number,
and address of Plaintiffs attorney.
After Plaintiff provided Defendant with the Notice and despite
knowing that Plaintiff had revoked consent to communicate with him,
Defendant sent Plaintiff an email (the "Subject Communication") in
an attempt to collect the Consumer Debt. The Subject Communication
was a communication to Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the
Consumer Debt; however, the Defendant was not registered as a
consumer collection agency With the Florida Department of State,
and as a result thereof, the Subject Communication to Plaintiff
violates the FDCPA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person, and a citizen of the State of
Florida, residing in Broward County, Florida.
The Defendant is a business entity engaged in the business of
collecting consumer debts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Jennifer Gomes Simil, Esq.
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
110 S.E. 6TH Street, Suite 1700
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 628-5793
Fax: (954) 507-9974
Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
gerald@jibraellaw.com
TARGET CORP: Davis Seeks to Certify Progression Team Member Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY DAVIS, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. TARGET CORPORATION,
Case No. 2:23-cv-00089-JFM (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order certifying the lawsuit as a class action pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3).
The proposed class is defined as follows:
"All Progression Team Members who have been employed by Target
at
its Chambersburg Distribution Center at any time since November
29,
2019."
The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint their counsel to serve
as "Class Counsel."
Target is an American retail corporation that operates a chain of
discount department stores and hypermarkets.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 4, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RSH9st at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Deirdre Aaron, Esq.
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Telephone: (215) 884-2491
- and -
Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
Krysten Connon, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (267) 256-9973
- and -
Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
E-mail: msalas@flsalaw.com
TAYLOR FARMS: Magallan Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Joseph Arturo Magallan, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Taylor Farms Retail,
Inc., Case No. 23CV002499 was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Monterey, to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
Oct. 2, 2023, and assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-05049.
The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges nine causes of action: Failure to
Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to
Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Permit Rest Breaks; Failure to
Reimburse Business Expenses; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized
Wage Statements; Failure to Pay Wages Timely During Employment;
Failure to Pay All Wages Due Upon Separation of Employment; and
Violation of Business and Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew B. Levin, Esq.
Ricardo R. Bours, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
Esplanade Center III, Suite 800
2415 East Camelback Road
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Phone: 602-778-3700
Facsimile: 602-778-3750
Email: andy.levin@ogletree.com
ricardo.bours@ogletree.com
TENTMAX MANUFACTURING: Morales Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Morales. an individual, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated employees v. TENTMAX MANUFACTURING AND CUSTOM
DESIGN LLC., a California Corporation; JESUS HUMBERTO SANCHEZ, an
individual; ART GUZMAN, an individual; and DOES 1-20, inclusive,
Case No. 23NWCV03143 (Cal. Super Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 2,
2023), is brought seeks redress for the unlawful labor practices
committed by the Defendants against the Plaintiff during his
employment from February 2019 to April 2023.
the Defendants engaged in wage theft by failing to pay the
Plaintiff for all hours worked, making improper deductions from
wages, failing to provide legally required meal and rest breaks,
failing to provide timely payment of full wages upon termination,
and other violations of the California Labor Code, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt,
hourly machine operator from February 2019 to April 2023.
Plaintiff's hourly wage was $17.00.
The Defendants' main business consists in manufacturing and setting
up tents, and awnings at special events and red-carpet
entertainment industry events such as Coachella, and The Grammys,
etc.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Farahi, Esq.
8065 Santa Monica Boulevard, Unit 66736
West Hollywood, CA 90069
Phone: (213) 261-7080
Facsimile: (310) 457-7572
Email justin@getjusticenow.com
Secondary Email jc@getjusticenow.com
TERRA GROUP: Normand Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
--------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON NORMAND, KEVIN SMITH, and PATRICK BERNARD, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TERRA
GROUP, LLC, KODI AVILA, and EDGAR RAMAYO, Defendants, Case No.
6:23-cv-01330 (W.D. La., Sept. 26, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for breach of contract and for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Louisiana Revised Statutes.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs entered into employment
agreements with Defendants wherein they would be paid 27 percent of
the gross revenue of each load. Despite this agreement, Defendants
failed to pay Plaintiffs their earned 27 percent of the gross
revenue of each load. The Defendants have refused to pay
Plaintiffs' their earned wages, including their final paychecks.
The Defendants also classified Plaintiffs as independent
contractors in an effort to avoid paying overtime under the FLSA,
says the suit.
Additionally, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiffs Normand and
Smith for questioning their payroll schemes by assigning Normand's
hauls to another worker, and contacting his current employer in an
effort to invoke an adverse employment action, and Defendants
called the police on Smith, the suit alleges.
Plaintiffs Normand, Smith, and Bernard were employed by Defendants
as drivers from January 2023 to August 2023, from April 2023 to
June 2023, and from August 2022 to November, 2022, respectively.
Terra Group, LLC is a logistics and transportation company doing
business in the State of Louisiana.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Philip Bohrer, Esq.
Scott E. Brady, Esq.
BOHRER BRADY LLC
8712 Jefferson Highway, Ste. B
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Telephone: (225) 925-5297
Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
scott@bohrerbrady.com
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Settles Consolidated Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2023, that on
January 18, 2022, Teva entered into a settlement in a consolidated
securities litigation for $420 million, which received final
approval from the court on June 2, 2022.
The vast majority of the total settlement amount was covered by the
company's insurance carriers, with a small portion contributed by
Teva.
On November 6, 2016 and December 27, 2016, two putative securities
class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against Teva and certain of its current and
former officers and directors. Those lawsuits subsequently were
consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut under "In re Ontario Teachers Securities
Litigation."
On December 13, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Teva's securities
between February 6, 2014 and May 10, 2019, asserting that Teva and
certain of its current and former officers and directors violated
federal securities and common laws in connection with Teva's
alleged failure to disclose pricing strategies for various drugs in
its generic drug portfolio and by making allegedly false or
misleading statements in certain offering materials.
On March 10, 2020, the court consolidated the Ontario Teachers
Securities Litigation.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited is a global pharmaceutical
company into generics, innovative medicines and biopharmaceuticals,
with worldwide operations and headquarters in Israel and a
significant presence in the United States, Europe and many other
markets around the world. Our key strengths include our
world-leading generic medicines expertise and portfolio, focused
innovative medicines portfolio and global infrastructure and
scale.
TRAVEL GUARD: Seeks Reconsideration of Denial on Bid to Seal
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMIKA MILLER and JULIANNE
CHUANROONG, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those
similarly situated, v. TRAVEL GUARD GROUP, INC., AIG TRAVEL, INC.,
and NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., Case
No. 3:21-cv-09751-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants file motion to
Reconsider in part the Court's order denying Administrative motion
to Seal.
On September 20, 2023, the Court ruled on Defendants'
administrative motion to seal Plaintiffs' Class Certification
Motion and certain exhibits and declarations accompanying
Plaintiff's motion.
The Court partially granted and partially denied Defendants'
sealing motion.
Travel offers travel insurance plans and assistance programs.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 4, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Q3fung at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew D. Powers, Esq.
Eric A. Ormsby, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3823
Telephone: (415) 984-8700
Facsimile: (415) 984-8701
E-mail: mpowers@omm.com
eormsby@omm.com
ULTA BEAUTY: Overcharges Customers for Goods Delivered, Mora Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCES MORA and SHAPREI HOUSE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ULTA BEAUTY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-23672 (S.D. Fla., Sept. 26, 2023) is a
class action under Florida Deceptive And Unfair Trade Practices Act
brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all persons that purchased
tangible goods from Defendant's Internet website for delivery in
the State of Florida.
On July 30, 2020, Plaintiff Mora purchased two Neutral 100% Cotton
Face Mask Set for $25.98 to be delivered to 2821 NE 163rd St.,
North Miami Beach, FL 33160.
On August 12, 2022, Plaintiff House purchased one Kiehl's Midnight
Recovery Sleep Set with Eye Mask for $11.50 (after applying $3.00
in Rewards points to the purchase) to be delivered to 108 Carolina
Lake Dr., Daytona Beach, FL 32114.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant illegally and erroneously
charges tax payments on the shipping and handling fees on products
purchased from Defendant's website and shipped to consumers in the
State of Florida, even though customers are given the option to
pick up the goods in-person, resulting in the over-collection of
payments from Florida consumers.
Due to Defendant's alleged violations of FDUTPA, Plaintiffs seek
damages, an order enjoining Defendant from the unlawful practices,
reasonable attorneys' fees and any other relief the Court deems
proper under FDUTPA.
Ulta Beauty, Inc. operates specialty retail stores selling
cosmetics, fragrance, haircare and skincare products, and related
accessories and services in the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen A. Beck, Esq.
Jonathan L. Wolloch, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Ave., Suite 1420
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
E-mail: sbeck@bursor.com
jwolloch@bursor.com
UNICE INC: Jones Seeks Extension of Class Certification Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ORLANDO JONES, v. UNICE,
INC. d/b/a UNICE HAIR, Case No. 1:23-cv-00594-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C.),
the Plaintiff file a motion for a 90-day extension of the deadline
to amend Pleadings and the class Certification deadline.
UNice supplies a variety of virgin real human hair extension
products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 5, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tkRmn7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (617) 485-0018
Facsimile: (508) 318-8100
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
- and -
Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq.
MAGINNIS HOWARD
7706 Six Forks Road, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27615
Telephone: (919) 526-0450
Facsimile: (919) 882-8763
E-mail: kgwaltney@maginnishoward.com
UNION UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Union University. The
case is styled as Joseph Ortiz, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Union University, Case No.
1:23-cv-01049 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 3, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Union University -- https://www.uu.edu/ -- is a private Baptist
Christian university in Jackson, Tennessee, with additional
campuses in Germantown and Hendersonville.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTFRIED & GOTTFRIED, LLP
122 East 42nd. St., Suite 620
New York, NY 10168
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: Chatelain Files Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against University of
Minnesota. The case is styled as Milagros Chatelain, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. University of
Minnesota, Case No. 0:23-cv-03042-JRT-TNL (M.D. Pa., Oct. 2,
2023).
The nature of suit is state as Other Personal Property.
The University of Minnesota -- https://twin-cities.umn.edu/home --
is a public land-grant research university in the Twin Cities of
Minneapolis and Saint Paul, Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian C Gudmundson, Esq.
Michael J Laird, Esq.
Rachel K. Tack, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
1100 IDS Center
80 S 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 341-0400
Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
michael.laird@zimmreed.com
rachel.tack@zimmreed.com
UPSTREAM REHABILITATION: Moffa Files Suit in N.D. Alabama
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Upstream
Rehabilitation Inc., et al. The case is styled as Robert Moffa,
Leah Harner, Christian Caillouet, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Upstream Rehabilitation Inc., Upstream
RollCo LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01328-JHE (N.D. Ala., Oct. 3, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit for Breach of
Contract.
Upstream Rehabilitation -- https://urpt.com/ -- is a vendor of
physical therapy management services provided by doctors.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan S Mann, Esq.
Austin Brock Whitten, Esq.
PITTMAN DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN
2001 Park Place North, Ste. 1100
Birmingham, AL 35203
Phone: (205) 322-8880
Fax: (205) 328-2711
Email: jonm@pittmandutton.com
austinw@pittmandutton.com
WILLIE ROWE: Chaplin Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMIA CHAPLIN, et al., v.
WILLIE ROWE, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00423-WO-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the
Plaintiffs move the Court to extend the time to move for class
certification under Local Rule 23.1(b).
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 4, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Q66aPy at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gagan Gupta, Esq.
Zachary Ezor, Esq.
Abraham Rubert-Schewel, Esq.
TIN FULTON WALKER & OWEN, PLLC
119 Orange Street
Durham, NC 27701
Telephone: (919) 307-8400
E-mail: ggupta@tinfulton.com
zezor@tinfulton.com
schewel@tinfulton.com
WONWON GROUP: Court Conditionally Certifies Harrelson Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLENDA HARRELSON,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, v.
WONWON GROUP INC. d/b/a VOLCANO STEAK & SUSHI, Case No.
1:23-cv-02147-VMC (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Victoria M. Calvert
entered an order conditionally certifying action and staying
discovery.
The Court conditionally certifies and authorizes notice to the two
Collectives defined as follows:
a. Overtime Collective
"All persons who were, or are, employed by Defendant as
Servers,
or performing materially similar work as Servers, at any
time
within three years prior to the filing of the Collective
Action
Complaint and who worked in excess of 40 hours per week and
were not paid at an overtime rate of one-and-one half their
regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40, and were
instead paid straight time at a subminimum wage for all
hours."
b. Minimum Wage and Tip Collective
"All persons who were, or are, employed by Defendant as
Servers,
or performing materially similar work as Servers, at any time
within three years prior to the filing of the Collective
Action
Complaint"
Wonwon is a brand and design agency that offers brand strategy,
visibility, creative services from graphic design to concept
development.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 4, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LPs5b5 at no extra charge.[CC]
WOODMAN'S FOOD: Parties in Wyngaard Seek Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSE WYNGAARD, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. WOODMAN'S FOOD
MARKET, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-00493-PP-NJ (E.D. Wis.), the Parties
file as joint motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
-- Wisconsin Subclasses
WWPCL Meal Period Subclass: All hourly-paid, non-exempt
Store Employees employed by Defendant, Woodman's Food Market,
Inc., at any of its Wisconsin Store locations from April 5,
2017
until judgment who received a meal period lasting less than
30 consecutive duty free minutes in duration.
WWPCL Timeshaving Subclass: "All hourly-paid, non-exempt Store
Employees employed by Defendant, Woodman's Food Market, Inc.,
at
any of its Store locations from April 5, 2017, until judgment
who
utilized Defendant’s electronic timekeeping system to record
their hours worked, and whose "raw" or "actual" punch time
exceeds their "rounded" or "scheduled" punch time in any
workweek
during the above-stated period to the extent that they are
negatively impacted over the course of the above-stated
period.
WWPCL Non-Discretionary Compensation Subclass: All
hourly-paid,
non-exempt Store Employees employed by Defendant, Woodman's
Food
Market, Inc., at any of its Store locations from April 5, 2017
until judgment who have earned a non-discretionary Attendance
Bonus, Employee Appreciation Holiday Bonus, or New Hire Bonus
that was not based on a percentage of wages earned during a
workweek in which they worked in excess of 40 hours.
-- Illinois Subclasses
IWPCA Timeshaving Subclass: All hourly-paid, non-exempt
Store Employees employed by Defendant, Woodman's Food Market,
Inc., at any of its Illinois Store locations from January 22,
2018 until judgment, who utilized Defendant’s electronic
timekeeping system to record their hours worked, and whose
"raw"
or "actual" punch time exceeds their "rounded" or "scheduled"
punch time in any workweek in which they worked less than 40
hours during the above-stated period to the extent that they
are
negatively impacted over the course of the above-stated
period.
-- IMWL Timeshaving Subclass: All hourly-paid, non-exempt Store
Employees employed by Defendant, Woodman’s Food Market,
Inc.,
at any of its Illinois Store locations from January 22, 2018
until judgment, who utilized Defendant’s electronic
timekeeping
system to record their hours worked, and whose "raw" or
"actual"
punch time exceeds their "rounded" or "scheduled" punch time
in
any workweek in which they worked in excess of 40 hours during
the above-stated period to the extent that they are negatively
impacted over the course of the above-stated period.
IMWL Non-Discretionary Compensation Subclass: All hourlypaid,
non-exempt Store Employees employed by Defendant, Woodman’s
Food
Market, Inc., at any of its Illinois Store locations from
January
22, 2018 until judgment who have earned a nondiscretionary
Attendance Bonus, Employee Appreciation Holiday Bonus, or New
Hire Bonus that was not based on a percentage of wages earned
during a workweek in which they worked in excess of 40 hours.
Woodman's owns and operates supermarkets. The Company offers
liquors, clothing, automotive, housewares, and food products.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 4, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZI5JOq at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew J. Weissler, Esq.
Erik K. Eisenmann, Esq.
Geoffrey S. Trotier, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
Clayton, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 480-1500
Facsimile: (314) 480-1505
E-mail: aj.weissler@huschblackwell.com
erik.eisenmann@huschblackwell.com
geoff.trotier@huschblackwell.com
WORKFORCE 7: Filing for Class Cert Bid Revised to Feb. 21, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR BALLAST, LUIS
SIMONE, RICHARD WALKER and ORLANDO OBRET, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. WORKFORCE 7 INC.,
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY of NEW YORK, INC., VALI INDUSTRIES,
INC. and RONALD HILTON, Jointly and Severally, Case No.
1:20-cv-03812-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Edgardo Ramos entered a
revised civil case discovery plan and
scheduling order as follows:
a. Non-expert discovery shall be Jan. 10, 2024
completed by:
b. The Plaintiffs shall take the Feb. 21, 2024
first step in class
certification motion practice
by:
c. Expert reports shall be served March 27, 2024
no later than:
d. Rebuttal expert reports shall April 24, 2024
be served no later than:
e. Expert witness depositions shall May 22, 2024
be completed by:
Workforce 7 specializes in companies that need flaggers and
provides manpower solutions for the right project.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 5, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46Zcb6j at no extra charge.[CC]
XTO ENERGY: Bid for Summary Judgment in Brusamonti Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cathy Bissoon of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania grants the Defendant's motion for summary
judgment in the lawsuit titled PETER BRUSAMONTI, et al., Plaintiffs
v. XTO ENERGY INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00652-CB (W.D.
Pa.).
According to the Court's Memorandum and Order, the Plaintiffs' oil
and gas royalty-revenues inadvertently were underpaid, as a result
of the Defendant's software upgrade. The upgrade caused
over-deductions of certain production expenses. The Defendant
ceased over-withholding, and began reimbursing the Plaintiffs'
account, before this lawsuit was filed.
Accepting the Plaintiffs' calculations, $11,242.47 was wrongly
withheld. Before this lawsuit was filed, in May 2020, the Defendant
had reimbursed roughly $3,000. By May 2020 (well before the
Defendant was served), the outstanding balance was down to
approximately $2,585.61. By August 2020 -- before the Defendant
filed its answer (and after a joint Motion for extension) -- the
balance, according to the Plaintiffs, was $2.57. Although the
Defendant disagrees that $2.57 is owing, this is the extent of the
remaining dispute.
From the beginning, the Defendant has emphasized its efforts to
make the Plaintiffs whole, which commenced before the lawsuit was
filed, and was concluded before the Defendant responded to the
Complaint. The Court allowed the case to proceed, so that the
Defendant could "show its work," and confirm that the Plaintiffs
were, indeed, made whole. The Plaintiffs, in essence, now concede
the point ($2.57 aside).
Throughout the course of this litigation, the Plaintiffs' counsel
have indicated their belief that other property owners may have
been similarly impacted. In discussions during a Court Conference,
and in a videotaped meet-and-confer session submitted to the Court,
Judge Bissoon has heard counsel's "back and forth." Essentially,
the Plaintiffs' counsel remain unprepared to identify, even on
information and belief, other property owners, who were similarly
affected.
Absent a proverbial "fishing expedition," Judge Bissoon observes
that the Plaintiffs' counsel have remained unable to identify a
single property owner harmed. And the Court is left with the
distinct impression that this matter has degenerated into one where
attorneys' fees are in search of a claim. Counsel appear to have
seen a glimmer of gold at the end of the rainbow, and they cannot
avert their gaze, Judge Bissoon says.
For the reasons stated in the motion papers, Judge Bissoon holds
that summary judgment in favor of the Defendant is warranted. The
Plaintiffs in this lawsuit have been made whole. The Defendant's
efforts to make them whole began prior to the filing of suit. It
was completed before the Defendant's answer deadline.
If the Brusamontis wish to pursue interest on delayed payment, or
reasonable attorneys fees -- to the extent the law permits -- they
may file a motion, Judge Bissoon opines. The Court will hold the
case open for a brief period, before entering Rule 58 judgment, so
that such a motion may be filed.
Given that the Plaintiffs have been made whole, they cannot
establish themselves as appropriate, adequate or typical class
representatives. The Plaintiffs' Motion for class certification,
which was not permitted under the Court's case management plan,
will be stricken.
The Defendant has objected to the Motion, and its counsel have made
not-insubstantial arguments for the entry of Rule 11 sanctions.
Rather than engage in protracted wrangling on the sanctions issues,
the Court will strike the Motion for class certification and deny
the Motion for sanctions.
Again, Judge Bissoon says, counsel's dogged pursuit of the class
vehicle appears to be little more than a chasing of things at the
end of rainbows. The Court perceives little benefit to counsel's
actual clients, i.e., the named Plaintiffs.
Finally, based on the information provided through the course of
this litigation, the Court has serious doubts as to whether class
treatment is warranted or feasible, as relates to any presumed but
not-yet-identified property owner. Given that the class allegations
here were not reached, no prejudice results. If the Plaintiffs'
counsel (or any other lawyer(s)) should engage a client, who has
been injured, there is nothing to stop them from initiating future
class proceedings.
Consistent with the foregoing, the Court enters the following:
(1) Defendant's Motion for summary judgment is granted;
(2) Plaintiffs' Motion for class certification is stricken;
and
(3) Defendant's Motion for sanctions is denied.
The Plaintiffs may file by Oct. 2, 2023, a motion regarding
interest and/or attorney's fees (and/or the alleged $2.57 balance),
as described. If no filing timely is made, the Court will enter
judgment under Rule 58 and the case will be marked closed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Sept.
21, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y62ma9v5 from
PacerMonitor.com.
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***