/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231103.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, November 3, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 221 Headlines 3M CO: Contingency Action in Water Contamination Suit Discussed AEGIS FIDUCIARY: Dumas Sues Over Alleged ERISA Violations ALLIANCE COAL: Court Junks Bid to Dismiss Cates Suit ALLSTATE FIRE: Plaintiffs Seek to Preclude Evidence Submission AMPHENOL CORP: Class Certification Discovery Due March 29, 2024 AMROCK LLC: Filing of Conditional Status Bid Extended to Nov. 1 APOSTOLIC CHRISTIAN: Ct. Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Stepp ARBOR REALTY: Court Certifies Class in Casa de Maryland ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Must File Class Cert Opposition Brief by Dec. 15 ARTIFLEX MANUFACTURING: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, Saxton Says BANK OF GREENE: Settlement Class in Broockmann Gets Certification BOJANGLES OPCO: Andrews Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: Class Suit Worker Allegations Trimmed Down BOYKIN FARMS: Court Conditionally Certifies Collective in Lopez CANDID COLOR: Scheduling & Discovery Order Entered in Mayhew Suit CANO HEALTH: Gonzalez Seeks to Amend Class Action Complaint CAPITAL VISION: Expert Discovery Must Be Completed by Feb. 5, 2024 CARRIAGE HEALTHCARE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 12, 2024 COWAN SYSTEMS: Violates Truth-in-Leasing Regulations, Roberson Says CV SCIENCES: Faces Deceitful Product Labeling Charges in CA Court DRIVER PROVIDER: Bid to Decertify Rule 23 Class Tossed in Salazar EARTHLINK HOLDINGS: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by Nov. 16 EUGENIA LLC: Tsanas Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Tips EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Feb. 26 FCA US: Bid to Modify Class Definition in Costa Suit Partly OK'd FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Callejas Gets More Time to File Class Status Bid GENERAL MOTORS: Court Tosses Bid to Certify Class in Vita Suit GENERAL MOTORS: Jennings Suit Seeks to Certify Class GIVAUDAN FLAVORS: Rivera Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages GKN DRIVELINE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Ayers Due June 6, 2024 GKN DRIVELINE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Carson Due June 6, 2024 GKN DRIVELINE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Ferges Due June 6, 2024 GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Class Cert Hearing in Moore Set for Dec. 1 GLENCORE CANADA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Toxic Contaminants GLENN HAWBAKER: Bid to Stay Discovery Tossed GLENN HAWBAKER: Court Reaffirms June 6, 2023 Class Cert Order GOOGLE INC: Class Cert Reply Extended in Consumer Privacy Suit GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Consolidated Suit Over SEC Filings GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Settlement Deal Reached in Ortiz Suit HARRIS TEETER: Sues Over Sales of Phenylephrine Oral Products HCA HEATHCARE: Rum Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses HEALTH CARE SERVICE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Solomon Claims HENRY INDUSTRIES: Bid to File Additional Joint Report OK'd in Sarte HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Caccavale Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action J. DAVID TAX: Faces Class Suit Over Legal Malpractice JACK IN THE BOX: Settlement Deal in Labor Suit for Court Approval JJJ CREEK: Smaling Sues Over Unsolicited Sales Calls JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hospital Sues Over Opioid's Misleading Marketing KFC CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Failure to Provide Mandatory Breaks LGL SYSTEMS: Whitfield Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty LIFE360 INC: Mediation Ongoing Over Unjust Enrichment Suit LOS ANGELES, CA: Hubbard FLSA Collective Gets Conditional Status LUIS DE LA AGUILERA: Bennes Suit Remanded to Miami-Dade Circuit Ct. M&S CAFE: Katsitadze Sues Over Unlawful Wage Deductions MARK MILLER: Ct. Sets Pretrial Conference in Securities Class Suit MOBIVITY HOLDINGS: To Settle TCPA Suits in Florida Court MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Gru Securities Suit Ongoing in CA Court NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Files Appeal in Seaman Suit to 2nd Circuit NATIONAL MORTGAGE: Kovachevich Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Cir. NOVA LIFESTYLE: Court OK's Settlement of Shareholder Suit OYO HOTELS: Plaintiffs Seek to Compel Class Discovery Responses PACIFIC STEEL: Exchange of Initial Disclosures Due Nov. 2 PAWAR BROS: Files Appeal in Jones Labor Suit to 2nd Circuit PROCTER & GAMBLE: Cannon Sues Over Deceptive Sleep Aid Products PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Soape Says PROSPECT MEDICAL: Goldstein Sues Over Disclosure of Patients' Info REDEEMER HEALTH: Appeals Remand Order in Jane Doe Suit to 3rd Cir. RT WHOLESALE: De Jesus Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices RXC ACQUISITION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to CSRs, Hernandez Says RYAN RHODES: Mason Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit RYVYL INC: Faces Cullen Securities Suit Over SEC Filing SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Suit Over SmartTag's Tracking Feature SAN DIEGO, CA: Parties Seek to Certify Class, Subclass in Dunsmore SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Chavez Covid-19 Suit Seeks Class Certification SANTA CLARA, CA: Faces Class Suit Over Data Privacy Breach SHADE STORE: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Tiesenga Claims STELLANTIS NV: Wins Class Suit Over Misleading Destination Charges SYSCO VENTURA: Faces Uecker Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices T-MOBILE USA: Faces Class Suit Over SIM-Swap Computer Fraud Claims TARGET CORP: Knopman Sues Over Illegal Sales Tax on American Flags TD BANK: Jimenez Suit Seeks Final Approval of Settlement TELEVISAUNIVISION INTERACTIVE: Discloses Info to Meta, Falcon Says TENNESSEE: Hooks Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action TOZZER LTD: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Duser Class Suit Alleges TYRONE OLIVER: Butler Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class of Inmates U.S. ASPHALT: Thomas Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages UNITED HEALTHCARE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 18, 2024 UNITED STATES: Return of Deported Aliens Part of Suit Settlement WORKHORSE GROUP: Settles Securities Suit in C.D. Cal. XTO ENERGY: Seventh Amended Case Management Order Entered in Kriley XWELL INC: Settles Labor Dispute After Mediation Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J's Failed 'Two-Step' Bankruptcies Cost $178MM ********* 3M CO: Contingency Action in Water Contamination Suit Discussed --------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Ferguson of Fox25 reports that Edmond City Council took contingency action on October 23, 2023 evening should it end up joining a class action lawsuit over water contamination. According to the Martin, Barrett, and Murphy Law Firm, which represented plaintiffs in the case, a class action settlement was reached in the U.S. District Court of South Carolina in June for $10.3 billion involving 3M Company, a multinational conglomerate that produces a range of products including chemicals. DuPont de Nemours, Inc., and Corteva, Inc. also reached a settlement in June for $1.185 billion over drinking water contamination. The law firm stated that all municipal drinking water providers can join in the suit if they have any detectable level of per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS substances, in their water. Edmond City Council voted to approve bringing in outside legal counsel in the event that the city joins the suit. According to the city, there's no indication its water is contaminated. A city spokesman informed FOX 25 that officials constantly test water to stay in compliance with regulations. PFAS and another related chemical called aqueous film forming foam, or AFFF, are known as "forever chemicals" because of their continued harmful impacts once integrated into the soil and drinking water. According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, those chemicals are dangerous and are linked to certain cancers. PFAS and AFFF chemicals have been used in firefighting foam. According to the city, if it was impacted in any way, it may have to conduct tests and engage in expensive remediation requirements. Officials would then use any financial compensation from the lawsuit for those efforts. Approving outside counsel from McAfee and Taft and Fulmer Sill comes at no immediate cost for the taxpayer. The city also plans on paying the attorneys from any money obtained through litigation. 3M shared the following statement with FOX 25 regarding the City of Edmond's action: 3Mhas entered into a broad class resolution to support PFAS remediation for public water suppliers (PWS) that detect PFAS at any level or may do so in the future. This agreement will benefit U.S.-based PWS nationwide that provide drinking water to a vast majority of Americans. Subject to court approval, the agreement provides funding for PWS across the country for PFAS treatment technologies without the need for further litigation. As the science and technology of PFAS, societal and regulatory expectations, and our expectations of ourselves have evolved, so has how we manage PFAS. We have and will continue to deliver on our commitments -- including remediating PFAS, investing in water treatment, and collaborating with communities. 3M also will continue to address other PFAS litigation by defending itself in court or through negotiated resolutions, all as appropriate. On October 31, 2023, Oklahoma City Council is set to take up similar action when it convenes. [GN] AEGIS FIDUCIARY: Dumas Sues Over Alleged ERISA Violations --------------------------------------------------------- TONI R. DUMAS, on behalf of the Lift, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROBERT E. LESSER, AEGIS FIDUCIARY SERVICES, LLC, DONALD G. HERMAN, and KIRK W. SEARS, Defendants., Case No. 5:23-cv 03979 (E.D. Pa., October 16, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiff and the class members brings this action against the Defendants for losses suffered by the Plan and its participants caused by the Trustee when it caused the Plan to buy shares of Lift for more than fair market value. Accordingly, the Plan has been injured and its participants have been deprived of hard-earned retirement benefits resulting from Defendants' violations of ERISA. Headquartered in Valley Stream, NY, Aegis Fiduciary Services is a New York limited liability company providing trustee services to privately held companies wishing to sponsor Employee Stock Ownership Plans. Aegis was founded in 2017. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patricia Mulvoy Kipnis, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 274-9420 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 E-mail: pkipnis@baileyglasser.com - and - Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. Ryan T. Jenny, Esq. 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com rjenny@baileyglasser.com ALLIANCE COAL: Court Junks Bid to Dismiss Cates Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATES v. Alliance Coal, LLC et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00377 (S.D. Ill., Filed April 9, 2021), the Hon. Judge Staci M. Yandle entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to participate in discovery. -- The Defendant's motion for decertification of the collective action is denied as premature. -- The Plaintiff's motion to enlarge and reset case management deadlines and jury trial is granted in part. -- The Final Pretrial Conference set for November 1, 2023 at 2:30 p.m. and Jury Trial set for November 13, 2023 are vacated. -- The parties shall complete ALL discovery by April 30, 2024. -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification and Defendant's motion for decertification shall be filed by May 30, 2024. -- Responses to these motions shall be filed by June 28, 2024. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Alliance is a diversified coal producer and marketer.[CC] ALLSTATE FIRE: Plaintiffs Seek to Preclude Evidence Submission -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES SIMS, TERRIE SIMS, NEAL COMEAU, LILIANA COMEAU, and JENIFER SIDDALL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, and ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. 5:22-cv-00580-JKP-HJB (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs file motion to preclude defendants from submitting any Evidence based upon, derived from, or relating to Allstate's Claims management system "next-gen" in opposition to class Certification or, in the alternative, to compel production of Next-gen for review and testing. Allstate is expected to similarly inject Next-Gen into this litigation by having its employees or experts refer to tasks undertaken on the system. The Court should not accept any Allstate evidence or representations relating to Next-Gen, or claims administration under Next-Gen, without Plaintiffs having a fair and equal opportunity to explore the veracity of Allstate's representations. City Select, 867 F.3d at 440-41; Monsanto, 2005 WL 5989796. The Plaintiffs are not on the same footing as Allstate and will be disadvantaged by their inability to rebut Allstate's arguments that rely on Next-Gen since Plaintiffs have not received equal access. Fairness requires that Allstate produce a copy or otherwise provide access to its claims management system. The case is a putative class action insurance dispute arising from Allstate's withholding of labor-related costs when Allstate calculates actual cash value ("ACV") payments to its insureds who suffered property damage. The Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract and declaratory judgment on behalf of themselves and similarly situated policyholders. Following targeted discovery, Plaintiffs intend to seek certification of a Texas class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Allstate offers auto, home, renters, condo, motorcycle, life, and roadside insurance services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 25, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45VUbZo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq. SNODGRASS LAW LLC 100 South 5th Street, Suite 800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 448-2600 E-mail: jsnodgrass@snodgrass-law.com - and - Shaun W. Hodge, Esq. THE HODGE LAW FIRM, PLLC The Historic Runge House 1301 Market Street Galveston, TX 77550 Telephone: (409) 762-5000 E-mail: shodge@hodgefirm.com - and - Erik D. Peterson, Esq. ERIK PETERSON LAW OFFICES, PSC 110 W. Vine Street, Suite 300 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (800) 614-1957 E-mail: erik@eplo.law - and - J. Brandon McWherter, Esq. MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC 341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230 Franklin, TN 37067 Telephone: (615) 354-1144 E-mail: brandon@msb.law AMPHENOL CORP: Class Certification Discovery Due March 29, 2024 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kim Bookhout v. Amphenol Corporation, Case No. 3:23-cv-00777-TJM-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Miroslav Lovric entered a uniform pretrial scheduling order: -- Any motion to join any person as a Jan. 31, 2024 party to the action shall be made on or before: -- Any motion to amend any pleading in Jan. 31, 2024 this action shall be made on or before: -- The parties are directed to file a Jan. 3, 2024 status report on or before: -- Rule 26(a)(1) Mandatory Disclosures Oct. 17, 2023 are to be exchanged by: -- Initial Written Discovery Demands Nov. 24, 2023. must be served by: -- Class Certification Discovery in March 29, 2024 this matter is to be completed on or before: Amphenol is a major producer of electronic and fiber optic connectors, cable and interconnect systems such as coaxial cables. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4794OZR at no extra charge.[CC] AMROCK LLC: Filing of Conditional Status Bid Extended to Nov. 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as COPPOLA et al v. AMROCK, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-11639 (D. Mass., Filed July 21, 2023), the Hon. Judge Indira Talwani entered an order allowing assented to motion for extension of time to file response/reply: -- First motion to Certify Class [Conditional Certification of FLSA Collective] Responses due by November 1, 2023. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Amrock is an American provider of title insurance, property valuations and settlement services.[CC] APOSTOLIC CHRISTIAN: Ct. Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Stepp ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stepp v. Apostolic Christian Restmor, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01298-MMM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows: -- Rule 16 scheduling conference The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference approximately 30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is filed. The conference will generally be conducted by telephone. -- Discovery plan The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least three calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference If the parties agree on all matters contained in the discovery plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16 scheduling conference be cancelled. -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most hearings by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to appear for an in-person hearing. -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the discovery deadline has already passed The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all discovery disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even if the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to conduct discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the Court, they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived. -- Settlement conferences and mediation The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to Judge Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or mediation. Apostolic is a skilled nursing center that provides long-term care, sheltered care, and rehabilitation services. A copy of the Court's standing order dated Oct. 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47as7CI at no extra charge.[CC] ARBOR REALTY: Court Certifies Class in Casa de Maryland ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CASA de MARYLAND, INC., et al. v. ARBOR REALTY TRUST, INC., et al. Case No. 8:21-cv-01778-DKC (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Deborah K. Chasanow entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion, as supplemented and amended by their Corrected Unopposed Motion is granted. 2. Subject to further consideration at the Final Fairness Hearing, the terms of the Settlement Agreement are preliminarily approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate within the meaning of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e). 3. For settlement purposes only, and subject to further consideration at the Final Fairness Hearing, the following class of individuals is 4as a class action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) & 23(b)(3): "All current and prior tenants who resided at the Bedford and Victoria Station Apartment Complexes between July 19, 2018, and May 23, 2022. 4. The court preliminarily finds that the Rule 23 Class meets the prerequisites for a class action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b)(3)6. Named Plaintiffs Anita Ramirez, Ramiro Lopez, Ervin Obdulio Rodas, Jesus Gonzalez, Maria Arely Bonilla, Maria Lara, and Norma Guadalupe Beltran BE, are appointed to serve as the representatives of the class. 5. The law firms of Nidel & Nace, P.L.L.C. and The Donahue Law Firm, LLC, BE, are appointed to serve as Class Counsel for the Class pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(g). Arbor is a national direct lender that provides debt capital for the multifamily loan and commercial real estate industries. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40iacaW at no extra charge.[CC] ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Must File Class Cert Opposition Brief by Dec. 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 December 15, 2023. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Arizona Beverages is a producer of many flavors of iced tea, juice cocktails, and energy drinks.[CC] ARTIFLEX MANUFACTURING: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, Saxton Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ KEITH SAXTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ARTIFLEX MANUFACTURING, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-02075-JJH (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 23, 2023) is a "collective action" instituted by the Plaintiff as a result of Defendant's practices and policies of not paying its hourly, non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees, for all hours worked, including overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio's Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio's Prompt Pay Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant employed Plaintiff as a production employee in August 2022 at the Clyde, Ohio facility and he is still currently employed by Defendant. Other similarly situated employees were employed by Defendant as production employees in the Wooster and Clyde, Ohio facilities. The Defendant required production employees to be at the facility at least twenty to thirty minutes prior to the start of their shift. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were required to clock in with a timecard when they arrived at Defendant's facility, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Civ. R. 23(A) and (B)(1) and (3) on behalf of himself and a class of persons employed by Defendant in Ohio within the last three years defined as: "All former and current production employees of Artiflex Manufacturing LLC, in Wooster, Ohio and Clyde, Ohio facilities, including those performing the same and/or substantially similar job duties and/or responsibilities between three years from the filing of this Complaint and the present." The Defendant designs and manufactures tools, dies and automation systems, including the manufacture of car parts in Wooster and Clyde, Ohio that are sold to customers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert B. Kapitan, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Building, Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: robert@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com lori@lazzarolawfirm.com BANK OF GREENE: Settlement Class in Broockmann Gets Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW BROOCKMANN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. THE BANK OF GREENE COUNTY, Case No. 1:22-cv-00390-AMN-ATB (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Anne Nardacci entered an order granting Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Certification of the Settlement Class, Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement, Approval of the Service Award, and Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Costs. The Court further orders that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in Plaintiff's favor and close this case. The Court further Orders that the Clerk serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules. Andrew Broockmann brings this putative class action on behalf of himself and similarly situated consumers, through counsel KalielGold PLLC, against The Bank of Greene County, alleging multiple causes of action stemming from the Defendant's alleged practice of assessing an overdraft fee (OD Fee) on transactions that did not overdraw customers' checking accounts. On June 24, 2022, Defendant filed its Answer. On November 16, 2022, the parties engaged in a mediation before the Hon. Edward Infante. On December 19, 2022, the parties informed the Court that they had reached an agreement in principle and on December 21, 2022, the Court stayed all remaining deadlines. -- The Settlement Class and Release The Settlement Class is defined as "those checking account customers of The Bank of Greene County who, from April 26, 2016 to the date [of the Court's] Preliminary Approval/Notice Order, while residing in the United States, paid an [OD Fee] on a transaction that The Bank of Greene County determined was authorized into a positive available balance, and for whom that [OD Fee] was not refunded." -- The Settlement Fund and Uncollected Fees The total value of the Settlement is $1,214,500, which consists of BGC establishing and paying a cash Settlement Fund of $1,150,000 and agreeing to forgive, waive, and not collect $64,500 in Uncollected OD Fees. The Defendant is a banking business headquartered in Catskill, New York, engaged in "providing retail banking services to consumers." A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tTl2It at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Sophia G. Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 The Defendant is represented by: Lukas Sosnicki, Esq. Matthew B. Nevola, Esq THOMPSON COBURN HAHN & HESSEN LLP 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90 BOJANGLES OPCO: Andrews Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DORIEN ANDREWS II and CONNER CRISCO, Individually and On Behalf of All of All Others Similarly Situated, v. BOJANGLES OPCO, LLC and BOJANGLES RESTAURANTS, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00593-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for Conditional Certification: 1. The Plaintiffs seek payment of unpaid overtime wages owed to them and other similarly situated current and former employees of Bojangles, who worked as exempt-classified Assistant General Managers, Assistant Managers, Assistant Unit Managers, and employees in similar positions but different job titles (collectively "AGMs") who opt into this action. 2. The Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA) "collective action" provision allows for an individual employee to bring an action on his or her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated as provided in 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). 3. The Plaintiffs seek to conditionally certify the following collective: all individuals who worked for Defendants as AGMs at any of its restaurant locations nationwide from September 19, 2020 to the present (the "Proposed Collective"). Bojangles is an American regional chain of fast-food restaurants that specializes in Cajun-seasoned fried chicken and buttermilk biscuits. A copy of Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 25, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46VIF1G at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Logan A. Pardell, Esq. PARDELL, KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO, PLLC 433 Plaza Real, Suite 275 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 726-8444 Facsimile: (877) 453-8003 E-mail: lpardell@pkglegal.com - and - Brian L. Kinsley, Esq. CR LEGAL TEAM, LLP 2400 Freeman Mill Rd, Suite 200 Greensboro, NC 27406 Telephone: (336) 333-9899 Facsimile: (866) 827-2879 E-mail: bkinsley@crlegalteam.com BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: Class Suit Worker Allegations Trimmed Down ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jennifer Bennett of Bloomberg Law reports that Bojangles' Restaurants Inc. secured a pre-trial win on some claims in a wage-and-hour suit, but it will still have to defend others, including two state-law classes made up of approximately 3,000 workers. The fried chicken chain defeated some of the named plaintiff's individual employment discrimination allegations and some Georgia and Tennessee class wage claims. But too much is in dispute for either side to get summary judgment on the Fair Labor Standards Act allegations, the US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina said. Robert Stafford worked for Bojangles first as a crew member. [GN] BOYKIN FARMS: Court Conditionally Certifies Collective in Lopez --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRISTOBAL LOPEZ LOPEZ and GILBERTO FLORES LOZANO, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons, V. BOYKIN FARMS, INC., RHODES FARMING, LLC, WILLIE C. BOYKIN, III, MATTHEW Z. RHODES, TONY C. LEE, d/b/a LEE AND SONS FARMS, CAMERON LEE, d/b/a LEE AND SONS FARMS, and CLINT LEE, d/b/a LEE AND SONS FARMS, Case No. 5:22-cv-00491-BO-RN (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Terrence W. Boyle entered an order conditionally certifying FLSA collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(6) as follows: -- FLSA Reimbursement Collective Action "Persons who, in any pay period falling within the three chronological years immediately preceding the date on which this action was filed and continuing thereafter through the date on which final judgment is entered in this action, held H2A visas and were not reimbursed for all of their H-2A related expenses (travel, visa, hotel, meals, and/or border crossing costs) during their first workweek such that they were paid less than the minimum wage during that workweek, and who timely file a written consent to be a party pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(6) --FLSA Underpayment Collective Action "Persons who, in any pay period falling within the three chronological years immediately preceding the date on which this action was filed and continuing thereafter through the date on which final judgment is entered in this action, who held H-2A visas and who were not compensated at the minimum wage rate during some workweeks because they were paid a piece rate, were not paid for travel time between fields, and/or were required to kick back part of their wages for illegal meal charges and who timely file a written consent to be a party pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(6) The Court authorizes the Notice attached as Exhibit 1 to plaintiffs' motion for distribution in English and Spanish to potential opt-in plaintiffs by U.S. mail after defendants have provided the contact information requested in the motion and authorizes the information in the notice to be distributed by text, WhatsApp, Facebook, and website posting. The Court also orders defendants to post the notice in English and Spanish at all kitchens and employerprovided housing for H-2A farmworkers under the ownership or control of any of the defendants within two weeks of entry of this Order, and further orders the defendants to provide the notice to current employees working as cooks with their paychecks within two weeks of entry of this Order. The Court further approves the Consent to Join Form, attached as Exhibit 2 to plaintiffs' motion, for distribution to the putative members of the collective action. The date limiting the preliminary joinder of opt-in plaintiffs filing Consent to Sue forms shall be six months from the date on which the complete addresses and names of putative class members are produced by defendants in accordance with this Order. The Defendants are ordered to provide plaintiffs with the full names, date(s) of employment, employer JD, passport numbers, U.S. and Mexico addresses, cell and WhatsApp numbers (U.S. and Mexico), and dates of birth of all putative collective action members on an Excel document or other computer-readable fi le. This production shall be made within two weeks of the date of entry of this Order. The Plaintiffs, two Mexican migrant farm workers, filed this suit on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. sections 201, et seq. Plaintiffs allege that they and others were employed by defendants pursuant to temporary foreign worker visas (H-2A visas) and they were not timely reimbursed for the costs of their visas and travel to North Carolina, were not paid the promised wage rate, had their passports and Social Security cards confiscated, were not paid for all hours worked, and were illegally charged for their meals while in North Carolina. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40iiuzJ at no extra charge.[CC] CANDID COLOR: Scheduling & Discovery Order Entered in Mayhew Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SPENCER MAYHEW, ET AL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CANDID COLOR SYSTEMS, INC, ET AL, Case No. 3:23-cv-02964-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge David W. Dugan entered an order adopting joint report and proposed scheduling and discovery order. -- Depositions upon oral examination, interrogatories, requests for documents, and answers and responses thereto shall not be filed unless on order of the Court. -- Disclosures or discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) are to be filed with the Court only to the extent required by the final pretrial order, other Court order, or if a dispute arises over the disclosure or discovery and the matter has been set for briefing. Candid provides photography and printing services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/49aFrsv at no extra charge.[CC] CANO HEALTH: Gonzalez Seeks to Amend Class Action Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALBERTO GONZALEZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CANO HEALTH, INC. f/k/a JAWS ACQUISITION CORP., MARLOW HERNANDEZ, and BRIAN D. KOPPY, Case No. 1:22-cv-20827-KMW (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff file a motion for leave to amend the amended class action complaint and supporting memorandum of law. Specifically, on August 10, 2023, newly appointed interim Chief Executive Officer Mark Kent revealed that Cano took a $44 million charge against its fiscal 2022 reported revenue "due to a shortfall in the Medicare risk adjustment revenue, or MRA, collected versus what was expected and accrued for in prior periods." Moreover, he stated that Cano's MRA process "was a very tedious and manual process" that was "fraught with all kinds of errors," causing the Company to overestimate its MRA revenue. On this news, the Company's stock price fell 73% to close at $0.41 per share on August 11, 2023. Cano operates value-based primary care centers and supports affiliated primary care medical practices for seniors and underserved communities. A copy of Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 25, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tKd6sI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leo W. Desmond, Esq. DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C. 601 21st Street, Suite 300 Vero Beach, FL 32960 Telephone: (772) 231-9600 E-mail: lwd@desmondlawfirm.com - and - Casey E. Sadler, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: csadler@glancylaw.com prajesh@glancylaw.com CAPITAL VISION: Expert Discovery Must Be Completed by Feb. 5, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Clark et al v. Capital Vision Services, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-10236 (D. Mass, Filed Feb. 11, 2022), the Hon. Judge Denise J. Casper entered an order granting motion for extension of time to complete discovery. -- Opening expert disclosures by: Dec. 6, 2023 -- Rebuttal expert disclosures by: Jan. 5, 2024 -- Expert discovery to be completed by: Feb. 5, 2024 The deadlines for filing class certification motions/Motions for Summary Judgment, decertification motions/Daubert motions and the hearing date regarding same remain in place. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Capital Vision provides optometric and retail optical services.[CC] CARRIAGE HEALTHCARE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 12, 2024 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Niemczynski v. Carriage Healthcare Companies Inc et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00127 (E.D. Wisc., Filed Feb 1, 2022), the Hon. Judge Stephen C. Dries entered an order granting the joint motion for extension of time. -- The parties may have until January 12, 2024 to file their respective motions for class certification and decertification. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Carriage is a management provider for post-acute and senior care facilities including nursing homes, assisted livings, rehab centers, and RCACs.[CC] COWAN SYSTEMS: Violates Truth-in-Leasing Regulations, Roberson Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFERY ROBERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COWAN SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02865-MJM (D. Md., Oct. 23, 2023) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of individuals who have signed agreements to be lease drivers for Cowan Systems arises from the Defendant's violation of the 49 U.S.C. Section 14704 and the Truth-in-Leasing regulations as well as the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated individuals who have performed some work in Maryland at any time since October 23, 2020. Cowan is a Maryland company, with a mailing address of 4555 Hollins Ferry Road in Baltimore, Baltimore County, Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anisha S. Queen, Esq. BROWN GOLDSTEIN & LEVY LLP 120 East Baltimore Street, Suite 2500 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 962-1030 Facsimile: (410) 385-0869 E-mail: aqueen@browngold.com - and - Hillary Schwab, Esq. Rachel Smit, Esq. Brant Casavant, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607-3260 Facsimile: (617) 488-2261 E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com rachel@fairworklaw.com brant@fairworklaw.com CV SCIENCES: Faces Deceitful Product Labeling Charges in CA Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- CV Sciences, 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 14, 2023, that it is facing a putative class action complaint in the Central District of California filed on December 3, 2019 by Michelene Colette and Leticia Shaw. Suit alleges the labeling on the company's products violated the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938. On February 6, 2020, the company filed a motion to dismiss said complaint. Instead of opposing the company's motion, plaintiffs elected to file an amended complaint on February 25, 2020. On March 11, 2020, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court issued a ruling on May 22, 2020 that stayed this proceeding in its entirety and dismissed part of the amended complaint. The portion of the proceeding that is stayed will remain stayed until the. CV Sciences, Inc. develops, manufactures, markets and sells herbal supplements and hemp-based cannabidiol (CBD). The company's PlusCBD(TM) branded products are sold at select retail locations in a variety of market sectors including nutraceutical, beauty care and specialty foods. In addition, subject to available capital, the company is pursuing drug candidates which use CBD as a primary active ingredient. DRIVER PROVIDER: Bid to Decertify Rule 23 Class Tossed in Salazar ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kelli Salazar, et al., v. Driver Provider Phoenix LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-05760-SMB (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Susan Brnovich entered an order denying the Defendants' motion to decertify Rule 23 Class: The Defendants are correct in asserting that factual developments can lead to sufficiently changed circumstances to warrant decertification. Here, however, they have not met that standard. The class members remain similarly situated and predominance remains satisfied. Earlier in this litigation, the Court granted certification on Claim III of the Fourth Amended Complaint, which asserted a violation of the Arizona Minimum Wage Act (AMWA). The Court certified the following class: "All current and former employees of The Driver Provider who performed chauffeur services in Arizona at any time from December 6, 2016 to the present." Excluded from the class are all owners, managers, supervisors, dispatchers, or other employees whose primary job responsibilities were not the provision of chauffeur services. The Defendants now argue that this class should be decertified due to new factual circumstances revealed through expert discovery. Driver Provider is a transportation/trucking/railroad company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tLGX3Y at no extra charge.[CC] EARTHLINK HOLDINGS: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by Nov. 16 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Murray v. EarthLink Holdings Corp et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-00202 (E.D. Ark., Filed March 19, 2018), the Hon. Judge James M. Moody Jr. entered an order granting motion for extension of time to file response. -- Defendants' Opposition to Lead Plaintiffs Nov. 16, 2023 Motion for Class Certification is due by: The suit alleges violation of the Federal Communications Act of 1934. EarthLink provides technology, network, and communication services to individual and business consumers.[CC] EUGENIA LLC: Tsanas Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Tips ------------------------------------------------------------------ ATHANASIOS TSANAS, on behalf of himself and others v. EUGENIA LLC and PHILIP D. HOBSON, Case No. 1:23-cv-01441 (E.D. Va., Oct. 23, 2023) is a Collective Action Complaint to enforce the payment of tips and the minimum wage against Eugenia LLC and Phillip D. Hobson, and to recover unpaid tips, minimum wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs and any other appropriate relief, as provided under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Virginia Wage Payment Act. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers who worked alongside Plaintiff were not paid tips or minimum wages. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and his similarly situated co-workers, seeks payment of unpaid minimum wages, tips, liquidated damages and all other relief permitted by law. The Plaintiff, by affixing his name in writing to the caption of this Collective Action Complaint, affirms his written consent to participate as a plaintiff in a collective action seeking unpaid wages and damages under the FLSA. EUGENIA LLC is engaged in the food industry business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew T. Sutter, Esq. SUTTER & TERPAK, PLLC 7540A Little River Turnpike Annandale, VA 22003 Telephone: (703) 256-1800 Facsimile: (703) 991-6116 E-mail: matt@sutterandterpak.com EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Feb. 26 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Schmidt v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00362 (D. Colo., Filed Feb 8, 2023), the Hon. Judge Raymond P. Moore entered an order granting stipulated motion for modification of scheduling order and extension of discovery deadlines. -- The fact discovery deadline is extended to: Dec. 11, 2023 -- The expert discovery deadline is extended Feb. 12, 2024 to: -- The affirmative expert disclosure deadline Dec. 18, 2023 is extended to: -- The rebuttal expert disclosure deadline Jan. 29, 2024 is extended to: -- The class certification deadline is Feb. 26, 2024 extended to: The suit alleges violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act involving consumer credit. Experian operates as an information services company.[CC] FCA US: Bid to Modify Class Definition in Costa Suit Partly OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Costa et al v. FCA US LLC et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-11810 (D. Mass., Filed Oct 2, 2020), the Hon. Judge Allison D Burroughs entered an order: -- Denying Defendant's motion to decertify class; and -- Granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion to modify class definition. The class definition shall be modified to: "All persons in Massachusetts who currently own or lease a Class Vehicle manufactured by FCA or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates that is equipped with an AHR system and who have not received two free replacement AHRs under FCA US's extended warranty program after September 1, 2017." Class Vehicles are defined as any of the following vehicles that were manufactured between January 1, 2012 and September 1, 2017: -- 2012-2018 Dodge Journey; -- 2012 Jeep Liberty; -- 2012-2017 Jeep Patriot or Compass; -- 2012 Dodge Caliber; 2012-2018 Grand Voyager; -- 2012-2018 Dodge Caravan; -- 2012-2018 Town & Country; -- 2012- 2018 Dodge Durango; -- 2012-2018 Jeep Grand Cherokee; -- 2012-2014 Sebring/Avenger; and -- 2012-2014 Chrysler 200. The Court does not find that either Plaintiff or class counsel are inadequate for moving to modify the class definition. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that these cases turn on whether the res judicata effect of a class judgment would preclude class members from pursuing those waived or abandoned claims in subsequent litigation. Although individual litigation may not be their preferred means of seeking relief, where these former class members may still pursue their claims, this alone does not warrant a finding of inadequacy. Finally, on adequacy, the Court does not find that in filing the motion to modify the class definition and representing that former class members will receive notice of the modification, class counsel have flout[ed] [their] fiduciary duties raising due process concerns. The Defendant has pointed to no case that has found as much. As to Plaintiff's standing to bring claims based on vehicles he did not buy or lease. The nature of suit states Real Property - Tort Product Liability. FCA designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.[CC] FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Callejas Gets More Time to File Class Status Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORGE CALLEJAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-06540-JFW-AJR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John F. Walter entered an order extending the Plaintiff's deadline to file a Motion for Class Certification to 180 days after Defendant's Answer is filed. Freedom Mortgage provides purchase, re-financing, and lending services for buying real estate. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46Kke7c at no extra charge.[CC] GENERAL MOTORS: Court Tosses Bid to Certify Class in Vita Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vita v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01032 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Feb. 25, 2020), the Hon. Judge Nusrat Jahan Choudhury entered an order denying motion in limine and motion to certify class with leave to refile in accordance with Judge Choudhury's Individual Rules, including Rule 1.9., as to court filings and civil case motion practice by Nov. 9, 2023. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Motor Vehicle Product Liability. General Motors is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company.[CC] GENERAL MOTORS: Jennings Suit Seeks to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA MAE JENNINGS individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02638-CEF (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed Class, appointing her as class representative, and appointing her counsel as Class Counsel. This is the Plaintiff's second class certification motion involving GM vehicles equipped with defective Generation IV 5.3-liter V8 Vortec 5300 LC9 engines. The Class Vehicles all suffer from the same piston ring defect that causes an abnormal and improperly high oil consumption rate, far more than industry standards and consumer expectations. This excessive oil consumption results in insufficient lubricity, corresponding internal engine component damage, and can cause loss of power and complete engine shutdown. General Motors is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QBSprY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. DiCello, Esq. Justin J. Hawal, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 8160 Norton Parkway Mentor, Ohio 44060 Telephone: 440-953-8888 E-mail: madicello@dicellolevitt.com jhawal@dicellolevitt.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. John E. Tangren, Esq. Daniel R. Ferri, Esq. Blake Stubbs, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: 312-214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com jtangren@dicellolevitt.com dferri@dicellolevitt.com bstubbs@dicellolevitt.com - and - W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq. J. Mitch Williams, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 272 Commerce Street Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Dee.Miles@Beasleyallen.com Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com Mitch.Williams@Beasleyallen.com GIVAUDAN FLAVORS: Rivera Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- ISMAEL RIVERA, on his own behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated employees v. GIVAUDAN FLAVORS CORPORATION, and all other affiliated entities and/or joint employers, Case No. 2:23-cv-21387 (D.N.J., Oct. 23, 2023) is a class action lawsuit seeking recovery against Defendant for its violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law and associated provisions of the New Jersey Administrative Code, as well as the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against Defendant as a collective and class action on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated non-exempt production laborers, who suffered damages for damages as a result of Defendant's violations of the FLSA pursuant to the collective action provisions of 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). Plaintiff Rivera was paid approximately $38 per hour at the time of his separation from the Defendant. The Plaintiff generally worked approximately 57 hours per week, and regularly in excess of 40 hours per week. Givaudan is a global leader in fragrance & beauty and taste & wellbeing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com GKN DRIVELINE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Ayers Due June 6, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as AYERS et al v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00581 (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Loretta C. Biggs entered an order adopting amended Joint Rule 26(f) Report with the following clarifications/modifications: (1) The parties shall serve any initial disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) by Nov. 22, 2023; (2) The parties shall complete Phase I discovery by April 22, 2024; (3) Plaintiff shall file any motion for conditional and/or class certification by June 6, 2024; (4) Within 14 days of any ruling on any motion for conditional and/or class certification, the parties shall meet and confer regarding a Phase II case management schedule; (5) Within 21 days of any ruling on any motion for conditional and/or class certification, the parties shall file either joint or individual reports regarding a Phase II case management schedule; (6) After reviewing any such reports, the Court will determine whether and when to set any further pretrial conferences; and (7) The setting of all other scheduling order deadlines, including for motions to amend pleadings or to add parties is deferred. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. GKN manufactures automotive parts.[CC] GKN DRIVELINE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Carson Due June 6, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARSON v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00583 (M.D.N.C., Filed July 14, 2023), the Hon. Judge Loretta C. Biggs entered an order adopting amended Joint Rule 26(f) Report with the following clarifications/modifications: (1) The parties shall serve any initial disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) by Nov. 22, 2023; (2) The parties shall complete Phase I discovery by April 22, 2024; (3) Plaintiff shall file any motion for conditional and/or class certification by June 6, 2024; (4) Within 14 days of any ruling on any motion for conditional and/or class certification, the parties shall meet and confer regarding a Phase II case management schedule; (5) Within 21 days of any ruling on any motion for conditional and/or class certification, the parties shall file either joint or individual reports regarding a Phase II case management schedule; (6) After reviewing any such reports, the Court will determine whether and when to set any further pretrial conferences; and (7) The setting of all other scheduling order deadlines, including for motions to amend pleadings or to add parties is deferred. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. GKN manufactures automotive parts.[CC] GKN DRIVELINE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Ferges Due June 6, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ferges, et al., v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00585 (M.D.N.C., Filed July 14, 2023), the Hon. Judge Loretta C. Biggs entered an order adopting amended Joint Rule 26(f) Report with the following clarifications/modifications: (1) The parties shall serve any initial disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) by Nov. 22, 2023; (2) The parties shall complete Phase I discovery by April 22, 2024; (3) Plaintiff shall file any motion for conditional and/or class certification by June 6, 2024; (4) Within 14 days of any ruling on any motion for conditional and/or class certification, the parties shall meet and confer regarding a Phase II case management schedule; (5) Within 21 days of any ruling on any motion for conditional and/or class certification, the parties shall file either joint or individual reports regarding a Phase II case management schedule; (6) After reviewing any such reports, the Court will determine whether and when to set any further pretrial conferences; and (7) The setting of all other scheduling order deadlines, including for motions to amend pleadings or to add parties is deferred. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. GKN manufactures automotive parts.[CC] GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Class Cert Hearing in Moore Set for Dec. 1 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA M. MOORE individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS (US) LLC; and PFIZER INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-09077-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey S. White entered an order extending the briefing schedule by continuing the existing dates and deadlines as follows: (1) The Defendants' Opposition to Nov. 7, 2023 Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude: (2) The Plaintiff's Reply in support Nov. 21, 2023 of Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude: (3) Hearing: Dec. 1, 2023 Glaxo SmithKline manufactures and sells malted milk food products. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QzKWKc at no extra charge.[CC] GLENCORE CANADA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Toxic Contaminants ---------------------------------------------------------------- CTV News reports that a law firm says it plans to file a class action suit in Quebec Superior Court October 23, 2023 against multinational Glencore, which owns the Horne Foundry, and the provincial government. The plaintiffs accuse the Horne Foundry of "having emitted a cocktail of toxic and carcinogenic contaminants into the environment that far exceed air quality standards in Quebec" and infringing on their fundamental rights. The initiators of the action, Julie Fortier and Miguel Charlebois, are two Rouyn-Noranda residents. They are represented by the law firm Siskinds Desmeules, which is bringing the class action on behalf of two groups. The first group represents anyone who has lived in the Notre-Dame district of the City of Rouyn-Noranda at any time since Jan. 1, 1991. The second group comprises people who have lived within the urban perimeter of the City of Rouyn-Noranda, excluding the Notre Dame district, at any time since Jan. 1, 1991. COMPENSATION PLAN For people in group 1, the compensation plan proposed by the plaintiffs includes $1,000 per month of occupancy during the exposure period (between January 1991 and the judgment on merits). The plaintiffs are claiming "$500 per month of occupancy for the three years preceding the filing of the application for authorization until the judgment on merits, as compensatory damages for inconveniences suffered" and "an additional lump sum of $15,000 for emotional damages" for those with children. The suit also demands $250 per month of occupancy during the exposure period for punitive damages. For people in group 2, the plaintiffs are claiming $500 per month of occupancy during the exposure period and $500 per month of occupancy "for the three years preceding the filing of the application for authorization until judgment on merits, as compensatory damages for inconveniences suffered." They also want an additional $7,500 for parents of children for emotional damages. They are asking for $250 per month of occupancy during the exposure period for punitive damages and reimbursement for "any financial losses related to the maintenance of their residence, mitigation of exposure or protection of their health." The plant, which processes copper concentrates, has been a source of concern for several years due to arsenic emissions in the air. [GN] GLENN HAWBAKER: Bid to Stay Discovery Tossed -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESTER PACKER, SR., LESTER PACKER, II, and SHAWN DYROFF, individually and on behalf of the Glenn O. Hawbaker, Inc. Benefit Plan, v. GLENN O. HAWBAKER, INC., BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF GLENN O. HAWBAKER, INC., PLAN ADMINISTRATOR OF THE GLENN O. HAWBAKER, INC. BENEFIT PLAN, and JOHN DOES 1-20, Case No. 4:21-cv-01747-MWB (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Matthew W. Brann entered a scheduling order: 1. Granting the Defendants' motion for reconsideration; and 2. Granting the Plaintiffs' motion to supplement the class certification Record; and 3. Denying the Defendants' motion to stay discovery. The Court's June 6, 2023 Order certifying the Plaintiff Class remains in effect. Glenn Hawbaker is a multi-faceted, integrated heavy construction services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FzKEMS at no extra charge.[CC] GLENN HAWBAKER: Court Reaffirms June 6, 2023 Class Cert Order ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESTER PACKER, SR., LESTER PACKER, II, and SHAWN DYROFF, individually and on behalf of the Glenn O. Hawbaker, Inc. Benefit Plan, v. GLENN O. HAWBAKER, INC., BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF GLENN O. HAWBAKER, INC., PLAN ADMINISTRATOR OF THE GLENN O. HAWBAKER, INC. BENEFIT PLAN, and JOHN DOES 1-20, Case No. 4:21-cv-01747-MWB (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Matthew W. Brann entered an order granting the Defendants' motion for reconsideration and granting the Plaintiffs' motion to supplement the Class Record. -- The Court will reaffirm its June 6, 2023 Order certifying the class and appointing Class representatives and Class Counsel. -- The Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery is denied as moot. On April 8, 2021, the Office of the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania filed a criminal complaint against the Hawbaker, alleging that the company underfunded benefits of prevailing wage employees. In August 2021, Hawbaker pleaded no contest to charges of Theft by Failure to Make Required Disposition of Funds Received and, as part of the plea agreement, agreed to pay over $20 million in restitution to over 1000 prevailing wage workers. On October 13, 2021, Plaintiffs Lester Packer, Sr., Lester Packer, II, and Shawn Dryoff, former employees of Hawbaker initiated this suit on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated for alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). On June 6, 2023, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, certifying the following class: "All current and former hourly wage employees who worked on prevailing wage contracts at Hawbaker within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania during the period September 1, 2012 through December 31, 2018." The Defendants timely filed Motions for Reconsideration and to Stay Discovery. The Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Motion to Supplement the Class Certification Record. Glenn O. Hawbaker is a multi-faceted, integrated heavy construction services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MhJCZN at no extra charge.[CC] GOOGLE INC: Class Cert Reply Extended in Consumer Privacy Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Google RTB Consumer Privacy Litigation, Case No. 4:21-cv-02155-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order extending deadline for the Plaintiffs' reply in support of Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as follows: -- Google will serve its document production Nov. 1, 2023 for Suneeti Vakharia by: -- Ms. Vakharia will appear for deposition Nov. 15, 2023 in Burlingame, California, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. (PST) on: -- The due date for Plaintiffs' reply in Nov. 29, 2023 support of their motion for class certification is extended from November 17, 2023 to: A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tZEpzh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq. Jonathan K. Levine, Esq. Bethany Caracuzzo, Esq. PRITZKER LEVINE LLP 1900 Powell Street, Suite 450 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 692-0772 Facsimile: (415) 366-6110 E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com jkl@pritzkerlevine.com bc@pritzkerlevine.com The Defendant is represented by: Whitty Somivichian, Esq. Michael G. Rhodes, Esq. Aarti G. Reddy, Esq. Kyle C. Wong, Esq. Reece Trevor, Esq. Anupam Dhillon, Esq. Elizabeth Sanchez Santiago, Esq. Robby L.R. Saldana, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, 20th floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4004 Telephone: (415) 693 2000 Facsimile: (415) 693 2222 E-mail: rhodesmg@cooley.com wsomivichian@cooley.com areddy@cooley.com kwong@cooley.com rtrevor@cooley.com adhillon@cooley.com lsanchezsantiago@cooley.com rsaldana@cooley.com GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Consolidated Suit Over SEC Filings -------------------------------------------------------- GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2023, that it is currently facing a case captioned "In re: GPB Capital Holdings, LLC Litigation." Said multidistrict litigation is the consolidation of class actions "Adam Younker, Dennis and Cheryl Schneider, Elizabeth Plaza, and Plaza Professional Center Inc. PFT Sharing v. GPB Capital Holdings, LLC, et al." and "Peter G. Golder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GPB Capital Holdings, LLC, et al." (New York Supreme Court, New York County, Case No. 157679/2019) In May 2020, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint in New York Supreme Court, New York County against GPB, GPB Holdings, GPB Holdings II, GPB Holdings III, the Partnership, GPB Cold Storage, GPB Waste Management, David Gentile, Jeffrey Lash, Macrina Kgil, a/k/a Minchung Kgil, William Edward Jacoby, Scott Naugle, Jeffry Schneider, AAS, Ascendant, and Axiom Capital Management. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the offering documents for certain GPB-managed funds, include material misstatements and omissions. The plaintiffs are seeking disgorgement, unspecified damages, and other equitable relief. GPB Capital Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and registered investment adviser, is the Partnership's General Partner pursuant to the terms of the Fifth Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership, pursuant of which, GPB conducts and manages its businesses. It owned and operated multiple retail automotive dealerships, including in most cases their related real estate. GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Settlement Deal Reached in Ortiz Suit ----------------------------------------------------- GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2023, that in May 2023, the parties in "Monica Ortiz, on behalf of herself and other individuals similarly situated v. GPB Capital Holdings LLC; Automile Holdings, LLC d/b/a Prime Automotive Group; David Gentile; David Rosenberg; Philip Delzotta; Joseph Delzotta; and other affiliated entities and individuals" (New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, Case No. 604918/2020), have agreed to settle the action. In May 2020, plaintiff filed a class action alleging deceptive and misleading business practices with respect to the marketing, sale, and/or leasing of automobiles and the financial and credit products related to the same. Plaintiff alleged defendants' collection of fraudulent rebates exceeded $1.0 million and sought class-wide injunctive relief, along with monetary and punitive damages and costs and fees. GPB Capital Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and registered investment adviser, is the Partnership's General Partner pursuant to the terms of the Fifth Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership, pursuant of which, GPB conducts and manages its businesses. It owned and operated multiple retail automotive dealerships, including in most cases their related real estate. HARRIS TEETER: Sues Over Sales of Phenylephrine Oral Products ------------------------------------------------------------- STACY RANKIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HARRIS TEETER, LLC, HARRIS TEETER SUPERMARKETS, INC., RECKITT BENCKISER LLC, KENVUE, INC., MCNEIL CONSUMER HEALTHCARE, PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY and FOUNDATION CONSUMER BRANDS, Case No. 8:23-cv-02864-TDC (D. Md., Oct. 23, 2023) seeks damages for Defendants' sales of products to be taken orally containing phenylephrine, a compound that purportedly acts as a decongestant, but that Defendants have long known does no such thing. The Plaintiffs seek to hold Defendants accountable for their deceptions, breaches of warranties, and violations of consumer protection statutes. The Defendants have known that these products are ineffective for nasal congestion, yet they marketed and sold them anyway. According to the complaint, the Defendants sold these phenylephrine-containing purported decongestants anyway, generating billions of dollars in sales in the last year alone. By contrast, phenylephrine-containing products have no such restrictions and are not subject to a highly inconvenient buying process. Phenylephrine is found in many popular over-the-counter oral medications that purportedly act as decongestants -- the "Decongestant Products" -- including such popular products produced by Defendants as -- Mucinex Sinus Max (Reckitt Benckiser); -- Sudafed PE (Kenvue / McNeil Consumer Healthcare); -- Tylenol Cold & Flu Severe (Kenvue/McNeil); -- Benadryl Allergy Plus (Kenvue/McNeil); -- Theraflu (GlaxoSmithKline); and -- Nyquil Severe Cold & Flu (Procter & Gamble Company); along with more generic Decongestant Products produced and sold by Defendant Harris Teeter, and stores such as Walgreens. Had Plaintiff, and other Class Members known that the phenylephrine-containing products were entirely ineffective as a nasal decongestant, she, and other class members would not have purchased them, or would have paid substantially less for them, says the suit. Kenvue is an American consumer health company, and formerly the consumer healthcare division of Johnson & Johnson. McNeil Consumer Healthcare is wholly owned by Kenvue. Harris Teeter manufactures and sells generic versions of purported decongestants containing phenylephrine under a Harris Teeter brand, including Harris Teeter Pressure & Pain PE & Cold that Plaintiff Rankin purchased. Proctor & Gamble is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. Proctor & Gamble manufactures, markets and distributes Dayquil and Nyquil, including Dayquil that Plaintiff purchased that contained phenylephrine. Foundation Consumer owns the Children's Dimetapp brand, and manufactures, distributes and markets Children's Dimetapp throughout the United States.[BN] The Counsel for Plaintiff and Proposed Class are: Kevin Goldberg, Esq. GOLDBERG LAW, LLC 401 Salk Circle Gaithersburg, Maryland 20878 Telephone: (301) 343-5817 E-mail: KG@goldberglaw.info - and - Mila F. Bartos, Esq. FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP 2201 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC, 20007 Telephone: (202) 337-8000 E-mail: mbartos@finkelsteinthompson.com HCA HEATHCARE: Rum Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jacqui Rum v. HCA Heathcare, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-05142-JFW-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying this action as class action; 2. Determining that class treatment is appropriate under Federal Rule of Cili Procedure 232(b)(2) as uniform relief and/or declaratory relief can be provided to the Plaintiff and the proposed class members; 3. In addition on a hybrid basis, and/or in the alternative, determining that class treatment is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(B)(3) as common questions of law and fact to the class predominate, the class method is superior and class treatment is manageable; and 4. Certifying the following Class: TRAP Debt Class: "All current and former non-exempt registered nurses for Defendants for the period of April 19, 2019 through the date of certification who signed the Defendants' StaRN Promissory Note and StaRN Agreement containing a debt repayment provision and whose employment ended prior to the term of service period that would extinguish the debt repayment provision or whose employment is still subject to the debt repayment provision;" TRAP Debt Sub-Class "All current and former non-exempt registered nurses for the for the period of April 19, 2019 through the date of certification who signed the Defendants' StaRN Promissory Note and StaRN Agreement containing a debt repayment provision and whose employment ended prior to the term of service period that would extinguish the debt repayment provision or whose employment is still subject to the debt repayment provision and who were not subject to an interim permit at the time they started the StaRN Program (LRRMC TRAP Debt Sub-Class);" and LRRMC TRAP Debt Sub-Class "All current and former non-exempt registered nurses for the Defendant Los Robles Regional Medical Center, for the period of April 19, 2019, through the date of certification who signed the Defendants' StaRN Promissory Note and StaRN Agreement containing a debt repayment provision and whose employment ended prior to the term of service period that would extinguish the debt repayment provision or whose employment is still subject to the debt repayment provision and who were not subject to an interim permit at the time they started the StaRN Program." HCA is an American for-profit operator of health care facilities that was founded in 1968. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Sp83sd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Hatcher, Esq. David P. Myers, Esq. Andriano Bravo, Esq. THE MYERS LAW GROUP, A.P.C. HEALTH CARE SERVICE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Solomon Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- DETRINA SOLOMON, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, a corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-14553 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 5, 2023) is a collective and class action brought by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons employed by Defendant, arising from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and common law. The complaint alleges that Defendant violated the FLSA and common law by systematically failing to compensate its customer service representatives for work tasks completed before and after their scheduled shifts and during their unpaid meal periods, when they were not logged into Defendant's timekeeping system, which resulted in CSRs not being paid for all overtime hours worked, overtime gap time when associated with unpaid overtime, and regular hours in non-overtime workweeks. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt CSR in its Texas brick and mortar call center from approximately September 5, 2021 through December 2021. Health Care Service Corporation is a member-owned health insurance company in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Alana A. Karbal, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommers.com akarbal@sommerspc.com HENRY INDUSTRIES: Bid to File Additional Joint Report OK'd in Sarte ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sarte v. Henry Industries, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-01678 (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel J. Calabretta entered an order granting the parties' Request to file an additional Joint Report. Within 14 days, the parties shall file a Joint Report either 1) informing the Court that this matter is resolved and proposing a timeline for any necessary settlement approval, or 2) informing the Court that the matter was not resolved and proposing new deadlines to govern the remainder of discovery, class certification briefing, and potential dispositive motion practice. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Henry Industries is a full-service nationwide provider of distribution center, warehouse and logistic needs.[CC] HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Caccavale Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONY CACCAVALE, ANTHONY MANGELLI, DOUGLAS SORBIE, and JAMES BILLUPS individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY A/K/A HP INC., HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY and UNISYS CORPORATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-00974-NJC-ST (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) Certifying the first and second causes of action in the Plaintiffs' third amended complaint as a class action with respect to the following: -- HPI Class "All Field Service Engineers who were/are employed by HP Inc. f/k/a HewlettPackard Company in the State of New York at any time from February 21, 2014 to present;" and -- HPE Class "All Field Service Engineers who were/are employed by HPE in the State of New York at any time from February 21, 2014 to present;" (2) Appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel; (3) Requiring HP Inc. f/k/a Hewlett-Packard Company and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, within fourteen days of the Court's Order, to produce a computer-readable data file containing the names, last known mailing addresses, all known home and mobile telephone numbers, all known email addresses, work locations, and dates of employment of all Field Service Engineers (Field Technical Spt Rep I, Field Technical Spt Rep II, Field Technical Spt Rep III, Field Technical Spt Rep IV, Field Technical Spt Rep V, VSB Technical Support Rep I, VSB Technical Support Rep II, VSB Technical Support Rep III, VSB Technical Support Rep IV and VSB Technical Support Rep V), who worked in a New York assigned work location (as reflected in the HP Defendants' Workday application(s)), for some or all of the Relevant Time Period (February 21, 2014 through the present), and for whom the HP Defendants have not located an arbitration and/or waiver agreement who worked for HewlettPackard Company, HP Inc., and/or Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company at any point from February 21, 2014 to Present. (4) Permitting Plaintiffs to disseminate notice of this action in the forms attached to the Declaration of Paul A. Pagano, Esq. as Exhibits S ("Notice"), and T ("Email Notice") via regular mail and e-mail as applicable, and permitting a sixty-day notice period; and (5) Granting any other further relief that the Court deems just and proper. HP is a provider of technology products, software, solutions and services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 26, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Mqh5RJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul A. Pagano, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PAUL A. PAGANO, P.C Attorneys for Plaintiffs 100 Duffy Avenue, Suite 510 Hicksville, NY 11810 Telephone: (917) 589-1479 E-mail: Paul@LawOfficePaulPagano.com - and - Jason L. Abelove, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JASON L. ABELOVE, P.C. 666 Old Country Road, Suite 303 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 222-7000 E-mail: jason@jasonabelove.com - and - Anthony LoPresti, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY J. LOPRESTI 300 Garden City Plaza, Suite 226 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 252-0223 E-mail: ajlopresti@anthonyjloprestilaw.com - and - Yale Pollack, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF YALE POLLACK, P.C. 66 Split Rock Rd, Syosset, NY 11791 Telephone; (516) 634-6340 E-mail: ypollack@yalepollacklaw.com J. DAVID TAX: Faces Class Suit Over Legal Malpractice ----------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that three Wisconsin consumers and a business claim in a proposed class action that J. David Tax Law committed legal malpractice and misrepresented its capabilities as a tax law firm in the state. The nine-page lawsuit alleges that the Florida-based firm provided "negligent" and "deficient" legal services and misled clients to expect adequate legal representation in their jurisdiction, when, in fact, the lawyers employed by the defendant were not actually licensed in Wisconsin. The suit relays that "[o]nly later did [the plaintiffs] learn that none of J. David's employees were licensed in Wisconsin and that they were not following the ethical requirements for attorneys practicing in this state." In addition, the case claims that the law firm charged the plaintiffs unlawful fees in exchange for its services. Specifically, J. David Tax Law collected from the consumers and plaintiff business "non-refundable fee[s]" that were purportedly "earned upon receipt," the complaint shares. The filing contends that the fees were unreasonable and "unearned," as the amount charged by the firm was neither a retainer nor an "advanced fee" for services yet to be performed. According to the lawsuit, J. David's practices "failed to comport with the degree of care, skill, and judgment of a reasonably prudent lawyer practicing in Wisconsin … and constituted negligence." One plaintiff, a man connected to plaintiff business GH Heating & Air LLC, sought the firm's assistance with tax debts in April 2022, the suit says. Per the case, the contract he signed required him to pay $21,400 in exchange for the defendant's services. Two other plaintiffs paid a heftier price, the complaint relays. The couple, who contacted the firm to help them address tax debt related to a construction company partly owned by the husband, signed a contract with J. David in April 2021 that required them to pay $62,000 in exchange for legal services, the filing says. According to the case, because the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was pursuing the plaintiffs, the defendant "promised to obtain a stay on collection activity and promised to file a Whistleblower claim" with the agency, which would protect the couple and result in a monetary award. However, despite the firm's promises, "nothing was ever filed to pursue a Federal Whistleblower action or pursue any monetary award," the complaint alleges. What's more, the defendant also claimed that it would address the plaintiffs' tax assessment from the Wisconsin Department of Revenue (DOR), the filing shares. Though the firm sent letters to the Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission to address the tax assessments, the submissions were dismissed because they arrived after the appeals deadline and were not sent by certified mail as required, the lawsuit states. As the suit tells it, J. David's failure to properly serve a notice of appeal to the state DOR has prevented the plaintiffs from obtaining relief and has resulted in their having to make monthly payments towards the tax debt. "This was not what J. David promised to accomplish for [the plaintiffs], and it falls below J. David's standard of care," the complaint contests. Moreover, the IRS is still involved in the couple's case as well, the filing adds. "Far from being shielded from the tax debt, the IRS has placed [the plaintiffs] in an uncollectable status due to their current inability to pay the taxes, but the liability is still hanging over them," the lawsuit charges. The suit claims that J. David's negligent conduct has misled consumers about its capabilities as a tax law firm in Wisconsin and, overall, constitutes legal malpractice. "Among other things, J. David represented to the plaintiffs and induced them to expect that they would not be charged an unreasonable fee and that they would be represented by someone who was familiar with the applicable law and capable of meeting the deadlines and other requirements imposed by the law," the case contends. "But the charges were (and are) unreasonable, and J. David was not so capable." The lawsuit looks to represent any Wisconsin resident who contracted with J. David Tax Law within the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] JACK IN THE BOX: Settlement Deal in Labor Suit for Court Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jack in the Box Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2023, that a settlement agreement is currently for court review and/or approval in a California court. This is after the company entered into a Settlement Memorandum of Understanding on June 4, 2022, which obligates the company to pay a gross settlement amount of $50.0 million In March 2014, a former Del Taco employee filed a purported Private Attorneys General Act claim and class action alleging various causes of action under California's labor, wage, and hour laws. The plaintiff generally alleges Del Taco did not appropriately provide meal and rest breaks and failed to pay wages and reimburse business expenses to its California non-exempt employees. On November 12, 2021, the court granted, in part, the plaintiff's motion for class certification. The parties participated in voluntary mediation on May 24, 2022 and June 3, 2022. Jack in the Box Inc. operates and franchises "Jack in the Box(R)" and "Del Taco(R)" quick-service restaurants. As of July 9, 2023, it operated and franchised 2,191 Jack in the Box quick-service restaurants, primarily in the western and southern United States, including one in Guam, and 594 Del Taco quick-service restaurants across 16 states, including one in Guam. JJJ CREEK: Smaling Sues Over Unsolicited Sales Calls ---------------------------------------------------- DEBORAH SMALING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JJJ CREEK HOLDINGS LLC D/B/A BELLA ROMA ITALIAN RESTAURANT & PIZZERIA, Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-019283 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., Oct. 5, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The complaint alleges the engagement of the Defendant in aggressive telephonic sales calls to consumers without having secured prior express written consent as required under the FTSA and with no regard to consumer rights under the TCPA. The Defendant's telephonic sales calls have caused Plaintiff and the Class Members harm, including violations of their statutory rights, statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of their privacy. JJJ Creek Holdings LLC d/b/a Bella Roma Italian Restaurant & Pizzeria is an Italian restaurant and pizzeria.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Garrett O. Berg, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com gberg@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsber, Esq. Christopher Gold, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (786) 289-9471 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hospital Sues Over Opioid's Misleading Marketing ------------------------------------------------------------------- SAN MIGUEL HOSPITAL CORPORATION, d/b/a ALTA VISTA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00903-KRS-JFR (D.N.M., October 16, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' use of misleading marketing to convince both doctors and patients that opioids could safely be prescribed for common ailments that cause chronic pain in violation of the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act and the Controlled Substances Act. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants have conspired and took the form of an association-in-fact for the unlawful purpose of propagating falsehoods about the safety and benefits of opioids and the manner in which they are or should be distributed and dispensed and distributing and dispensing opioids in violation of the Controlled Substances Act. The Defendants' conduct constituted repeated, related, and continuous acts of mail fraud, wire fraud, and violations of the Controlled Substances Act and these acts these acts were committed to further the unlawful purpose of the Defendants' shared enterprise, giving the rise to liability under the RICO, says the Plaintiff. Headquartered in New Brunswick, NJ, Johnson & Johnson engages in the research and development, manufacture and sale of health care products. It owns over 10% of Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s stock. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher A. Dodd, Esq. Brooke Jordy, Esq. DODD LAW OFFICE, LLC 500 Marquette Avenue NW, Suite 1330 Albuquerque, NM 87102 Telephone: (505) 475-2932 E-mail: chris@doddnm.com brooke@doddnm.com - and - Steve Martino, Esq. TAYLOR MARTINO, P.C. 51 St. Joseph St. Mobile, AL 36602 Telephone: (251) 433-3131 E-mail: SteveMartino@taylormartino.com - and - John W. (Don) Barrett, Esq. David McMullan, Jr., Esq. Richard Barrett, Esq. Sterling Aldridge, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. P.O. Box 927 404 Court Square North Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 Facsimile: (662) 834-2628 E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com rrb@rrblawfirm.net saldridge@barrettlawgroup.com - and - Warren Burns, Esq. Darren Nicholson, Esq. BURNS CHAREST, LLP 900 Jackson St., Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (469) 904-4550 Facsimile: (469) 444-5002 E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com dnicholson@burnscharest.com - and - Korey A. Nelson, Esq. Patrick Murphree, Esq. BURNS CHAREST, LLP 365 Canal Street, Suite 1170 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 799-2845 Facsimile: (504) 881-1765 E-mail: knelson@burnscharest.com pmurphree@burnscharest.com - and - Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. David L. Black, Esq. Monica Miller, Esq. Jennifer E. Kelly, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202)789-3960 E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com dblack@cuneolaw.com monicam@cuneolaw.com jkelly@cuneolaw.com KFC CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Failure to Provide Mandatory Breaks ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jack Evans of News.com.au reports that young Australian workers are forming part of a class action aimed squarely at the fast food behemoth, KFC. The looming legal battle revolves around allegations the company has systematically failed to provide its employees with mandatory ten-minute breaks. Shine Lawyers and the Retail and Fast-Food Workers Union are running the class action which will allege tens of thousands of former and current KFC staff members may have been deprived of essential breaks. They claim 90 per cent of those affected are likely to be under 24. One such worker is Lily O'Sullivan, who worked at a KFC outlet in NSW's Illawarra region between 2019 and 2020 and has signed on to the class action. She alleged she was denied breaks when she sought them out. "It was shut down so swiftly that after chatting to colleagues, I quickly realised it wasn't something I could ask for again," she said. Vicky Antzoulatos, the Joint Head of Class Actions at Shine Lawyers, expressed her concerns about the allegations. "Our claim is likely to allege that vulnerable workers were not provided the rest breaks they were entitled to," she said. She alleged she was denied breaks when she sought them out. "It was shut down so swiftly that after chatting to colleagues, I quickly realised it wasn't something I could ask for again," she said. Vicky Antzoulatos, the Joint Head of Class Actions at Shine Lawyers, expressed her concerns about the allegations. "Our claim is likely to allege that vulnerable workers were not provided the rest breaks they were entitled to," she said. "Many of these workers were just kids facing tough working conditions, who would not have had the confidence or knowledge to speak up and demand the breaks they were owed." Josh Cullinan, the Secretary of the Retail and Fast-Food Workers Union. "Many of these workers were just kids facing tough working conditions, who would not have had the confidence or knowledge to speak up and demand the breaks they were owed." Josh Cullinan, the Secretary of the Retail and Fast-Food Workers Union. [GN] LGL SYSTEMS: Whitfield Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty -------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW WHITFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LGL SYSTEMS ACQUISITION HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, MARC J. GABELLI, ROBERT V. LAPENTA JR., TIMOTHY FOUFAS, MARY E. GALLAGHER, MICHAEL J. FERRANTINO, MICHAEL G. MARTIN, JOHN S. MEGA, GEORGE ANTHONY BANCROFT II, HENDI SUSANTO, PATRICK HUVANE, NATHAN G. MILLER, and LGL SYSTEMS NEVADA MANAGEMENT PARTNERS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2023-1004 (Del. Ch., Oct. 5, 2023) is a verified class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly situated former stockholders of LGL Systems Acquisition Corp. who were entitled to redeem their shares in connection with LGL's merger with LGL Systems Merger Sub Inc. (a subsidiary of LGL) and IronNet Cybersecurity, Inc. which resulted in LGL being renamed IronNet, Inc. The Plaintiff asserts claims for: (i) breach of fiduciary duty arising from the Transaction against (a) Marc J. Gabelli, Robert V. LaPenta Jr., Timothy Foufas, Mary E. Gallagher, Michael J. Ferrantino, and Michael G. Martin, in their capacities as directors of LGL; (b) John S. Mega, George Anthony Bancroft II, Hendi Susanto, Patrick Huvane, and Nathan G. Miller, in their capacities as officers of LGL (collectively with the Director Defendants, the "Individual Defendants"), and (c) LGL Systems Acquisition Holding Company, LLC, Gabelli, LaPenta, and Foufas, in their capacities as LGL's controllers and controllers of LGL Systems Nevada Management Partners LLC (together, the Controller Defendants and with the Individual Defendants); and (ii) unjust enrichment of the Defendants. According to the complaint, the Merger was the result of Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties and IronNet's actual post-Merger results mattered little to the Defendants. They knew that even a bad deal that resulted in a post-Merger stock price drop well below the $10 per share redemption value was much better for them than no deal at all, because it would still provide them with a financial windfall. Relying on the veracity of the Proxy and Defendants' tainted recommendation and Defendants' suggestions to vote for the consummation of the Transaction, the vast majority of LGL's stockholders, including Plaintiff, determined to not exercise their redemption rights and to instead invest in the Transaction. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks monetary and/or rescissory damages against Defendants for their breaches of fiduciary duty owed to LGL stockholders arising out of the deprivation of their right to a fully informed decision whether to redeem their LGL shares or to invest in the Merger. Alternatively, this action seeks an equitable reopening of the redemption window for public stockholders who purchased LGL stock, were entitled to redeem their shares, and continue to hold such stock, to allow such IronNet stockholders to exchange their LGL shares (now IronNet shares) for $10 per share, plus interest, says the suit. LGL Systems Acquisition Holding Company, LLC was incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware on April 30, 2019 as a special purpose acquisition company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Herbert Mondros, Esq. RIGRODSKY LAW, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 210 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 LIFE360 INC: Mediation Ongoing Over Unjust Enrichment Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Life360, 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 14, 2023, that the company has participated in a mediation last August 21, 2023 with regards to a purported class action captioned "E.S. v. Life360, Inc." is scheduled for. All court deadlines and any discovery activities have been placed on hold until after the mediation is completed. Case alleges a single cause of action for unjust enrichment was filed against Life360 on January 12, 2023, seeking equitable relief purportedly arising out of Life360's historic data sales. Life360, Inc. is a technology platform used to locate the people, pets and things that matter most to families. LOS ANGELES, CA: Hubbard FLSA Collective Gets Conditional Status ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bryan Hubbard v. County of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03541-PA-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Percy Anderson entered an order conditionally certifying action as an Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action. The collective is defined as: "All firefighter recruits who attended Defendants;' fire academy as members of recruit classes: 156, 157, 158, 159 and 160." Within 14 days of this Order, the Defendants shall produce to Plaintiff’s counsel and Plaintiff's third-party administrator each potential plaintiff's last known name, address, dates of employment, and training location. The Court approves the Notice and Consent Forms attached to this Order and authorizes Plaintiff to send the Notice and Consent Forms to potential plaintiffs by mail. Potential plaintiffs shall have 60 days from the date that the Notice and Consent Forms are mailed to opt-in to this action. On March 8, 2023, the Plaintiff commenced this action on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, alleging that Defendants County of Los Angeles and Anthony C. Marrone, Chief of Los Angeles County Fire Department, failed to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff was a fire fighter trainee in Recruit Class 156 who attended Defendants' fire training academy in March and April of 2020. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants required him and the other trainees in Recruit Classes 156, 157, 158, 159, and 160 to quarantine at a hotel six nights per week while attending the Academy due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the statewide "stay-at-home" Executive Order issued in March of 2020. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rZhZOi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles M. Ray, Esq. RAY & SEYB LLP 2062 Business Center Dr. Ste. 230 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 260-2054 Facsimile: (949) 258-5240 E-mail: c.ray@rayseyb.com LUIS DE LA AGUILERA: Bennes Suit Remanded to Miami-Dade Circuit Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOEL BENES, et al., v. LUIS DE LA AGUILERA, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-23069-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for remand. -- The case is remanded to the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Court says, the Defendants are correct, and their own argument fails for the same reason. "Either the internal affairs exception applies or it does not." No party has shown that any alleged gamesmanship has changed the underlying legal requirements of the CAFA exception or prevented the requirements from being satisfied here. his is an action for damages, declaratory relief, and equitable relief in connection with the alleged mismanagement of U.S. Century Bank. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QyZWrG at no extra charge.[CC] M&S CAFE: Katsitadze Sues Over Unlawful Wage Deductions ------------------------------------------------------- Maia Katsitadze, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. M&S Cafe Inc., Michael "Doe", and Susan "Doe", Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-07719 (E.D.N.Y., October 16, 2023) seeks recovery against Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Articles 6 and 19 of the New York Labor Law and their supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations. Plaintiff Almonte was employed as a server, bartender, waitress and dishwasher from on or around June 2023 to, through and including, September 1, 2023 at Defendants' restaurant. Throughout her employment, the Defendant failed to pay her at the legally required minimum wages, overtime wage for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work, and unlawfully deducted wages. In addition, the Defendants failed to provide accurate wage statements to Plaintiff, says the suit. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, unlawfully deducted wages, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the FLSA, NYLL, and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act. M&S Cafe Inc. is a domestic corporation headquartered in Brooklyn, NY. It owns, operates and/or controls the restaurant located at 2023 Stillwell Ave. Brooklyn, NY 11223, known as "Café La Notte". [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Mizrahi, Esq. Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0048 E-mail: Jason@levinepstein.com MARK MILLER: Ct. Sets Pretrial Conference in Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as United States Securities and Exchange Commission, v. Mark A. Miller et al, Case No. 0:21-cv-01445-DSD-ECW (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright entered an order setting Pretrial conference: -- Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a pretrial conference will be held on December 1, 2023 at 9:00 a.m., before United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright, via telephone. Counsel will be sent conference bridge instructions via email. -- Pursuant to Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, counsel shall meet via telephone prior to the scheduled pretrial conference to discuss settlement and the matters required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), and shall jointly prepare and file a complete written Report of the Rule 26(f) meeting at least one week prior to the pretrial conference. Counsel and pro se litigants are expected to review and familiarize themselves, before the Rule 26(f) conference, with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules for the District of Minnesota ("Local Rules"). A copy of the Local Rules can be found on the Court's website at http://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/local_rules/index.shtml. In addition, each party shall email to chambers at least one week before the pretrial conference a confidential settlement letter addressing what settlement discussions have taken place, whether the party believes an early settlement conference would be productive, and what discovery each party believes is necessary before an early settlement conference can take place. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40arxTa at no extra charge.[CC] MOBIVITY HOLDINGS: To Settle TCPA Suits in Florida Court -------------------------------------------------------- Mobivity Holdings Corp. 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 during the six months ended June 30, 2023, the company has settled four Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) claims for a total settlement loss of $12,500 and this amount is included within settlement losses on the accompanying unaudited consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss. The company had a pending legal proceeding related to said violation. This is a putative class action complaint alleging that the defendant initiated telephone solicitations through text messages in violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The defense of the matter was tendered to the company by its client, Sonic Industries, Inc. Mobivity Holdings Corp. is in the business of developing and operating proprietary platforms over which brands and enterprises can conduct national and localized, data-driven mobile marketing campaigns. Its proprietary platforms, consisting of software available to phones, tablets, PCs, and Point of Sale systems, allow resellers, brands, and enterprises to market their products and services to consumers through text messages sent directly to consumers via mobile phones, mobile smartphone applications, and dynamically printed receipt content. MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Gru Securities Suit Ongoing in CA Court ---------------------------------------------------------- Mullen Automotive 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 14, 2023, that it is currently facing a class action complaint captioned "David Gru v. Mullen Automotive, Inc." On August 4, 2022, the court issued an order consolidating this with another suit, and appointing lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On May 12, 2022, David Gru, a purported stockholder, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District court for the Central District of California against the company, Chief Executive Officer, David Michery, and the Chief Executive Officer of a predecessor entity, Oleg Firer. This lawsuit was brought by Gru both individually and on behalf of a putative class of the company's shareholders, claiming false or misleading statements regarding the company's business partnerships, technology, and manufacturing capabilities, and alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The Gru Lawsuit sought to declare the action to be a class action, and sought monetary damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as well as an award of reasonable fees and expenses. On August 4, 2022, the court consolidated this action into the Schaub Lawsuit, and ordered this action administratively closed. Mullen Automotive Inc., is a Southern California-based development-stage electric vehicle company that operates in various verticals of businesses focused within the automotive industry. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Files Appeal in Seaman Suit to 2nd Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2007-2, et al. have filed an appeal in the lawsuit originally styled as Mutinta Michelo, Katherine Seaman, and Mary Re Seaman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-2; National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-3; Transworld Systems Inc.; EGS Financial Care Inc., fka NCO Financial Systems Inc.; Forster & Garbus LLP, Case No. 1:18-cv-01781-PGG filed February 27, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On May 12, 2021, Mutinta Michelo dismissed all of her claims by stipulation. On September 27, 2023, an order adopting a Report and Recommendations by Judge Barbara C Moses was entered by Judge Paul G. Gardephe with respect to a Motion to Certify Class filed by Katherine Seaman, Christina Bifulco, Sandra Tabar, Francis Butry, Cori Frauenhofer, Mary Re Seaman; Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction filed by National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-3, National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-2; and a Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction filed by National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-4, National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2004-2. Judge Moses' R&R was adopted in part. Specifically, Defendants' motion to dismiss, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), was granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted in part. The appellate case is captioned National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-2 v. Seaman, Case No. 23-7372, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on October 16, 2023. [BN] Defendants-Petitioners NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2007-2, et al. are represented by: Gregory Thomas Casamento, Esq. LOCKE LORD LLP Brookfield Place, 20th Floor 200 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 - and - James Kevin Schultz, Esq. SESSIONS, ISRAEL & SHARTLE, LLP 1550 Hotel Circle North, Suite 260 San Diego, CA 92108 - and - Bryan Christopher Shartle, Esq. SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, L.L.P. 3850 North Causeway Boulevard, Suite 200 Metairie, LA 70002 Plaintiffs-Respondents KATHERINE SEAMAN, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Gregory Alan Frank, Esq. FRANK LLP 305 Broadway Suite 700 New York, NY 10007 NATIONAL MORTGAGE: Kovachevich Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- STEVE KOVACHEVICH is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Steve Kovachevich, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. National Mortgage Insurance Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00468-JKW-DEM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for their failure to return unearned premiums as the mortgage servicer of the Plaintiff's loan in violation of the Homeowners Protection Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. On Feb. 3, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Feb. 17, 2023. On Sept. 22, 2023, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss through an Order entered by Judge Jamar K. Walker. Count I of the first amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Counts II and III were dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. However, the Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint within 14 days. The appellate case is captioned Steve Kovachevich v. National Mortgage Insurance Corporation, Case No. 23-2071, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on October 16, 2023. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant STEVE KOVACHEVICH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq. Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. James Patrick McNichol, Esq. Casey Shannon Nash, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7576 Defendants-Appellees NATIONAL MORTGAGE INSURANCE CORPORATION, et al., are represented by: Gregory Thomas Casamento, Esq. Joseph Froehlich, Esq. LOCKE LORD, LLP 3 World Financial Center New York, NY 10281 Telephone: (212) 815-8600 - and - Mary Stephanie Wickouski, Esq. GARDNER, CARTON & DOUGLAS East Tower 1301 K. Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 230-5000 NOVA LIFESTYLE: Court OK's Settlement of Shareholder Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Nova Lifestyle, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2023, that on July 10, 2023, the court granted the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. The court set a final settlement hearing on November 6, 2023. On December 28, 2018, a federal putative class action complaint was filed by George Barney against the Company and its former and current CEOs and CFOs (Thanh H. Lam, Ya Ming Wong, Jeffery Chuang and Yuen Ching Ho) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, claiming the company violated federal securities laws and pursuing remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Richard Deutner and ITENT EDV were subsequently appointed as lead plaintiffs and, on June 18, 2019, filed an amended complaint. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of entities acquiring Nova's stock from December 3, 2015 through December 20, 2018. They claim that during this period the company overstated its purported strategic alliance with a customer in China to operate as lead designer and manufacturer for all furnishings in its planned $460 million senior care center in China and inflated sales in 2016 and 2017 by recognizing significant sales to two allegedly non-existent customers. On March 31, 2023, the Barney plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Renewed Stipulation of Settlement, and accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities. An initial Motion to Approve a Settlement Class and Proposed Settlement had been denied under the terms of the Settlement, and without admitting to any wrongdoing, fault, or liability, the company agrees to a payment of $750,000 to completely resolve the Barney Action. The settlement is subject to various conditions, including preliminary approval by the court, notice to all class members, an opt-out period, and a final hearing and approval by the court. Nova LifeStyle, Inc. is a U.S. holding company with no material assets other than the ownership interests of its subsidiaries through which it markets, designs and sells furniture worldwide: Nova Furniture Limited domiciled in the British Virgin Islands, Nova Furniture Ltd. domiciled in Samoa, Diamond Bar Outdoors, Inc. domiciled in California and Nova Living (M) SDN. BHD. domiciled in Malaysia. OYO HOTELS: Plaintiffs Seek to Compel Class Discovery Responses --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHREE VEER CORPORATION and CHIEF HOSPITALITY, LLC, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. OYO HOTELS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-03268-L (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs file a motion to compel the Defendant's responses to class discovery and extend deadline to file motions regarding class certification and brief in support. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant should not be allowed to agree to participate in class discovery only to do an about-face and then wholly refuse to participate. The Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Defendant’s discovery responses and production. The Plaintiff seeks an order setting the deadline to file motions regarding class certification to a date after Defendant provides the information and materials sought. OYO provides hospitality services. The company offers a chain of leased and franchised hotels, homes, and living spaces. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 24, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46OUQNI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Evan Lane (Van) Shaw, Esq. Jeremy B. (Beau) Powell, Esq. David J. Welch, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF VAN SHAW 2723 Fairmount Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 754-7110 Facsimile: (214) 754-7115 E-mail: van@shawlaw.net beau@shawlaw.net david@shawlaw.net PACIFIC STEEL: Exchange of Initial Disclosures Due Nov. 2 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, V. PACIFIC STEEL, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01202-JLB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Barbara L. Major entered an order resetting early neutral evaluation conference and issuing updated procedures: -- Exchange initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(A-D) no later than November 2, 2023. Pacific Steel was founded in 2005. The company's line of business includes the operation of nonclassifiable establishments. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QyzH4r at no extra charge.[CC] PAWAR BROS: Files Appeal in Jones Labor Suit to 2nd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------- PAWAR BROS. CORP., et al. filed an appeal in the lawsuit entitled Daniel E. Jones, II, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pawar Bros. Corp., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03018, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. This case was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. On September 25, 2023, Judge Pamela K. Chen entered judgment against Defendants, itemized as follows: (1) statutory damages under the New York Labor Law in the amount of $5,000; (2) unpaid overtime wages in the amount of $36,400; (3) unpaid backpay wages in the amount of $4,200; (4) liquidated damages in the amount of $40,600; (5) nominal damages in the amount of $1; (6) punitive damages in the amount of $60,000; (7) pre-judgment interest on the preceding amounts, to be calculated by the Clerk of Court, at a rate of 9% per annum, running from 4/3/2014 for the $36,400 award and from 3/19/2017 for the $4,200 award, through the date judgment is entered; (8) attorneys' fees in the amount of $150,080.30; and (9) costs in the amount of $8,239.46. The Court also granted Plaintiff's request for post-judgment interest and an automatic increase in the total judgment amount for NYLL violations should Defendants fail to make timely payment as prescribed by the statute. On October 03, 2023, an amended judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants in the total amount of $338,089.23 plus post-judgment interest and an automatic increase in the total judgment amount for NYLL violations should Defendants fail to make timely payment as prescribed by the statute. The appellate case is captioned Jones II v. Pawar Bros. Corp., Case No. 23-7385, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on October 16, 2023. [BN] Defendants-Appellants PAWAR BROS. CORP., et al. are represented by: Jonathan I. Edelstein, Esq. EDELSTEIN & GROSSMAN 501 5th Avenue, Suite 514 New York, NY 10017 Plaintiff-Appellee Daniel E. Jones, II, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Alexander Todd Coleman, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200 Garden City, NY 11530 PROCTER & GAMBLE: Cannon Sues Over Deceptive Sleep Aid Products --------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN SNEED and NICKOLAS CANNON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. e 3:23-cv-05443 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 23, 2023) is a class action complaint against Procter & Gamble alleging that the Defendant falsely and misleadingly advertises, labels, and packages certain of its ZzzQuil (TM) brand Nighttime Sleep Aid products that contain Diphenhydramine as "Non-Habit Forming", deliberately leading and coaxing reasonable consumers, including Plaintiffs, to incorrectly believe that the Products do not and cannot cause habitual use. -- The Deception of the Challenged Representation The Challenged Representation misleads reasonable consumers, including Plaintiffs, into believing that the Products do not and cannot cause habitual use. In reality, the Products promote habitual use as part of consumers' nightly routine and each Product contains Diphenhydramine HCI. Diphenhydramine is an ingredient that can cause users to become psychologically dependent on the continued use of the Product to fall and stay asleep, or it can otherwise lead consumers to frequently use the Product over a prolonged period, contrary to the Challenged Representation disclaiming the Products' potential to be "habit forming." -- The Products The products at issue are the ZzzQuil (TM) brand Nighttime Sleep Aid products, which are labeled with the Challenged Representation, contain the active ingredient Diphenhydramine, and are sold to consumers in California or the United States during the applicable statutes of limitations. The Procter & Gamble Company is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Katherine A. Bruce, Esq. Kelsey J. Elling, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-407 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com kbruce@clarksonlawfirm.com kelling@clarksonlawfirm.com PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Soape Says --------------------------------------------------------------- SARAH SOAPE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, and MAXIMUS FEDERAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-12476-ADB (D. Mass., Oct. 23, 2023) is a class action lawsuit to address the Defendants' inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that they collected and maintained. The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information including, but not limited to, Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, emails, phone numbers, and dates of service. Texas Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program "help cover medical expenses for children, some adults and people with disabilities who meet income requirements." PSC is a Massachusetts-based software company that offers a wide range of software products and services to corporate and governmental entities throughout the United States and the world, including cloud hosting and secure file transfer services such as MOVEit. Maximus is a private contractor that provides services in support of the federal Medicare program as well as various state Medicaid programs including Medicaid programs operated by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen A. Johnson, Esq. Steve W. Berman, Esq. Sean R. Matt, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 Facsimile: (617) 482-3003 E-mail: kristenj@hbsslaw.com 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 PROSPECT MEDICAL: Goldstein Sues Over Disclosure of Patients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAY GOLDSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROSPECT MEDICAL HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-08701 (C.D. Cal., October 16, 2023) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated patients and/or patients' sensitive information. Plaintiff alleges claims against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act, the California Customer Records Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act. On August 3, 2023 Defendant's network was breached by a well-known ransomware group called Rhysida. On or about September 29, 2023, Defendant began sending Plaintiff and other Data Breach victims an untitled letter informing about the incident. However, the Defendant's letter failed to disclose the details of the root cause of the Data Breach, the vulnerabilities exploited, and the remedial measures undertaken to ensure such a breach does not occur again. In addition, the letter also failed to include any information about the data breach's degree of specificity, says the suit. Headquartered in Los Angeles, CA, Prospect Medical Holding, Inc. is a healthcare corporation composed of hospitals and affiliated medical groups that provide medical services to patients in “California, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Texas and Rhode Island. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 280 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com REDEEMER HEALTH: Appeals Remand Order in Jane Doe Suit to 3rd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ REDEEMER HEALTH, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to remand the lawsuit entitled Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Redeemer Health, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2-23-cv-02405, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeks to undermine the substantial efforts of Defendants Redeemer Health and Holy Redeemer Health System to fulfill longstanding federal policy to expand the use of electronic health records ("EHR") and bring the U.S. health infrastructure into the 21st century. The Plaintiff challenges common methods by which both the federal government and private healthcare providers seek to increase patient engagement with EHR. On July 26, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Wendy Beetlestone on Sept. 28, 2023. The case was remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, Case No. 230501236, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the district court case and mark it closed. The appellate case is captioned Jane Doe v. Centerville Clinics Inc., Case No. 23-2738, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on October 2, 2023. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Weining Bai, Esq. AHMAD ZAVITSANOS & MENSING 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2500 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 600-4981 - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS 613 Williamson Street, Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 - and - George A. Bochetto, Esq. Ryan T. Kirk, Esq. John A. O'Connell, Esq. BOCHETTO & LENTZ 1524 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 735-3900 - and - Foster C. Johnson, Esq. BAKER BOTTS 910 Louisiana Street One Shell Plaza, 37th Floor Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 229-1268 Defendants-Appellants REDEEMER HEALTH, et al. are represented by: Chelsea Biemiller, Esq. Jeffrey D. Grossman, Esq. William T. Mandia, Esq. STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG 2005 Market Street, Suite 2600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 564-8550 (215) 564-8061 (215) 564-8083 RT WHOLESALE: De Jesus Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices --------------------------------------------------------- MARGARITA DE JESUS, on behalf of herself and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs v. RT WHOLESALE, LLC, D/B/A FOOD EVOLUTION, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, A/K/A FRESH & READY FOODS, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-14951 (N.D. Ill., October 16, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. Plaintiff, Margarita De Jesus, is a former employee of Defendant who, between approximately March of 2012 through October of 2022, worked at both of Defendant's locations at Schiller Park and Franklin Park, Illinois, first as an assistant in the kitchen and then as an employee preparing food in the "fast lunch" department. Throughout the duration of her employment, she was subjected to illegal wage deductions, which reduced her regular rate and corresponding overtime rate, in violation of the FLSA and IWPCA, says the Plaintiff. RT Wholesale is a limited liability company with locations in Schiller Park and Franklin Park, Illinois, San Francisco and San Fernando, California, Las Vegas, Nevada, and Dallas Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John William Billhorn, Esq. Samuel D. Engelson, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 RXC ACQUISITION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to CSRs, Hernandez Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Donna Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. RxC Acquisition Company and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02140-MTM (D. Ariz., October 16, 2023) seeks to recover from Defendants' willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and alleged contractual obligations and other appropriate rules, regulations, statutes, and ordinances. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a Customer Service Representative (CSR) from September 2012 to March 2022. Throughout her employment, Plaintiff was, however, subjected to Defendants' policy and practice of failing to compensate their CSRs for their necessary boot-up and call ready work, which resulted in the failure to properly compensate CSRs as required under applicable federal and state laws, says the suit. A wholly owned subsidiary of McKesson Corporation, RxC Acquisition Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. The company operates a call center in Arizona and administers copay assistance and pharmacy voucher programs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard P. Traulsen, Esq. BEGAM MARKS & TRAULSEN, P.A. 11201 North Tatum Blvd., Suite 110 Phoenix, AZ 85028-6037 - and - Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. Timothy J. Becker, Esq. Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 Saint Paul, MN 55101 E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com tbecker@johnsonbecker.com zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com RYAN RHODES: Mason Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Venus Concept Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2023, that on March 2, 2023, the plaintiff in a purported shareholder class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, filed a stipulation voluntarily dismissing the action. The District Court has not yet entered the stipulation. Case was captioned "Mason v. Rhodes," No. 5:19-cv-03997-NC, filed on July 11, 2019 and named Ryan Rhodes, Chief Executive Officer of Restoration Robotics which merged with Venus in March 2019. The complaint alleges that certain of Restoration Robotics’ former officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties, have been unjustly enriched and violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with the IPO and Restoration Robotics' 2018 proxy statement. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, declaratory relief, other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 21, 2019, the District Court granted the parties' joint stipulation to stay the Mason action. On June 21, 2021, the District Court granted the parties' further stipulation to stay the Mason action. Venus Concept Inc. is a global medical technology company that develops, commercializes, and sells minimally invasive and non-invasive medical aesthetic and hair restoration technologies and related services. RYVYL INC: Faces Cullen Securities Suit Over SEC Filing ------------------------------------------------------- Ryvyl Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2023, that on February 1, 2023, a purported class action lawsuit titled "Cullen V. RYVYL Inc. (formerly Greenbox POS, Inc.), et al.," Case No. 3:23-cv-00185-GPC-AGS, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against several defendants, including the company and certain of our current and former directors and officers. The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's publicly traded securities between January 29, 2021, and January 20, 2023. The complaint generally alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and/or misleading statements regarding the company's financial controls, performance and prospects. The action seeks damages, including interest, and the award of reasonable fees and costs to the putative class. The company denies all allegations of liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims. However, given the preliminary stage of the lawsuit, the uncertainty of litigation, and the legal standards that must be met for success on the merits, the company cannot predict the outcome at this time or estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action. RYVYL Inc. is a financial technology company that develops, markets, and sells innovative blockchain-based payment solutions, which offer significant improvements for the payment solutions marketplace. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Suit Over SmartTag's Tracking Feature ---------------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-03985 (E.D. Pa., October 16, 2023) alleges claims against the Defendants for negligence, unjust enrichment, and intrusion upon seclusion. The Plaintiff, a victim of stalking through the use of a Samsung SmartTag, brings this action on behalf of herself and a class and subclasses of individuals who have been and who are at risk of stalking via this dangerous product. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks actual damages, and punitive damages, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief against Samsung, correcting Samsung's practice of releasing an unreasonably dangerous product into the stream of commerce, misrepresenting the harms associated therewith, and facilitating the unwanted and unconsented to location tracking of Plaintiff and Class members. Headquartered in South Korea, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is one of the world's largest producers of electronics and electronic devices. It is the parent company to Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq. Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Ave, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: ekilpela@lcllp.com elizabeth@lcllp.com - and - Gillian L. Wade, Esq. Sara D. Avila, Esq. Marc A. Castaneda, Esq. MILSTEIN JACKSON FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP 10990 Wilshire Blvd., 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 396-9600 Facsimile: (310) 396-9635 E-mail: gwade@mjfwlaw.com savila@mjfwlaw.com mcastaneda@mjfwlaw.com - and - David Slade, Esq. Brandon Haubert, Esq. Jessica Hall, Esq. WH LAW 1 Riverfront Place, Suite 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Telephone: (501) 891-6000 Facsimile: (501) 222-3027 E-mail: slade@wh.law brandon@wh.law jessica@wh.law SAN DIEGO, CA: Parties Seek to Certify Class, Subclass in Dunsmore ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRYL DUNSMORE, ANDREE ANDRADE, ERNEST ARCHULETA, JAMES CLARK, ANTHONY EDWARDS, LISA LANDERS, REANNA LEVY, JOSUE LOPEZ, CHRISTOPHER NELSON, CHRISTOPHER NORWOOD, JESSE OLIVARES, GUSTAVO SEPULVEDA, MICHAEL TAYLOR, and LAURA ZOERNER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, SAN DIEGO COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT, and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order certifying class action and certifying: (1) an Incarcerated People Class of "all adults who are now, or will be in the future, incarcerated in any of the San Diego County Jail facilities"; (2) an Incarcerated People with Disabilities Subclass of "all adults who have a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. section 12102, 29 U.S.C. section 705(9)(B), and California Government Code section 12926(j) and (m), and who are now, or will be in the future, incarcerated in any of the San Diego County Jail facilities"; (3) an Incarcerated People with Private Counsel or Pro Per Claims Subclass of "all adults who are now, or will be in the future, incarcerated in any of the San Diego County Jail facilities and have private counsel or are pursuing state or federal claims on a pro per basis"; and (4) an Incarcerated Black and Latinx Persons Subclass of "all Black and Latinx adults who are now, or will be in the future, incarcerated in any of the San Diego County Jail facilities." The Plaintiffs further request that Plaintiffs be certified as the representatives of the Class and Subclasses and that their counsel be certified as counsel for the Class and Subclasses. Finally, the parties request that the Court approve the proposed Class Notice. The parties have submitted an order reflecting these requests San Diego County Sheriff's Department is the primary and largest law enforcement agency in San Diego County, California. A copy of the Parties dated Oct. 24, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/49c5v6E at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Van Swearingen, Esq. Priyah Kaul, Esq. Eric Monek Anderson, Esq. Hannah M. Chartoff, Esq. Rosen Bien, Esq. GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP 101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-1738 Telephone: (415) 433-6830 Facsimile: (415) 433-7104 E-mail: ggrunfeld@rbgg.com vswearingen@rbgg.com pkaul@rbgg.com eanderson@rbgg.com hchartoff@rbgg.com - and - Aaron J. Fischer, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF AARON J. FISCHER 1400 Shattuck Square Suite 12 – No. 344 Berkeley, CA 94709 Telephone: (510) 806-7366 Facsimile: (510) 694-6314 E-mail: ajf@aaronfischerlaw.com - and - Christopher M. Young, Esq. Isabella Neal, Esq. Oliver Kiefer, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 401 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101-4297 Telephone: (619) 699-2700 Facsimile: (619) 699-2701 E-mail: christopher.young@dlapiper.com isabella.neal@dlapiper.com oliver.kiefer@dlapiper.com The Defendants are represented by: Susan E. Coleman, Esq. Elizabeth M. Pappy, Esq. BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101-8474 Telephone: (619) 814-5800 Facsimile: (619) 814-6799 E-mail: scoleman@bwslaw.com epappy@bwslaw.com SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Chavez Covid-19 Suit Seeks Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GABRIEL CHAVEZ, et al., v. SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT, Case No. 3:22-cv-06119-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In this case, resolving hundreds of potential claims in one action is far superior to individual lawsuits in terms of economies of time, effort, expense, and uniformity. The board of directors of a government-operated, heavy rail public transportation system required COVID-19 vaccination for all of its employees. Employees submitted requests for religious exemption, hopeful of their request leading to an accommodation. Each employee went through the same process. In the end, no religious accommodation was granted to any unvaccinated employee. Such employees were either terminated or forced to resign or to take early retirement. The events surrounding the loss of employment by the class representative is not unique to him. In addition, the alternate class plaintiffs suffered the same fate, as indeed, did the entire putative class. The universality of the process that the employer undertook towards religious objectors to vaccination, and the universal denial of religious accommodation, make this a case well suited for class certification. Plaintiffs’ motion should be granted under Rule 23(b)(3). On October 14, 2021, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) issued a mandate requiring all of its employees to submit to vaccination for COVID-19. The proposed class is all employees employed by BART who (1) have been ordered to submit to a COVID-19 vaccination, (2) have sincerely held religious beliefs which prevent them from taking the vaccine, (3) have submitted a request for a religious exemption, and (4) were denied a religious accommodation. The Plaintiffs believe that the above definition of the class is adequate to encompass all persons. Nonetheless, if the Court is so inclined, there can be two distinctive classes to separate those employees who had their requests for exemption denied and thus did not reach the accommodation review. The alternative proposed class would be all employees employed by BART who (1) have been ordered to submit to a COVID-19 vaccination, (2) have sincerely held religious beliefs which prevent them from taking the vaccine, (3) have submitted a request for a religious exemption and religious accommodation, and (4) whose request for a religious exemption were denied. The Amended Complaint contains three causes of action, namely, (1) Free Exercise of Religion brought under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, (2) Title VII, and (3) FEHA. The Defendant is a rapid transit system serving the San Francisco Bay Area in California. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 24, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ScyReT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin T. Snider, Esq. Matthew B. McReynolds, Esq. Milton E. Matchak, Esq. PACIFIC JUSTICE INSTITUTE Sacramento, CA 95827 Telephone: (916) 857-6900 E-mail: ksnider@pji.org mmcreynolds@pji.org mmatchak@pji.org SANTA CLARA, CA: Faces Class Suit Over Data Privacy Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action claims Santa Clara Valley Medical Center secretly transmits the private data of website visitors to Facebook and other third parties without consent. The 90-page amended complaint says the County of Santa Clara -- which operates the San Jose, California hospital and several other affiliated medical facilities and clinics -- has embedded a host of invisible web-tracking tools into its website and patient portal. According to the case, this technology " “purposefully and intentionally" shares visitors' personal data with third parties, who then "exploit" the information for targeted advertising purposes. The lawsuit explains that the tracking codes -- which include at least Facebook's Meta pixel and the Google Analytics pixel -- are designed to capture every movement a visitor makes on a website in real time. By using such back-end tools on SCVMC.SCVH.org, the medical center has violated state law and illegally disclosed patients' personally identifiable information with third-party marketing companies, including co-defendant Meta Platforms (formerly Facebook), Google, YouTube and software company New Relic, the suit alleges. Per the case, patients can use the website to access the hospital's patient portal, find doctors, research treatments, pay bills, refill prescriptions, communicate with providers and more. However, unbeknownst to website visitors, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center discloses to third parties its patients' every interaction with the page, including details about their healthcare providers, search queries, buttons clicked, IP addresses, website URLs, physical locations and the contents of any communications exchanged via the website, the complaint claims. "In essence, Santa Clara encourages its patients to use a tapped device, and once the webpage is loaded into a patient's browser, the software-based wiretap is quietly waiting for private communications on the webpage to trigger the tap, which intercepts those communications intended only for Santa Clara and transmits those communications to Facebook and other third parties," the filing charges. In addition, the defendant shares with Meta patients' Facebook IDs, a unique identifier that can be used to pinpoint an individual's Facebook profile, the lawsuit alleges. This combination of data allows Facebook -- or, indeed, any internet user -- to easily link a patient's identity to their online activity and preferences, the suit stresses. The case contends that the medical center's "malicious" actions violate numerous privacy protection statutes afforded by state law. "Santa Clara made the decision to barter its patients' personal health information to Facebook because it wanted access to the Meta Pixel tool," the complaint states. "While that bargain may have benefited Santa Clara and Facebook, it also violated the privacy rights of [the plaintiff] and Class Members." The lawsuit looks to represent any patient or prospective patient of Santa Clara Valley Medical Center or any of its affiliates who, since August 25, 2018, exchanged communications on SCVMC.SCVH.org or any other Santa Clara Valley Medical Center-affiliated website, including patient portals. The complaint embedded below is an amended version of a case initially filed on August 25, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] SHADE STORE: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Tiesenga Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- GREG TIESENGA, WILLIE MCINNIS, GERARDO OROZCO GARCIA, on behalf of themselves, and all other Plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. THE SHADE STORE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-14549 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 5, 2023) is an action brought against the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance. The Plaintiffs worked more than 40 hours per week in certain work weeks and for those hours in excess of 40, as those hours were recorded by Defendant, was compensated at proper overtime rates. However, during Plaintiffs' employment, Defendant consistently required them to perform work off the clock without pay for that time, resulting in unpaid wages that should have been paid at a rate of one and one-half times their regular hourly rate, say the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs Tiesenga, McInnis, and Garcia are employees of Defendant who worked as installers from April 2018 to December 2022, from October 2021 to October 2022, and from August 2020 until present, respectively. They worked installing window coverings for Defendant at various locations. The Shade Store, LLC sells custom shades, blinds and drapery.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John W. Billhorn, Esq. Samuel D. Engelson, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 STELLANTIS NV: Wins Class Suit Over Misleading Destination Charges ------------------------------------------------------------------ Julie Steinberg of Bloomberg Law reports that Stellantis NV unit Fiat Chrysler shook off a proposed class suit alleging it misled new car buyers about pricing by inflating the destination charges—costs paid to the automaker by dealers—and hiding the profit. Lead plaintiffs Perry and Wendy Beeney and others failed to show that FCA US LLC's conduct was deceptive or that they suffered any economic harm, a federal court in Delaware said. The plaintiffs alleged that the automaker increased its destination charges to make additional profit without having to increase the "price" line on vehicle stickers. Customers are more sensitive to price when making purchasing decisions. [GN] SYSCO VENTURA: Faces Uecker Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN UECKER, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYSCO VENTURA, INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV24285 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 5, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged systemic illegal employment practices in violation of the California Labor Code, the applicable Wage Orders of the California Industrial Welfare Commission, and the California Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay correct and proper minimum wages for all hours worked; failure to provide employees a 10 minute paid rest period; failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; and engagement in unfair and unlawful business practices. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a driver on February 8, 2018. Sysco Ventura, Inc. focuses on selling, marketing, and distributing food products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward W. Choi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES A Professional Corporation 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 381-1515 Facsimile: (213) 465-4885 E-mail: edward.choi@choiandassociates.com - and - Larry W. Lee, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com - and - David Lee, Esq. DAVID LEE LAW 515 S. Flower Street, Suite 3600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 236-3536 Facsimile: (866) 658-4722 E-mail: David@DavidJLeeLaw.com T-MOBILE USA: Faces Class Suit Over SIM-Swap Computer Fraud Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tonya Riley of Bloomberg Law reports that T-Mobile USA Inc. must face several proposed class action claims from a victim of an alleged SIM-swapping data scam, a Washington federal judge ruled. Judge John H. Chun of the US District Court for the Western District of Washington on October 20, 2023 allowed plaintiff Eman Bayani's allegations that T-Mobile violated the Federal Communications Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and Washington's Consumer Protection Act to stand. The judge dismissed claims that that T-Mobile violated federal law to safeguard the privacy of consumer's proprietary telecommunications network data. The judge also dismissed a claim under the Stored Communications Act that T-Mobile "knowingly" divulged. [GN] TARGET CORP: Knopman Sues Over Illegal Sales Tax on American Flags ------------------------------------------------------------------ PAMELA KNOPMAN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TARGET CORPORATION, WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP, and WALMART, INC., Defendants, Case No. 9:23-cv-81389-AMC (S.D. Fla., October 16, 2023) alleges claims against Defendants for violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, unjust enrichment and negligence. Among other things, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants have violated FDUTPA, by systematically and intentionally engaging in unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce by unlawfully charging their Florida customers a sales tax on American flags, despite the tax-exempt status of such item under state law. Headquartered in Minneapolis, MN, Target is a Minnesota corporation that owns and operates more than 125 general merchandise stores in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Turchin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JASON TURCHIN 2883 Executive Park Drive Suite 103 Weston, FL 33331 Telephone: (888) 99-VICTIM (954) 515-5000 E-mail: jason@victimaid.com - and - Steven Bennett Blau, Esq. BLAU LAW GROUP, P.C. 455 Central Park Avenue, Suite 216 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Telephone: (914) 815-1269 E-mail: sblau@blaulawgroupny.com TD BANK: Jimenez Suit Seeks Final Approval of Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUDITH JIMENEZ, KATHY FOGEL, and STEPHANIE VIL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TD BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:20-cv-07699-NLH-EAP (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order -- Certify Settlement Class, and -- Finding the Settlement to be fair, reasonable, and adequate, issue final approval of the Settlement, and dismiss this action with prejudice Class Counsel look forward to the Final Approval Hearing on Nov. 7, 2023 to answer any specific questions the Court has regarding the successful notice plan accomplished in this case, as well as any questions about the Settlement The Plaintiffs Judith Jimenez, Kathy Fogel, and Stephanie Vil move for final approval pursuant to the Court's Order granting Preliminary Approval, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and Third Circuit precedent. The Court previously granted preliminary approval of the Settlement reached by the parties and also approved the proposed notice program. The Plaintiffs seek approval of the following nationwide class, for settlement purposes only: "All current and former holders of an Eligible Account that, between June 24, 2014, and the date of Preliminary Approval, was reopened by TD Bank without customer authorization after the Eligible Account's closure and had a debit, credit, or fee post to the Eligible Account after that reopening. Excluded from the Settlement Class are TD; TD's officers and directors at all relevant times, as well as members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns; and any entity in which TD has or had a controlling interest. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are federal, state, and local governments and all agencies and subdivisions thereunder; and any judge to whom this action is or has been assigned and any member of her immediate family. TD Bank is an American national bank and the United States subsidiary of the multinational TD Bank Group. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 24, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4775X49 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard M. Golomb, Esq. GOLOMB SPIRT, P.C. 1835 Market Street, Suite 2900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 278-4449 E-mail: rgolomb@golomblegal.com - and - E. Adam Webb, Esq. G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq. WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC 1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (770) 444-0773 E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com TELEVISAUNIVISION INTERACTIVE: Discloses Info to Meta, Falcon Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- INDIRA FALCON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TELEVISAUNIVISION INTERACTIVE MEDIA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-02340 (M.D. Fla., October 16, 2023) alleges violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act. The class action arises from Defendant's practice of knowingly disclosing to Meta Platforms, Inc. (Facebook), information which identifies Plaintiff and the putative Class Members as having requested or obtained specific video materials or services from Defendant. The Defendant knowingly violated the VPPA by embedding Facebook's Meta Pixel within its website and by sharing Plaintiff's and the Class Members' video viewing history without providing any notification to Plaintiff and the Class Members and informed written consent. Moreover, the Defendant's practice caused Plaintiff and the Class members concrete harm and injuries, including violations of their substantive legal privacy rights under the VPPA and invasion of their privacy, says the suit. TelevisaUnivision Interactive Media is a Spanish-language content and media company with impressive offerings across broadcast, cable, digital platforms, radio and live events. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 - and - Manuel Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (305) 336-7466 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW. P.A. 515 E las Olas Blvd. Ste 120, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 533-4092 E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com TENNESSEE: Hooks Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN HOOKS v. AMBER L. PHILLIPS, in her official Capacity as Correctional Program Director 2 for the TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; AND JOHN DOE 1 SENTENCE MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00671 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying Rule 23 Class Action. The Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC) is a Cabinet-level agency within the Tennessee state government. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 24, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Qx3BGa at no extra charge. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC] TOZZER LTD: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Duser Class Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- NATASHA VAN DUSER, JACKSON LEA, CHARLOTTE MASON, TRISTAN HSU, MORGANN DANIELS, AMERICA ROSE MARVELOUS HERVE, RYAN MICKELSEN, KAYL WARD, STEPHANIE OSPINA, ZOE FROMER, NICOLE IRRIZARRY and JULIETA WINTERS, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. TOZZER LTD. D/B/A NIAGARA NYC AND LOVERS OF TODAY, LAPIZZA SHOP, INC., D/B/A 96 TEARS, BERLIN AND CABIN DOWN BELOW, BOWERY TECH RESTAURANT LLC D/B/A BOWERY ELECTRIC, JONATHAN TOUBIN, JOHNNY YERINGTON A/K/A "JOHNNY T", JESSE MALIN, AND LAURA MCCARTHY, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:23-cv-09329-AS (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2023) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violation of the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The suit alleges that Defendants willfully violated the New York Labor Law by: (i) failing to pay the minimum wage, (ii) failing to pay spread-of-hours pay, (iii) failing to provide the Notice and Acknowledgement of Payrate and Payday under N.Y. Lab. Law (NYLL), (iv) failing to provide an accurate wage statement under N.Y. Lab. Law section 195.3 with every wage payment, (v) failing to timely pay wages, and (vi) unlawfully retained gratuities. The Plaintiffs allege, on their behalf and other similarly situated current and former employees of Defendants and those who elect to opt into this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Each Defendant, either directly or indirectly, has hired Plaintiffs and other employees, fired other employees, controlled Plaintiffs’ work schedules and employment conditions, determined their payment rate and method, and kept at least some records regarding their employment. The Defendants allegedly pay their bartenders, servers, barbacks and coat check attendants $10.00 per hour. In paying their bartenders, servers, barbacks and coat check attendants at $10.00, Defendants were and still are claiming a tip, says the suit. The Defendants operated a single, integrated business enterprise that jointly employed the Plaintiffs and the Class and Collective Action Members.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10017-6705 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com TYRONE OLIVER: Butler Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class of Inmates --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Darryl Pernell Butler, v. Tyrone Oliver et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-00311-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting Rule 23 class certification of: "All present and future damages as a result of defendants serving inmates food out at area that is in deplorable condition." The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants denies the inmates the rights to eat food that healthy and prepared in an area that's suitable for to state and federal laws in violation of the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 24, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/49dmKoe at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff appears pro se. U.S. ASPHALT: Thomas Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY THOMAS and other similarly situated individuals v. U.S. ASPHALT, LLC and NICHOLAS SMALL, individually, Case No. 0:23-cv-62021-RS (S.D. Fla., Oct. 23, 2023) is a class action for retaliation and to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a seal coater from on or about June of 2022, until his wrongful termination on or about December 19, 2022. The Plaintiff performed his duties in a satisfactory manner and was never written up by the Defendants. He brought this action on behalf of himself and those similarly situated to recover from the Corporate Defendant unpaid overtime compensation, as well as an additional amount as liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees under the provisions of 29 U.S.C. section 201 et seq., and specifically under the provisions of 29 U.S.C. Section 20. U.S. ASPHALT, LLC is engaged in the the asphalt paving industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 482-1475 E-mail: martin@legalopinionusa.com UNITED HEALTHCARE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 18, 2024 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELAINE JOHNSON, v. UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00522-GAP-PRL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Gregory A. Presnell entered a case management and scheduling order as follows: Class Discovery Deadline September 13, 2024 Plaintiff's Motion for Class October 18, 2024 Certification Defendant's Response November 22, 2024 Plaintiff's Rebuttal December 13, 2024 United Healthcare provides hospital, medical, and other health services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sel3G7 at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Return of Deported Aliens Part of Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- FAIR Staff of FAIR reports that last week, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that the U.S. government will return deported aliens to the U.S. and provide them with health insurance, housing assistance, and legal services as part of a settlement agreement to a class action lawsuit. The lawsuit was originally filed by a woman from the Republic of Congo who entered the U.S. illegally with her seven-year-old daughter in November 2017 at the San Ysidro Port of Entry near San Diego, California. Because federal law requires the government to detain asylum-seekers while their cases are being adjudicated, federal officials detained the mother but sent the child to be cared for by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which manages the government's unaccompanied minors program. With the help of the ACLU, in 2018, the mother filed a class action lawsuit in the Southern District of California claiming Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other agencies within the Department of Homeland Security denied her of her due process under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs asked that the court certify a class defined as all adult aliens with a minor child who are separated by DHS absent a demonstration in a hearing that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child. In addition, they asked the court to issue an injunction ordering the government to reunify alien families and to cease the separation of adults from children for the purposes of immigration enforcement. The federal district court certified the class. The litigation continued into 2021 until the inauguration of President Biden, who immediately entered into settlement negotiations with the plaintiffs. Negotiations broke down for a period after reports surfaced that the Biden Administration was considering paying individual aliens up to $450,000 and illegal alien families up to $1 million. However, last week, the parties announced they had mutually agreed upon the terms. While cash payments are not part of the settlement agreement announced last week, the Biden Administration has agreed to give the illegal alien plaintiffs everything else they demanded. Illegal aliens who qualify as class members include parents, legal guardians and children who were separated from their family members at the U.S.-Mexico border during all four years of the Trump Administration (January 2017 to January 2021). This covers illegal aliens who are still in the United States and those who were deported. Parents with certain criminal convictions will be presumptively ineligible for parole, but the agreement provides that DHS is authorized to waive any criminal history after a case-by-case review. Notably, these waivers will be granted by the Homeland Security Family Reunification Task Force, which is controlled by Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas and other political appointees. Under the agreement, the U.S. government will allow illegal aliens who were deported – and anyone in their immediate household – to apply for parole to "reunify" with their family member. It further requires that the U.S. government pay the aliens' airfare or other travel expenses. Class members who are still in the United States may apply for parole-in-place in order to stay in the U.S. Parole will be offered in three-year increments, which may be renewed. Aliens will also be granted work authorization. In addition to offering class members parole, the agreement also requires the government to provide, at taxpayer expense, housing assistance, health insurance, behavioral health services (i.e. child and parent counseling), and assistance finding free legal services for a certain period of time. The government will also allow class members to file asylum applications with USCIS (which is generally easier than going through the immigration courts), allow illegal aliens whose asylum applications were denied to reapply, and waive the one-year deadline for filing an asylum application. Aliens will have three years from the effective date of the settlement to register with the government in order to be considered for benefits. To help illegal aliens participate in the settlement, the government has created a website, together.gov, with a sister site in Spanish, juntos.gov, where illegal aliens who believe they qualify as class members can sign up for benefits. Current estimates suggest at least 4,000 illegal aliens, if not more, will qualify. The settlement also handcuffs how our immigration agencies will enforce the law in the future. It prohibits Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement from separating families for a period of eight years, except in limited circumstances. These include when CBP determines that "the child or accompanying parent or legal guardian presents a public safety or national security risk to the United States" or the parent/legal guardian poses a threat to the child. If CBP wants to separate a child and parent because it does not believe the parent is actually the child's biological parent, it must offer to do DNA testing, subject to the parent's permission and the parent is allowed to challenge the accuracy of the results. Finally, under the agreement, CBP and ICE agree not to refer a parent traveling with a child for prosecution under 8 U.S.C. 1325, which makes crossing the border illegally a crime. This non-prosecution agreement is tantamount to the nullification of federal law, which classifies illegal entry as a crime regardless of whether the perpetrator is a parent traveling with the child. Moreover, all of these handcuffs on immigration enforcement, which will last for a period of eight years, leave CBP and ICE virtually no choice; they will have to immediately release all family units who illegally cross the border. This will only encourage more families to make the dangerous journey through Central America toward the southern border and empower the cartels to expand their smuggling and trafficking operations. According to the Wall Street Journal, the DOJ willingly agreed to these limitations on its agencies' actions to prevent a future president from imposing strict enforcement policies in the future. This settlement will certainly accomplish that. Sadly, the handcuffs placed on immigration enforcement will only encourage more families to make the dangerous journey to our southern border. And, as family units make up an increasing portion of the illegal alien population (31 percent in FY 2023), Congress will need to step in and act. First, Congress must adopt legislation that reverses this settlement agreement and the Flores settlement agreement, which requires the release of children whether they are accompanied by family members or not. Then, Congress must ensure that family detention centers are funded, that more space is added, that families are detained together, and, for families who don't qualify for asylum, they are promptly sent home through expedited removal. [GN] WORKHORSE GROUP: Settles Securities Suit in C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------- Workhorse Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2023, that on July 24, 2023, the court entered an order granting final approval of a Stipulation of Settlement, resolving a securities class action. A Stipulation of Settlement and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement was filed on January 13, 2023, and the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on February 14, 2023. Pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement, in exchange for a release of all claims and dismissal with prejudice of the securities class action, the company agreed to create a settlement fund with an escrow agent, consisting of $15 million in cash and $20 million in shares of common stock of the company from which class members will receive payment. On October 24, 2022, the company entered into a binding term sheet to resolve the putative class brought in the Central District of California (Case No.2:21-cv-02072) on behalf of purchasers of the company's securities from March 10, 2020 through May 10, 2021. On January 13, 2023, the parties executed a Stipulation of Settlement setting forth the terms of the settlement of the class action and resolution of all claims. Under these terms, Workhorse will pay $15 million in cash, which is expected to be funded fully by proceeds of available insurance, and $20 million payable in shares of Workhorse stock. Workhorse Group Inc. is a technology company that pioneers the transition to zero-emission commercial vehicles with primary focus to provide sustainable and cost-effective solutions to the commercial transportation sector. It designs and manufactures all-electric delivery trucks and drone systems, including the technology that optimizes the way these vehicles operate. XTO ENERGY: Seventh Amended Case Management Order Entered in Kriley ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUGLAS KRILEY and TINA KRILEY, THOMAS A. MICHEL and CAROL L. MICHEL, GERALDINE C. WIEFLING, and CHARLES E. WADDINGHAM II and CAROL G. WADDINGHAM, v. XTO ENERGY INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00416-CRE (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy entered a seventh amended case management order: 1. Pursuant to the parties' agreement, Defendant shall produce on or before October 30, 2023, PDF versions of all unit declarations within Defendant’s possession, custody, or control (with the accompanying OCR for those declarations) that were filed by Defendant for production units in Butler County, Pennsylvania, that contain oil and gas leases that Defendant has produced to Plaintiffs in this lawsuit. 2. The Defendant will have until November 30, 2023 to complete the depositions of the named plaintiffs with respect to issues related to class certification. 3. The Plaintiff's Expert Reports related to class certification are due on or before January 15, 2024. Defendant's Expert Reports related to class certification are due on or before February 19, 2024. 4. The Plaintiff's Reply Expert Reports related to class certification, which are limited to issues raised for the first time in Defendant's expert reports, are due on or before March 11, 2024. 5. The Defendant's sur-reply expert reports, which are limited to issues raised for the first time in Plaintiffs’ reply expert reports, are due by March 29, 2024. The Depositions of all experts related to class certification shall be on or before April 30, 2024. 6. The parties have already submitted an ADR Stipulation. 7. The parties shall complete the ADR process they selected by May 15, 2024. 8. Discovery is not stayed pending completion of ADR. 9. A post-ADR video status conference is scheduled for parties shall be prepared to discuss scheduling a hearing on the motion for class certification. XTO is an American energy company and subsidiary of ExxonMobil. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MiVLhb at no extra charge.[CC] XWELL INC: Settles Labor Dispute After Mediation ------------------------------------------------ XWELL, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2023, that the parties reached a settlement which was approved on September 20, 2022 for the amount of $517 and additional payroll taxes of $4. Funding of the settlement amount occurred on January 26, 2023. The mediation session occurred on March 18, 2021. This is a combined class action and California Private Attorney’s General Act (PAGA) action. Plaintiff seeks to recover wages, penalties and PAGA penalties for claims for (1) failure to provide meal periods, (2) failure to provide rest breaks, (3) failure to pay overtime, (4) inaccurate wage statements, (5) waiting time penalties, and (6) PAGA penalties of $0.1 per employee per pay period per violation. There are approximately 240 current and former employees in the litigation class. The parties agreed to mediation on May 26, 2020, however, due to COVID-19, the parties subsequently stayed all proceedings. XWELL is a global travel health and wellness services holding company. XWELL currently has four reportable operating segments, namely, XpresSpa(R), XpresTest(R), Treat(TM), and HyperPointe which was acquired in January 2022. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J's Failed 'Two-Step' Bankruptcies Cost $178MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Evan Ochsner of Bloomberg Law reports that Johnson & Johnson's failed effort to use bankruptcy to resolve widespread cancer lawsuits has cost about $178 million in legal fees, offering a price tag for an increasingly controversial litigation strategy. J&J has on two separate occasions placed its subsidiary, LTL Management LLC, into bankruptcy to address tens of thousands of claims that its talc-based baby powder caused cancer. The millions of dollars in fees are part of the rising cost of corporate lawyers, but also the time and effort of pursuing a relatively new legal strategy in an already complicated Chapter 11. J&J has been trying to employ the Texas Two-Step, the legal tactic that roughly half a dozen companies - including Koch Industries Inc.-backed Georgia-Pacific LLC - have used with the goal of settling mass tort liabilities outside of the traditional judicial system. Neither of J&J's attempts have worked so far. It has appealed the July dismissal of the second bankruptcy attempt. "It seems to me $175 million is a lot to pay for a failed strategy," said Bruce Markell, a Northwestern University law professor and former bankruptcy judge. The first bankruptcy and a related appeal incurred fees of about $116 million, court records reviewed by Bloomberg Law show. The second bankruptcy attempt, which was dismissed in July 2023, has so far racked up approximately $62 million in fees. The company still faces claims that its talc-based products caused cancer, and the suits have already cost it billions of dollars in verdicts, settlements, and litigation fees. Still, the fees represent a mere fraction of J&J's overall financial wealth. The company reported $94.9 billion in 2022 gross sales and offered $8.9 billion to resolve the talc claims. Even if failed, the bankruptcies weren't without benefits, shielding J&J from most talc-related lawsuits while pursuing them. The company also notched a victory Tuesday when an appeals court threw out a jury verdict that had awarded $223 million to a group of people who blamed their cancers on J&J's talc-based products. Now, it must resume defending itself in talc cases outside of bankruptcy, meaning money it had offered to settle with victims will go to legal expenses, J&J's worldwide vice president for litigation Erik Haas said at a September Senate hearing. "At the end of the day, the $8.9 billion is going to go to one place: lawyers who are litigating this case," Haas said. "A bankruptcy resolution would provideâ€”and is the only way to provide in the short termâ€”an equitable resolution." ********* 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 ***