/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231106.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, November 6, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 222
Headlines
23ANDME INC: Greenberg Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
23ANDME INC: Seikel Files Suit in N.D. California
3M COMPANY: Barber Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Barkley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Brown Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Davis Sues Over Exposure to Aqueous Foams
ADIDAS AMERICA: Ibach Sues Over Misleading Ads of NHL Jerseys
ADVANCE AUTO: Haynes Sues Over Pumping at Work Act, FLSA Violations
AHS MANAGEMENT: Hill Sues Over Unpaid OT Due to Data Breach
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: 100% Juice Label "Deceptive," Legrier Says
AUTONOMY PRODUCTIONS: Faces Ramirez Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
BABBEL INC: Discloses Personal Info to Meta, Potter Claims
BLOOMBERG LP: Huckabee et al. Sue Over Copyright Infringement
CHIME FINANCIAL: Parada Sues Over Financial Services' False Ads
CLOROX CO: McManus Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Settlement in Padilla Suit Gets Final Nod
CONTINENTAL FINANCE: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Johnson Suit
DATACOMP APPRAISAL: Kazmirzak Sues Over Lot Rental Price-Fixing
DATACOMP APPRAISAL: Zuccolotto Alleges Home Lot Rental Price-Fixing
DOLLAR GENERAL: Fowler and Kennedy Allege Unlawful Labor Practices
DOW JONES: Garcia Sues Over Disclosure of Private Info to Facebook
DSM-FIRMENICH AG: MSNY Inc. Sues Over Fragrance Price Conspiracy
EMPIRE BAGELS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Aguilar Alleges
ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA: Brown Alleges Eyewear Market Monopoly
FRAIN INDUSTRIES: Polanco Sues Over Unlawful Biometrics Collection
GENERAL MOTORS: Jennings Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Car Owners
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Caccavale Seeks Class Cert Oral Argument
IMMUNOVANT SCIENCES: Faces Securities Suit in N.Y. Court
JANUS HOMECARE: Garcia Wins Conditional Certification of Collective
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: McPhee Sues Over Decongestants' False Ads
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sends Unsolicited Advertisements, S.A.S.B. Says
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Wright Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
LANCASTER HOSPITAL: Martinez Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
LEXINGTON COUNTY, SC: Amick Bid for Class Status Gets Initial Nod
LEXINGTON COUNTY, SC: Kitchens Class Certification Gets Initial Nod
M/V HARVEY: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Union Pacific
MANJARI CHAWLA: Krause Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
MARIANI PACKING: Amended Case Management Order Entered in Diesel
MARIST COLLEGE: Goetze Seeks COVID-19 Tuition Refunds
MEDNAX SERVICES: Court Appoints Mediator for Settlement Purposes
MENARD INC: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Hawkins Suit
MISS TOYAS: Johnson Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
MORCA CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Overtime Premiums, Flores Claims
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC: Nguyen Sues Over Private Info Disclosure to FB
NEAPOLITAN EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Mizquiri Alleges
NESTLE PURINA: Pietres Sues Over Misleading Pet Food Labels
OKTA INC: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Bid Filing
ONSITE FACILITY: Class Action Settlement in Pickard Gets Final Nod
OTIS WORLDWIDE: Peguese Sues Over FLSA and PUMP Act Violations
PACIFIC STEEL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 26, 2024
PACIFIC STEEL: Filing for Class Cert in Gay Due April 26, 2024
PRIORITY 1 SECURITY: Avila Sues Over Untimely Payment of Wages
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 2, 2024
PROSPECT CHARTERCARE: Del Sesto Seeks Initial OK of Settlement
PROVIDENCE PUBLIC: Parties Seek Final Approval of Class Settlement
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Court OK's Borozny Bid for Leave to Amend
RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Nod
ROBINHOOD: Filing for Class Cert Bid Continued to Feb. 9, 2024
ROBINHOOD: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Feb. 9, 2024
ROTHCO INC: Faces Mackey Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls
RUIXUE SHI: Wu Seeks to File Class Cert Supplementary Materials
SAFECO INSURANCE: Dow Appeals Judgment in Class Suit
SAME DAY FUNDING: Hanson Sues Over TCPA Violations
SANDISK LLC: Larkland Studios Sues Over Defective Storage Devices
SELECT REHABILITATION: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to Amend Complaint
SHOO LOONG: Faces Lopez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
SHOT OF ART: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Christensen Alleges
SILVESTRE CHAVEZ: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Avila Alleges
STELLAR MANAGEMENT: Peralta Sues Over Improper Payment of Wages
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Garrett Sues Over Vehicles' Obsolete Telematics
SYNEOS HEALTH: Kempen Int'l Sues Over Share Price Drop
TESCO INC: Faces Young Suit Over Unpaid OT, Sick Leave
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Suit Seeks Conditional Status of Action
THERMO TECH: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 1
TIER-ONE PROPERTY: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid
TURQUOISE HILL: Seeks to Maintain Redacted Info Under Seal
VILLAS OF HOLLY BROOK: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
VIMEO.COM INC: Baker Sues Over Data Privacy Violations
WAREHOUSE HOME: Smith Sues Over Credit Managers' Unpaid OT
YGRENE ENERGY: Breaches Financing Agreement Terms, Leon Claims
*********
23ANDME INC: Greenberg Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------
CAROLINE GREENBERG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 23ANDME, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:23-cv-05302-NC (N.D. Cal., October 17, 2023) alleges against the
Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment, invasion of privacy, and for violations of the
California's Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer
Privacy Act, and the California Customer Records Act.
On or about October 6, 2023, Defendant announced, via its website,
that "23andMe" customer profile information was compiled from
individual 23andMe.com accounts without the account users'
authorization. However, the Defendant's Notice is deficient for
several reasons, including: (1) 23andMe fails to state if they were
able to contain or end the cybersecurity threat, leaving victims to
fear their Private Information is still insecure; and (2) 23andMe
fails to state how the breach occurred, says the suit.
Headquartered in Sunnyvale, CA, 23andMe is a biotechnology company
that sequences specific locations in an individual's genome known
to differ between people in order to create personalized genetic
reports on ancestry, traits, genetic health risks, carrier status,
and pharmacogenetics. Defendant has more than 14 million customers
worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
402 W Broadway, Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone.: (858) 209-6941
E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
23ANDME INC: Seikel Files Suit in N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 23andMe, Inc. The
case is styled as Stephen L. Seikel, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. 23andMe, Inc., Case No.
3:23-cv-05419-JSC (N.D. Cal., Oct. 23, 2023).
The nature of suit is as Other Contract for Breach of Contract.
23andMe -- https://www.23andme.com/ -- offers DNA testing with the
most comprehensive ancestry breakdown, personalized health insights
and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
Pratt & Associates, APC
634 North Santa Cruz Avenue, Suite 204
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Phone: (408) 369-0800
Fax: (408) 369-0752
Email: pgore@prattattorneys.com
- and -
Charles F. Barrett
NEAL & HARWELL, PLC
150 Fourth Avenue North, Suite 2000
Nashville, TN 37219
Phone: (615) 244-1713
Fax: (615) 726-0573
Email: cbarrett@nealharwell.com
3M COMPANY: Barber Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick L. Barber, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-05283-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 23,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with prostate
cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Barkley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Barkley, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-05286-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 23, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with prostate
cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Brown Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason B. Brown, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-05289-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 23, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer
as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Davis Sues Over Exposure to Aqueous Foams
-----------------------------------------------------
Earl Davis, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-05291-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 23, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with prostate
cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
ADIDAS AMERICA: Ibach Sues Over Misleading Ads of NHL Jerseys
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Ibach, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Adidas America, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
8:23-cv-01958 (C.D. Cal., October 18, 2023) alleges claims against
the Defendant for breach of express warranty and for violations of
the California's Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law,
and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act in connection with the
Defendant's false and misleading representations of "authentic"
jerseys.
As a result of the false and misleading representations, the Adidas
"authentic" jerseys are sold at premium prices, approximately not
less than $200, excluding tax and sales. The Plaintiff bought the
jersey and relied on the words, descriptions, layout, tags, images,
and website descriptions on Defendant's site and those of its
third-party partners, about its authentic jerseys. However,
Plaintiff was disappointed because he believed the jersey was
authentic, understood as being identical to that worn on the ice by
National Hockey League players during games, even though it was not
the same jersey worn by members of the Seattle Kraken and other NHL
players, says the suit.
Adidas America, Inc. is an Oregon corporation with a principal
place of business in Portland, Multnomah County, Oregon. Adidas
manufactures jerseys for the NHL. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
MANFRED, APC
600 W Broadway Ste 700
San Diego CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 550-4005
Facsimile: (619) 550-4006
E-mail: mmuecke@manfredapc.com
- and -
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
ADVANCE AUTO: Haynes Sues Over Pumping at Work Act, FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kara Haynes, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Advance Auto Parts, Incorporated, Defendant,
Case No. 5:23-cv-00585-M (E.D. Cal., October 17, 2023) seeks
redress for Defendant's violations of the Pumping at Work Act and
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Kara Haynes is an employee of Advance Auto located at 381
Donald E. Thurmond Parkway in Cleveland, GA (Store No. 7119). She
commenced her employment at Advance Auto in November 2021 and gave
birth to her child in April 2023. When she returned to work, she
repeatedly requested a private space to pump milk. Advance Auto
refused to provide one for her. Moreover, Advance Auto also failed
to provide sufficient break time and a functional place, shielded
from view and free from intrusion, which may be used by an employee
to express breast milk, says the Plaintiff.
Advance Auto is an automotive aftermarket parts provider in North
America that serves professional and "do-it-yourself" customers.
Operating at least 4,440 stores located in 48 U.S. states as of
December 31, 2022, Advance Auto sells parts and batteries, assorted
chemicals, and engine maintenance products, and provides certain
free-of-charge services to its customers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana Smith, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
525 North Tryon Street
Suite 1600, #7433
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone: (980) 448-1299
Facsimile: (646) 417-5967
E-mail: dsmith@sirillp.com
- and -
Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
Oren Faircloth, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: lconsidine@sirillp.com
ofaircloth@sirillp.com
AHS MANAGEMENT: Hill Sues Over Unpaid OT Due to Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
VANESSA HILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AHS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC. d/b/a ARDENT HEALTH
SERVICES, Case No. 3:23-cv-01045 (M.D. Tenn., Oct. 6, 2023) seeks
to recover the unpaid wages and other damages Ardent owes Plaintiff
and other workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act, including
unpaid wages, liquidated damages, penalties, interest, and other
remedies provided by the law.
According to the complaint, AHS Management's Kronos-based
timekeeping and payroll systems were affected by a service outage
in beginning in December 2021, like many other companies across the
United States. That outage led to problems in timekeeping and
payroll throughout Ardent's organization. As a result, Ardent's
workers who were not exempt from overtime under federal law were
not paid for all overtime hours worked and/or were not paid their
proper overtime premium on time, if at all, for all overtime hours
worked during and after the onset of the Kronos outage, says the
suit.
Plaintiff Hill was, at all relevant times, an employee of Ardent
and worked for Ardent during the Kronos outage.
AHS Management Company, Inc., d/b/a Ardent Health Service, owns and
operates medical facilities throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 867-4791
E-mail: kimd@forthepeople.com
- and -
R. Burke Keaty, II, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN - NASHVILLE, PLLC
801 Broadway, Suite 105
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 514-4205
E-mail: bkeaty@forthepeople.com
- and -
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250
Houston, TX 77046
Telephhone: (713) 999-5228
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: 100% Juice Label "Deceptive," Legrier Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lofera Legrier, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Amazon.com Services LLC., Defendant, Case
No. 7:23-cv-08823 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 6, 2023) arises from the
engagement of the Defendant in deceptive, unfair, and misleading
acts and practices by misrepresenting its "Happy Belly" brand "In
100% Juice" bowls and canned fruits, in violation of the New York
General Business Law and the State Consumer Protection Statues.
According to the complaint, Defendant markets its products in a
systematically misleading manner by conspicuously misrepresenting
on the labels of the Products that their respective fruits are
contained "In 100% Juice." Unbeknownst to consumers, however, the
products all share common ingredients that belie their "100% Juice"
representations: ascorbic acid and/or citric acid -- two well-known
synthetic non-juice food additives, says the suit.
The Defendant's misleading and deceptive practices proximately
caused harm to Plaintiff and the proposed Class members who
suffered an injury in fact and lost money or property as a result
of Defendant's conduct, the suit says.
The Plaintiff purchased Defendant's products for her personal use
on various occasions within the applicable statute of limitations,
with her most recent purchase of Defendant's Yellow Cling Diced
Peaches in "100% Juice" taking place on or about March of 2023.
Amazon.com Services LLC manufacturers, packages, labels,
advertises, markets, distributes and/or sells the products in New
York and throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adrian Gucovschi, Esq.
GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC
140 Broadway, Suite 4667
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 884-4230
E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com
AUTONOMY PRODUCTIONS: Faces Ramirez Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AUTONOMY PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company; HOME BOX OFFICE, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; NOREEN O'TOOLE, an individual; and DOE 1 through and
including DOE 10, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV24984 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 12, 2023) arises from the Defendants'
unlawful labor practices in violation of the California Labor Code
and the California Business and Professions Code.
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay all wages in a
timely fashion upon discharge, failure to pay all wages during
employment, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to to pay proper
minimum wages, failure to reimburse necessary business expenses,
and engagement in unfair or unlawful business practices.
Plaintiff Ramirez was employed as a crew member on the television
series "WestworldS4" produced by Defendant Autonomy Productions
from September 2021 to December 2021.
Autonomy Productions, LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
which at all times relevant herein, conducted business within the
County of Los Angeles, State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan Harris, Esq.
David Garrett, Esq.
HARRIS & RUBLE
655 North Central Avenue 17th Floor
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (323) 962-3777
Facsimile: (323) 962-3004
E-mail: harrisa@harrisandruble.com
dgarrett@harrisandruble.com
BABBEL INC: Discloses Personal Info to Meta, Potter Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
LORI POTTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BABBEL, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:23-cv-00617 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 12, 2023) is a class action under
the Video Privacy Protection Act, arising from Defendant's practice
of knowingly disclosing to Meta Platforms, Inc. information which
identifies Plaintiff and the putative Class Members as having
requested or obtained specific video materials or services from
Defendant.
According to the complaint, the Defendant embedded within its
website a "Meta Pixel" that was provided to Defendant by Facebook.
That pixel tracked Plaintiff's and the Class Members' video viewing
history while on Defendant's website and reported the viewing
history to Facebook along with Plaintiff's and the Class Members'
unique Facebook Identification numbers. The Defendant shared
Plaintiff's and the Class Members' video viewing history without
providing any notification to Plaintiff and the Class Members, and
without Plaintiff's and the Class Members' informed, written
consent, says the suit.
The Plaintiff has been a Facebook subscriber during the relevant
time period. Additionally, Plaintiff has used digital subscription
to view video content on Defendant's website while logged into the
Facebook account.
Babbel, Inc. operates a website, www.babbel.com, that offers both
prerecorded and live-stream videos to individuals who subscribe to
its services.[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
BLOOMBERG LP: Huckabee et al. Sue Over Copyright Infringement
-------------------------------------------------------------
MIKE HUCKABEE, RELEVATE GROUP, DAVID KINNAMAN, TSH OXENREIDER, LYSA
TERKEURST, and JOHN BLASE on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. META PLATFORMS, INC., BLOOMBERG
L.P., BLOOMBERG FINANCE, L.P., MICROSOFT CORPORATION, and THE
ELEUTHERAI INSTITUTE, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-09152 (S.D.N.Y.,
October 17, 2023) alleges that the Defendants have infringed upon
Plaintiffs' copyrights and have profited enormously from the use of
their copyright-protected works.
Allegedly, Microsoft, Meta, and Bloomberg chose to train their
large language models using pirated and stolen works that were
compiled in The Pile and Books3 datasets. The Plaintiffs also
assert claims against the Defendants for violations of the
Copyright Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Headquartered in New York, Bloomberg, L.P. is a privately-held
financial, software, data and media company which provides a raft
of media services and related products, including TV, Internet and
radio news programming, financial terminal services, and other
Internet-based political, regulatory, and financial services. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mr. Seth Haines, Esq.
Mr. Timothy Hutchinson, Esq.
Ms. Lisa Geary, Esq.
RMP, LLP
5519 Hackett Street, Suite 300
Springdale, AR 72762
Telephone: (479) 443-2705
E-mail: shaines@rmp.law
thutchinson@rmp.law
lgeary@rmp.law
- and -
Mr. Scott Poynter, Esq.
POYNTER LAW GROUP
407 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 201
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 812-3943
E-mail: scott@poynterlawgroup.com
- and -
Greg G. Gutzler, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
485 Lexington Avenue, Tenth Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 933-1000
Facsimile: (646) 494-9648
E-mail: ggutzler@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
Amy E. Keller, Esq.
James A. Ulwick, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone. (312) 214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
akeller@dicellolevitt.com
julwick@dicellolevitt.com
CHIME FINANCIAL: Parada Sues Over Financial Services' False Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
AYLA PARADA individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHIME FINANCIAL INC., Defendants, Case No.
23STCV25454 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., October 18, 2023) seeks
for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies for Defendants' violations of the California's
Unfair Competition Law.
The class action arises from from the Defendant's illegal actions
in advertising its financial services as allowing consumers to
store and distribute money, when Defendant actually converts and
withholds the funds deposited into its accounts. By making false
and misleading claims about the qualities of their services,
Defendant deprived Plaintiff of her deposited money, says the
suit.
Chime Financial Inc. advertises, markets, and operates Chime, a
financial services online application available in California and
the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21031 Ventura Blvd Suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
CLOROX CO: McManus Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MCMANUS, individually and as a representative of a class of
participants and beneficiaries on behalf of The Clorox Company
401(k) Plan, Plaintiff v. THE CLOROX COMPANY; THE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
COMMITTEE OF THE CLOROX COMPANY 401(K) PLAN; and DOES 1 to 10
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-05325 (N.D. Cal., October
18, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' breach of Employee
Retirement Income Security Act's fiduciary duties and
anti-inurement provision, and for Defendants' engagement in
self-dealing and transactions prohibited by ERISA.
While Defendants' reallocation of the forfeitures in the Plan's
trust fund to reduce its future non-elective contributions
benefited the Company by reducing its own contribution expenses, it
harmed the Plan, along with its participants and beneficiaries, by
reducing future Company contributions that would otherwise have
increased Plan assets and by causing participants to incur
deductions from their individual accounts each year to cover
administrative expenses that would otherwise have been covered in
whole or in part by utilizing forfeited funds. Moreover, the
Defendants have continually breached this duty of loyalty with
respect to their control and management of the Plan's assets
throughout the class period by choosing to utilize forfeited funds
in the Plan for the benefit of the Company rather than solely in
the interest of the participants and beneficiaries, says the suit.
Headquartered in Oakland, CA, Clorox is a manufacturer of consumer
cleaning and home care products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew B. Hayes, Esq.
Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq.
HAYES PAWLENKO LLP
1414 Fair Oaks Avenue, Unit 2B
South Pasadena, CA 91030
Telephone: (626) 808-4357
E-mail: mhayes@helpcounsel.com
kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Settlement in Padilla Suit Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2023, that
Padilla securities class suit settlement was granted final approval
on October 13, 2023.
Caleb Padilla, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T. Smith, Larry
Cash, and Thomas J. Aaron.
This purported federal securities class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
on May 30, 2019.
It seeks class certification on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between February 20, 2017 and February 27,
2018 and alleges misleading statements resulted in artificially
inflated prices for the Company's common stock.
On November 20, 2019, the District Court appointed Arun
Bhattacharya and Michael Gaviria as lead plaintiffs in the case.
The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class complaint on January
21, 2020.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class
complaint on March 23, 2020, and the District Court denied that
motion on August 17, 2022.
The Company has reached a tentative settlement of this matter,
which was preliminarily approved by the District Court on May 31,
2023.
The Court granted final approval of the settlement on October 13,
2023.
Community Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.chs.net-- is a
publicly traded hospital company and an operator of general acute
care hospitals in communities across the country.
CONTINENTAL FINANCE: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Johnson Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Finance Co. filed an appeal from the District Court's
Memorandum Opinion dated Sept. 7, 2023 entered the consolidated
lawsuits styled TIFFANY JOHNSON, Plaintiff v. CONTINENTAL FINANCE
COMPANY, LLC, et al., Defendants; TRACEY CRIDER, Plaintiff v.
CONTINENTAL FINANCE COMPANY, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case Nos.
8:22-cv-02001-PX, 8:23-cv-00854-PX, in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland at Greenbelt.
The Plaintiffs initially filed suit in state court, challenging a
buyback arrangement saying it was designed to circumvent lender
licensing requirements set forth in the Maryland Credit Services
Business Act, and the Maryland Consumer Loan Law. Continental
timely removed both matters to the District Court and next moved to
compel arbitration of the claims based on the arbitration provision
within the cardholder agreements.
The Plaintiffs opposed arbitration saying they never formed a
binding agreement to arbitrate such disputes. Citing the parties'
Cardholder Agreement and its inclusive arbitration provision, they
argued that the provision is "illusory," or lacking in adequate
consideration such that the parties never formed a binding
agreement to arbitrate in the first instance.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Paula Xinis of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland entered an order
on Sept. 7, 2023, denying the Defendants' motions to compel
arbitration. Judge Xinis found out that Continental retained
unfettered and unilateral power to alter any terms of the
Arbitration Provision, however it wants. The Plaintiffs, in turn,
have received no definite promises in exchange for agreeing to
submit to binding arbitration in lieu of litigation. Because the
arbitration agreement lacks consideration, it is illusory, and no
legal basis exists to compel arbitration, Judge Xinis ruled. Thus,
Continental's motion to compel must be denied.
The consolidated appellate case is captioned as Tiffany Johnson v.
Continental Finance Co., Case No. 23-2047, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on October 10,
2023.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants CONTINENTAL FINANCE COMPANY, LLC, et al., are
represented by:
Brandi G. Howard, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
888 16th Street, NW
Black Lives Matter Plaza
Washington, DC 20006-4103
- and -
Melissa O. Martinez, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
500 East Pratt Street
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: (410) 659-4505
Plaintiffs-Appellees TIFFANY JOHNSON and TRACY I. CRIDER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Benjamin Howard Carney, Esq.
Richard Scott Gordon, Esq.
GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY
11350 McCormick Road
Executive Plaza I
Hunt Valley, MD 21031
Telephone: (410) 825-2300
DATACOMP APPRAISAL: Kazmirzak Sues Over Lot Rental Price-Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD KAZMIRZAK; LUIS MELENDEZ; CAROL RACHELLE ROACH; YVONNE
SEWELL; and ANTHONY SILVERENCE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DATACOMP APPRAISAL
SYSTEMS, INC.; EQUITY LIFESTYLE PROPERTIES, INC.; HOMETOWN AMERICA
MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.; LAKESHORE COMMUNITIES, INC.; SUN COMMUNITIES,
INC.; RHP PROPERTIES, INC.; YES COMMUNITIES, L.L.C.; INSPIRE
COMMUNITIES, L.L.C.; KINGSLEY MANAGEMENT, CORP.; CALAM PROPERTIES,
INC.; and MUREX PROPERTIES, L.L.C., Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-14598 (S.D. Ill., Oct. 6, 2023) is an antitrust class
action suit brought by the Plaintiffs pursuant to Sections 4 and 16
of the Clayton Act to (i) recover treble damages and the costs of
suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees, for the injuries
sustained by Plaintiffs and members of the Class; (ii) enjoin
Defendants' anticompetitive conduct; and (iii) for such other
relief as is afforded under the laws of the United States for
Defendants' violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
This action arises from Defendants' alleged conspiracy to fix,
raise, maintain, and/or stabilize manufactured home lot rental
prices. The effect of Defendants' conspiracy has been devastating
to manufactured home residents including Plaintiffs. These
individuals -- whose median annual household income is
approximately $35,000 -- are being overcharged for what used to be
affordable housing. The consequence is that two of society's most
vulnerable groups -- the elderly and low-income earners -- face
considerable financial pressures.
Defendants ELS, Hometown America, Lakeshore, Sun Communities, RHP,
Yes Communities, Inspire Communities, Kingsley, Cal-Am, and Murex
are manufactured home community owners. They are part of a recent
wave of large corporate owners who have acquired manufactured home
communities across the United States to grow large portfolios of
home sites. After acquiring the communities, these buyers have
implemented steep, annual rent increases on their manufactured home
lots, which have caused significant burdens on manufactured home
residents, says the suit.
If Defendants are permitted to continue their anticompetitive
scheme, Plaintiffs and members of the Class will continue to pay
supracompetitive rents for manufactured home lots. The Plaintiffs
bring this action to seek damages and permanently enjoin
Defendants' ongoing efforts to coordinate their prices by sharing
competitively sensitive information for manufactured home
lots.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
Brian M. Hogan, Esq.
John E. Tangren, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
bhogan@dicellolevitt.com
jtangren@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
Karin E. Garvey, Esq.
Jonathan S. Crevier, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 933-1000
E-mail: gasciolla@dicellolevitt.com
kgarvey@dicellolevitt.com
jcrevier@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Reena Gambhir, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
E-mail: rgambhir@hausfeld.com
- and -
Scott Martin, Esq.
Kyle G. Bates, Esq.
Kartik S. Madiraju, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 357-1100
E-mail: smartin@hausfeld.com
kbates@hausfeld.com
kmadiraju@hausfeld.com
- and -
Megan E. Jones, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
600 Montgomery Street, #3200
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 633-1908
E-mail: mjones@hausfeld.com
- and -
Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
Jacie Zolna, Esq.
Benjamin Swetland, Esq.
MYRON M. CHERRY & ASSOCIATES LLC
30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300
Chicago, IL 60602
E-mail: mcherry@cherry-law.com
jzolna@cherry-law.com
bswetland@cherry-law.com
DATACOMP APPRAISAL: Zuccolotto Alleges Home Lot Rental Price-Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE ZUCCOLOTTO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated., Plaintiff v. DATACOMP APPRAISAL SYSTEMS, INC.; EQUITY
LIFESTYLE PROPERTIES, INC.; HOMETOWN AMERICA MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.;
LAKESHORE COMMUNITIES, INC.; SUN COMMUNITIES, INC.; RHP PROPERTIES,
INC.; YES COMMUNITIES, L.L.C.; INSPIRE COMMUNITIES, L.L.C.;
KINGSLEY MANAGEMENT, CORP.; CAL-AM PROPERTIES, INC.; and MUREX
PROPERTIES, L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-14797 (N.D. Ill.,
Oct. 12, 2023) arises from Defendants' conspiracy to fix, raise,
maintain, and/or stabilize manufactured home lot rental prices in
violation of the Sherman Act.
The Plaintiff brings this antitrust class action lawsuit on behalf
of himself and a nationwide Class of all similarly situated persons
and entities who directly paid rent for a manufactured home lot to
a Manufactured Home Community Defendant or an Unnamed Co
Conspirator who purchased and used JLT Market Reports between
August 31, 2019 to the present. Because of Defendants' violations
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and common law, Plaintiff and
members of the Class were injured by paying significant overcharges
on manufactured home lot rents throughout the United States, says
the complaint.
If Defendants are permitted to continue their anticompetitive
scheme, the Plaintiff and members of the Class will continue to pay
supracompetitive rents for manufactured home lots. The Plaintiff
brings this action to seek damages and permanently enjoin
Defendants' ongoing efforts to coordinate their prices by sharing
competitively sensitive information for manufactured home lots.
Datacomp Appraisal Systems, Inc. provides manufactured and mobile
home data in the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
Jessica N. Servais, Esq.
Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
Eura Chang, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: hmsilton@locklaw.com
jnservais@locklaw.com
jcbourne@locklaw.com
echang@locklaw.com
DOLLAR GENERAL: Fowler and Kennedy Allege Unlawful Labor Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA FOWLER and MICHELLE KENNEDY, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DOLGENCORP, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 6:23-cv-05179-TMC (D.S.C., October 17, 2023)
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and expenses pursuant to the Federal Labor
Standards Act.
One of the Plaintiffs, Amanda Fowler, was employed at Dollar
General from June 2021 until May 2022 and held the positions as as
a keyholder, cashier, and assistant manager. She routinely exceeded
40 hours per week while employed by Dollar General. However,
willfully violated the FLSA by failing to pay Fowler and all other
similarly situated employees time and a half for all hours worked
over a 40-hour workweek. Allegedly, Dollar General automatically
deducted meal and rest breaks from Plaintiffs and all other
similarly situated employees' pay regardless of whether they were
able to take said breaks. Additionally, Defendant also required
employees to work off the clock without paying for such work while
performing acts that benefited Defendant, says the suit.
Dollar General Corporation is a publicly traded corporation that
markets itself as neighborhood general store with more than 19,000
stores in 47 states. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
E-mail: pauld@akimlawfirm.com
blake@akimlawfirm.com
DOW JONES: Garcia Sues Over Disclosure of Private Info to Facebook
------------------------------------------------------------------
JULIO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 8:23-cv-02351 (M.D. Fla., October 17, 2023) arises from the
Defendant's unlawful disclosure of Plaintiff's private information
to Facebook in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act.
Allegedly, the Defendant embedded within its website a "Meta Pixel"
that was provided to Defendant by Facebook. That pixel tracked
Plaintiff's and the Class Members' video viewing history while on
Defendant's website and reported the viewing history to Facebook
along with Plaintiff's and the Class Members' unique Facebook
Identification numbers. The Defendant did not inform Plaintiff and
the Class Members that their Personally Identifiable Information
would be shared with Facebook and did not obtain informed, written
consent to share their Personally Identifiable Information with
Facebook, says the suit.
Headquartered in New York, NY, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. publishes
The Wall Street Journal, Barron's, MarketWatch, Mansion Global,
Financial News and Private Equity News. The company operates a
website (www.wsj.com) that offers prerecorded videos to individuals
who subscribe to Defendant’s services. [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
DSM-FIRMENICH AG: MSNY Inc. Sues Over Fragrance Price Conspiracy
----------------------------------------------------------------
MSNY, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. DSM-FIRMENICH AG, FIRMENICH INTERNATIONAL SA,
FIRMENICH INC., AGILEX FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES, INC., GIVAUDAN SA,
GIVAUDAN FRAGRANCES CORP., GIVAUDAN FLAVORS CORP., UNGERER &
COMPANY, INC., CUSTOM ESSENCE LLC, INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS &
FRAGRANCES INC., SYMRISE AG, SYMRISE INC., AND SYMRISE US LLC
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-20972 (D.N.J., Oct. 6, 2023) is a
civil antitrust action brought by the Plaintiff seeking treble
damages arising from Defendants' conspiracy to allocate, and
unreasonably restrain trade in, the market for fragrances and
fragrance ingredients manufactured by Defendants from January 1,
2012 to the present.
The claims in this case arise from a broad conspiracy among
Defendants related to their activity manufacturing fragrances and
fragrance ingredients and selling fragrances to consumer product
producers. As alleged herein, in order to restrain trade and
inflate prices in the fragrances market, the Defendants agreed to
allocate that market by collectively deciding to each produce only
a fragment of the total fragrance ingredients that are used to make
fragrances -- leaving them each unable to compete for fragrance
requests from customers that required the fragrance ingredients
they did not produce, says the suit.
The Defendants' alleged conspiracy to inflate the price of
fragrances by allocating products and customers harmed Plaintiff
and members of the Class, adds the suit.
The Plaintiff and the Class are the direct purchasers of fragrances
and fragrance ingredients from Defendants.
DSM-Firmenich AG manufactures nutrition, health, and beauty
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric T. Kanefsky, Esq.
Ralph J. Marra, Jr., Esq.
Thomas R. Calcagni, Esq.
Martin B. Gandelman, Esq.
CALCAGNI & KANEFSKY LLP
1085 Raymond Boulevard, 14th Floor
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (862) 397-1796
Facsimile: (862) 902-5458
E-mail: eric@ck-litigation.com
rmarra@ck-litigation.com
tcalcagni@ck-litigation.com
mgandelman@ck-litigation.com
- and -
Michael Eisenkraft, Esq.
Laura Posner, Esq.
Christopher Bateman, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 838-0177
Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
E-mail: meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com
lposner@cohenmilstein.com
cbateman@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Zachary Krowitz, Esq.
Nina Jaffe-Geffner, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave NW, Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: zkrowitz@cohenmilstein.com
njaffegeffner@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Daniel H. Silverman, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
769 Centre Street, Suite 207
Boston, MA 02130
Telephone: (617) 858-1990
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Daniel L. Brockett, Esq.
Manisha M. Sheth, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010-1601
Telephone: (212) 849-7000
Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com
manishasheth@quinnemanuel.com
- and -
Jeremy D. Andersen, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 443-3000
Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
E-mail: jeremyandersen@quinnemanuel.com
- and -
Curt Lockhart, Esq.
LOCKHART IP 68 S 200 W A
Bountiful, UT 84010
Telephone: (713) 487-6624
E-mail: curt@usipconsulting.com
EMPIRE BAGELS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Aguilar Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
BRAYAN A. LOPEZ AGUILAR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EMPIRE BAGELS HARRISON INC.;
EMPIRE BAGELS CARMEL INC.; EMPIRE BAGELS FISHKILL INC.; EMPIRE
BAGELS CROSS RIVER INC.; EMPIRE BAGELS BREWSTER INC.; EMPIRE BAGELS
YORKTOWN INC.; and JAY D'ANGELO, Defendants, Case No. 7:23-cv-09229
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Plaintiff Aguilar was employed by the Defendants as a food service
worker.
EMPIRE BAGELS HARRISON INC. offers a vast selection of bagels,
gourmet sandwiches, grilled burgers, coffees and teas, refreshing
smoothies, and a vegan menu. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Russel S. Moriarty, Esq
LEVINE & BLIT, PLLC
800 Westchester Avenue, Suite S-322
Rye Brook, NY 10118
Telephone: (212) 967-3000
Email: RMoriarty@LevineBlit.com
ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA: Brown Alleges Eyewear Market Monopoly
----------------------------------------------------------
KELLY BROWN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ESSILORLUXOTTICA S.A.; LUXOTTICA GROUP
S.P.A.; ESSILOR INTERNATIONAL SAS; ESSILORLUXOTTICA USA INC.;
LUXOTTICA U.S. HOLDINGS CORP.; ESSILOR OF AMERICA HOLDING COMPANY,
INC.; LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA, INC.; ESSILOR OF AMERICA INC.; EYEMED
VISION CARE, LLC; and VISION SOURCE, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-15176 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 20, 2023) alleges violation of the
Sherman Antitrust Act.
According to the Plaintiff is the complaint, EssilorLuxottica both
manufactures and distributes eyeglasses, sunglasses, and corrective
lenses to retailers and sells them to consumers through its own
retailers.
Over the course of decades, EssilorLuxottica has consistently and
repeatedly acquired major competitors to forestall any competition
it might face. In some instances, it first weakened its competitors
through underhanded and illegal means, such as by selling its own
fake Oakley sunglasses to try to force Oakley to accept price
concessions, says the suit.
EssilorLuxottica manufactures eyewear. The Company offers sun
glasses, lenses, and other eye care products. EssilorLuxottica
serves customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 984-0000
Email: malmstrom@whafh.com
-and-
Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
270 Madison Avenue, 9th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Telephone: (212) 545-4600
Email: burt@whafh.com
FRAIN INDUSTRIES: Polanco Sues Over Unlawful Biometrics Collection
------------------------------------------------------------------
VICENTE POLANCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FRAIN INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2023LA001101 (Ill. Cir., 18th Judicial, DuPage Cty., October 18,
2023) arises from the Defendant's unlawful collection, storage, and
usage of Plaintiff's biometric data in violation of the Biometric
Information Privacy Act.
In or about May 2022, Plaintiff worked at Frain Industries. His
company's timekeeping system required Plaintiff to have his facial
recognition scanned, collected and/or captured. However, Frail
failed to obtain prior written consent from Plaintiff before they
collected, stored, or used his biometric information. Among other
things, Frail did not inform Plaintiff of any biometric data
retention policy it developed, nor has he ever been informed of
whether Frail will ever permanently delete his biometric
identifiers and/or biometric information, the suit alleges.
Frain Industries, Inc. is a domestic corporation that produces
packaging and processing equipment. Frain is located in Carol
Stream, DuPage County, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
Whitney L. Barr, Esq.
CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
224 S. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 763-6880
GENERAL MOTORS: Jennings Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Car Owners
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
1. Certifying a class defined as:
"All natural persons who are, as of the date of class notice,
current owners of a 2011-2014 Chevrolet Avalanche, 2011-2014
Chevrolet Silverado, 2011-2014 Chevrolet Suburban, 2011-2014
Chevrolet Tahoe, 2011-2014 GMC Sierra, 2011-2014 GMC Yukon,
and
2011-2014 GMC Yukon XL manufactured on or after February 10,
2011 that was: (1) equipped with a Generation IV 5.3-liter V8
Vortec 5300 LC9 engine and has not received adequate piston
repair (i.e., upgraded rings) under warranty, (2) was
purchased
in the State of Ohio, and (3) was purchased for personal,
non-
commercial, use;"
2. appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative; and
3. appointing DiCello Levitt LLP and Beasley, Allen, Crow,
Methvin,
Portis & Miles, P.C. as Class Counsel.
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/40f6PS0 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
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Caccavale Seeks Class Cert Oral Argument
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Caccavale, et. al. v.
Hewlett-Packard Company a/k/a HP Inc. et. al., Case No.
2:20-cv-00974-NJC-ST (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order setting an oral argument in connection with their
motion for class certification.
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/3tTlOFn at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Paul A. Pagano, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PAUL A. PAGANO, P.C.
Telephone: (917)589-1479
E-mail: Paul@LawOfficePaulPagano.com
IMMUNOVANT SCIENCES: Faces Securities Suit in N.Y. Court
--------------------------------------------------------
Roivant Sciences Ltd. 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 its subsidiary,
Immunovant Sciences GmbH is facing a putative securities class
action complaint was filed against it and certain of its current
and former officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York in February 2021 on behalf of a class
consisting of those who acquired Immunovant's securities from
October 2, 2019 and February 1, 2021.
The complaint alleged that Immunovant and certain of its officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, by making false and misleading statements
regarding the safety of batoclimab and sought unspecified monetary
damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and
expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. In December 2021,
the U.S. District Court appointed a lead plaintiff.
In March 2022, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding
both (i) the Company and (ii) Immunovant’s directors and
underwriters as defendants, and asserting additional claims under
Section 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, on behalf of a putative class consisting of those who
purchased or otherwise acquired Immunovant’s securities pursuant
and/or traceable to Immunovant’s follow-on public offering on or
about September 2, 2020.
In February 2023, after further briefing on the amended complaint
the U.S. District Court issued an order permitting the lead
plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. That second amended
complaint was filed in March 2023. The defendants' served motions
to dismiss the second amended complaint on April 28, 2023. The
fully briefed motions to dismiss, including defendants’ opening
briefs, lead plaintiff's opposition and defendants’ replies, were
filed with the court on June 30, 2023.
Roivant Sciences Ltd. Is a biotech and healthcare technology
company.
JANUS HOMECARE: Garcia Wins Conditional Certification of Collective
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAQUEL GARCIA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
JANUS HOMECARE AGENCY, INC., HAPPY LIFE HOME HEALTH AGENCY INC.,
CUPID HOMECARE AGENCY, LLC, and MICHAEL PAGAN, Case No.
1:23-cv-03321-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil
entered an order granting motion for conditional collective
certification of notice.
The Court says, "The Plaintiff's motion for conditional class
certification, court-authorized notice pursuant to section 216(b)
of the FLSA, and an order directing Defendants to produce a list of
contact information for potential members of the collective, is
granted."
It is further ordered that on or before November 3, 2023, the
Plaintiff is directed to modify her Proposed Notice of Pendency in
accordance with the rulings, and to resubmit it to this Court for
approval. The Notice may direct that consent forms be returned to
Plaintiff's counsel.
Within two weeks of the date of this Order, Defendants shall
provide to Plaintiff’s counsel the names, titles, dates of
employment, last known mailing addresses, email addresses, and all
known telephone numbers for all current and former non-exempt home
attendants, home health aides, personal care assistants, intake
coordinators, nurses and nursing assistants employed by Defendants
from April 20, 2020 to the present.
The Plaintiff Raquel Garcia brings this action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL) against the
Defendants.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover:
(1) unpaid overtime premiums,
(2) unpaid wages, including overtime due to improper rounding,
(3) late payment of wages,
(4) statutory penalties, and
(5) liquidated damages.
The Plaintiff seeks conditional collective certification for claims
under the FLSA on behalf of herself and all current and former
non-exempt employees, including but not limited to, home
attendants, home health aides, personal care assistants, intake
coordinators, nurses, and nursing assistants employed by Defendants
within the six years prior to the filing of the original Complaint
in the action.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45R1xxd at no extra charge.[CC]
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: McPhee Sues Over Decongestants' False Ads
------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher McPhee, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated; Justin Vorise, an individual, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Johnson
& Johnson Consumer, Inc., a New Jersey corporation; GlaxoSmithKline
Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) LLC, a Delaware corporation; RB
Health (US) LLC, a Delaware corporation; Bayer Healthcare LLC, a
Delaware limited liability corporation; The Procter & Gamble
Company, an Ohio corporation; Church & Dwight Co., Inc., a Delaware
corporation; Walmart Inc., a Delaware corporation; Target
Corporation, a Minnesota corporation; CVS Pharmacy, Inc., a
Delaware corporation; Walgreen Co., an Illinois corporation;
Albertsons Companies Inc., a Delaware corporation; Amazon.com,
Inc., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-200. Defendants, Case No.
4:23-cv-05128-KAW (N.D. Cal., Oct. 6, 2023) is a class action for
damages related to Defendants' alleged wrongful conduct in
connection with the marketing, advertising, promoting, distribution
and sale of products containing phenylephrine -- a purported
decongestant used as an active ingredient in at least 250
products.
According to the complaint, Defendants have advertised and marketed
the Phenylephrine Products to unsuspecting consumers despite
knowing that phenylephrine is ineffective for the treatment of
nasal congestion and the other cold and flu symptoms for which
Defendants promote its use. On September 12, 2023, the Federal Drug
Administration, after careful study and consideration, announced
publicly that phenylephrine is ineffective as a treatment for such
symptoms.
As a proximate result of Defendants' deceptive, fraudulent,
unlawful, and/or unfair conduct, Plaintiffs and the putative class
collectively suffered hundreds of millions of dollars in damages in
reliance upon Defendants' knowingly false representations about the
effectiveness of phenylephrine and the Phenylephrine Products.
The Plaintiffs therefore demand judgment against Defendants and
request, among other things, compensatory damages, statutory
damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs and all other
available remedies and damages allowed by law.
Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. is an American multinational,
pharmaceutical, and medical technologies corporation headquartered
in New Brunswick, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher R. Rodriguez, Esq.
Andrew D. Bluth, Esq.
SINGLETON SCHREIBER, LLP
1414 K Street, Suite 470
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (619) 333-7479
Facsimile: (619) 255-1515
E-mail: crodriguez@singletonschreiber.com
abluth@singletonschreiber.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sends Unsolicited Advertisements, S.A.S.B. Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
S.A.S.B. Corp., a Florida corporation doing business as OKEECHOBEE
DISCOUNT DRUGS, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON
HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS INC., JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and JOHN
DOES 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-21124-ZNQ-DEA (D.N.J., Oct.
12, 2023) seeks statutory damages and other relief for Defedants'
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the TCPA by
sending advertisements by fax to Plaintiff and the other class
members without their prior express invitation or permission. The
Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and the other
class members had not given express invitation or permission to
receive advertisements by facsimile and that the faxes did not
display the opt-out notices required by the TCPA, says the suit.
Plaintiff, S.A.S.B. Corp. d/b/a Okeechobee Discount Drugs, is a
Florida corporation with its principal place of business in
Okeechobee.
Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems Inc. provides contracting,
supply chain, and business support services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew N. Fiorovanti, Esq.
Michael J. Canning, Esq.
GIORDANO, HALLERAN & CIESLA, P.C.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 300
Red Bank, NJ 07701-6777
Telephone: (732) 741-3900
E-mail: mfiorovanti@ghclaw.com
- and -
Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
BOCK HATCH & OPPENHEIM, LLC
203 N. La Salle St., Ste. 2100
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 658-5500
E-mail: service@classlawyers.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Wright Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL WRIGHT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS, INC.
d/b/a JANSSEN, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-21106 (D.N.J., Oct. 12,
2023) is a class action against Janssen for its failure to properly
secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated
patients' personally identifiable information and medical and
health insurance information, which is protected health
information, as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996.
According to the complaint, the Defendant assumed legal and
equitable duties to protect and safeguard that information from
unauthorized access and intrusion by obtaining, collecting, using,
and deriving a benefit from the private information of Plaintiff
and Class Members. On an undisclosed date, Defendant became aware
of a technical method by which unauthorized access to the database
could be obtained.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose
private information was compromised as a result of Defendant's
failure to: (i) adequately protect the private information of
Plaintiff and Class Members; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class Members
of Defendant's inadequate information security practices; and (iii)
effectively secure hardware containing protected private
information using reasonable and effective security procedures free
of vulnerabilities and incidents. The Defendant's conduct amounts
at least to negligence and violates federal and state statutes,
says the suit.
Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc. provides contracting,
supply chain, and business support services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vicky J. Maniatis, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
E-mail: vmaniatis@milberg.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
LANCASTER HOSPITAL: Martinez Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS MARTINEZ and KAREN LACAYO, individuals and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LANCASTER HOSPITAL
CORPORATION, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
Defendants, Case No. 23STCV24372 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Oct. 6, 2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor
practices in violation of the California Labor Code and the
California Business and Professions Code.
The complaint alleges the Defendants' violation of the state laws
by failing to pay Plaintiffs all minimum wages due; failing to pay
Plaintiffs all overtime wages due; failing to provide Plaintiffs
with all meal periods to which they are entitled, and failing to
pay them all meal period premium wages due; failing to authorize
and permit Plaintiffs all rest periods to which they are entitled,
and failing to pay them all rest period premium wages due; failing
to issue accurate and itemized wage statements to Plaintiffs;
failing to timely pay all final wages to Plaintiffs; and failing to
pay reporting time pay to Plaintiffs.
Plaintiff Martinez was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee in the position of obstetrical technician from
approximately November 2022 to July 2023.
Plaintiff Lacayo has been employed by Defendants as a non-exempt
unit clerk from approximately July 2021 to the present.
The Defendants own and operate the Palmdale Regional Medical Center
in Lancaster, California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Young K. Park, Esq.
William C. Sung, Esq.
JUSTICE FOR WORKERS, P.C.
3600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1815
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (323) 922-2000
E-mail: young@justiceforworkers.com
william@justiceforworkers.com
LEXINGTON COUNTY, SC: Amick Bid for Class Status Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as J. Bradley Amick and
Taylor Kitchens, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, v. Lexington County, Case No. 3:23-cv-0336-CMC (D.S.C.),
the Hon. Judge Cameron McGowan Currie entered an order
preliminarily granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
-- The parties agree that notification to the proposed
subclasses,
if appropriate, is best undertaken after the court is
presented
with motion(s) for summary judgment regarding the issue of
liability. The parties are directed to email the court at
currie_ecf@scd.uscourts.gov a proposed scheduling order that
includes dates for submission of summary judgment motion(s)
and
responses, in addition to other applicable deadlines, no later
than November 3, 2023.
-- The Plaintiffs have met the Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3)
factors
for purposes of preliminary certification. Accordingly,
On a preliminary basis for class certification only, the Rule 23
factors are present and certification of the proposed Class and
each of the subclasses, as defined and set forth below, is
appropriate under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3), in particular:
(a) All eligible employees employed by Lexington County who
performed essential work between January 27, 2020, and March
21, 2021, that left employment with Lexington County prior
to
October 31, 2021, and did not receive premium pay for
essential
work performed during the COVID-19 public health emergency.
(b) All eligible employees employed by Lexington County who
performed essential work between March 21, 2021, through
March
20, 2022, that left employment with Lexington County prior
to
May 13, 2022, and did not receive premium pay for essential
work performed during the COVID-19 public health emergency.
The Plaintiff Chris Kitchens brought this action in the Lexington
County, South Carolina, Court of Common Pleas on July 18, 2022,
against his former employer, Defendant Lexington County.
Kitchens alleges Defendant improperly denied him compensation
provided to eligible workers under the American Rescue Plan Act of
2021 (ARPA). The Defendant removed the Kitchens action to this
court pursuant to federal question jurisdiction on August 31,
2022.
On December 9, 2022, Plaintiffs J. Bradley Amick and Taylor
Kitchens, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas for
Lexington County, alleging the same injury raised by Kitchens, but
on behalf of a purported class
of similarly situated Lexington County employees.
Lexington is the sixth-largest county in South Carolina by
population and is part of the Columbia, SC Metropolitan Statistical
Area.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MkC74n at no extra charge.[CC]
LEXINGTON COUNTY, SC: Kitchens Class Certification Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chris Kitchens v.
Lexington County, Case No. 3:22-cv-02897-CMC (D.S.C.), the Hon.
Judge Cameron McGowan Currie entered an order preliminarily
granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
-- The parties agree that notification to the proposed
subclasses,
if appropriate, is best undertaken after the court is
presented
with motion(s) for summary judgment regarding the issue of
liability. The parties are directed to email the court at
currie_ecf@scd.uscourts.gov a proposed scheduling order that
includes dates for submission of summary judgment motion(s)
and
responses, in addition to other applicable deadlines, no later
than November 3, 2023.
-- The Plaintiffs have met the Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3)
factors
for purposes of preliminary certification. Accordingly,
On a preliminary basis for class certification only, the Rule 23
factors are present and certification of the proposed Class and
each of the subclasses, as defined and set forth below, is
appropriate under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3), in particular:
(a) All eligible employees employed by Lexington County who
performed essential work between January 27, 2020, and March
21, 2021, that left employment with Lexington County prior
to
October 31, 2021, and did not receive premium pay for
essential
work performed during the COVID-19 public health emergency.
(b) All eligible employees employed by Lexington County who
performed essential work between March 21, 2021, through
March
20, 2022, that left employment with Lexington County prior
to
May 13, 2022, and did not receive premium pay for essential
work performed during the COVID-19 public health emergency.
The Plaintiff Chris Kitchens brought this action in the Lexington
County, South Carolina, Court of Common Pleas on July 18, 2022,
against his former employer, Defendant Lexington County.
Kitchens alleges Defendant improperly denied him compensation
provided to eligible workers under the American Rescue Plan Act of
2021 (ARPA). The Defendant removed the Kitchens action to this
court pursuant to federal question jurisdiction on August 31,
2022.
On December 9, 2022, Plaintiffs J. Bradley Amick and Taylor
Kitchens, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas for
Lexington County, alleging the same injury raised by Kitchens, but
on behalf of a purported class
of similarly situated Lexington County employees.
Lexington is the sixth-largest county in South Carolina by
population and is part of the Columbia, SC Metropolitan Statistical
Area.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MmWcXL at no extra charge.[CC]
M/V HARVEY: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Union Pacific
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Union Pacific Railroad
Company v. M/V Harvey SBISA et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01325-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.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46SnFsC at no extra charge.[CC]
MANJARI CHAWLA: Krause Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERNEST KRAUSE; and
FREDERICK MITCHELL, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. MANJARI CHAWLA, individually and in her
official capacity of Judge of the State Bar Court, et al., Case No.
2:23-cv-02307-DAD-DB (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
-- Certifying action as a class action;
-- Appointing them as class representatives; and
-- appointing their counsel as class counsel pursuant to Rule 23
of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Bar Membership Class:
"All members of the State Bar of California, regardless of
status,
as of January 1, 2022. This Motion is made on the grounds that
Plaintiffs respectfully move the Court to certify the following
subclass:
-- Noncomplex Complaint Subclass:
"All attorneys who received Notice of Disciplinary Charges or
similar charging document from the State Bar of California on
or
after January 1, 2022 where the State Bar failed to file
formal
charges within six months after it received a complaint,
designated "noncomplex" or without designation, alleging
attorney misconduct.
-- Complex Complaint Subclass:
"All attorneys who received Notice of Disciplinary Charges or
similar charging document from the State Bar of California on
or
after January 1, 2022, where the State Bar failed to file
formal
charges within 12 months after it received a complaint,
designated "complex," alleging attorney misconduct."
The Defendants include LEAH T. WILSON, individually and in her
official capacity as Executive Director of the State Bar of
California; RUBEN DURAN, individually and in his official capacity
of Chair of the Board of Trustees of the State Bar of California;
GEORGE S. CARDONA, individually and in his official capacity as
Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California; RYAN T. CHIN,
individually and in his official capacity as Trial Counsel for the
State Bar of California; TIFFANY F. SORENSEN, individually and in
her official capacity as Trial Counsel for the State Bar of
California; MICHAEL NGUYEN, individually and in his official
capacity as Trial Counsel for the State Bar of California; The
State Bar of California, a public corporation; State Bar Court, a
non-court of record created by statute; and DOES 1-100 inclusive;
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QzIIdI at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ernest Krause, Esq.
KRAUSE & ASSOCIATES
4540 Florin Rd., Suite E-224
Sacramento, CA 95823
Telephone: 1(888) 508-1189
Facsimile: 1(916) 200-3560
E-mail: KrauseLawAssociates@gmail.com
MARIANI PACKING: Amended Case Management Order Entered in Diesel
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY DIESEL, v.
MARIANI PACKING CO., Case No. 4:22-cv-01368-AGF (E.D. Mo.), the
Hon. Judge Audrey G. Fleissig entered an amended case management
order:
1. Defendant shall disclose all class certification expert
witnesses and shall provide the summaries and reports
required
by Rule 26(a)(2)(B) and (C), Fed. R. Civ. P., no later than
December 10, 2023.
2. Provisions governing pre-trial materials and deadlines as set
forth in the previous case management order shall remain in
place.
Mariani is the largest independently owned producer and packer of
dried fruit.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ShL3em at no extra charge.[CC]
MARIST COLLEGE: Goetze Seeks COVID-19 Tuition Refunds
-----------------------------------------------------
SARAH GOETZE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MARIST COLLEGE, Defendant., Case No.
1:23-cv-09136 (S.D.N.Y., October 17, 2023) arises from the
Defendant's refusal to provide a prorated refund of tuition tied to
its on-campus education, services, and amenities that were not
available to students for a significant part of the Spring 2020
semester.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant breached its contracts wit
its students or was otherwise unjustly enriched by not giving
prorated refunds for tuition charged for on-campus education and
services not provided.
Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this class action for damages and
restitution resulting from Marist's retention of the tuition paid
by Plaintiff and the other putative Class members for in-person
education and services not being provided. Specifically, this
lawsuit seeks disgorgement of the partial prorated tuition
reimbursement representing the difference in fair market value
between the on-campus product for which they had paid, and the
online product that they received.
Founded in 1929, Marist is a private university that offers almost
50 undergraduate degrees and over a dozen graduate degrees and
programs. The university's programs enroll students from nearly all
50 states, the District of Columbia, and several U.S. Territories
and foreign countries. It operates its main campus in Poughkeepsie,
Dutchess County, NY. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
jamisen@lcllp.com
nickc@lcllp.com
MEDNAX SERVICES: Court Appoints Mediator for Settlement Purposes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: Mednax Services, Inc., Customer
Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 0:21-md-02994-RAR (S.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz II entered an order
appointing special mediator for settlement purposes and setting
oral argument on class certification.
1. The Court appoints Judge Eduardo C. Robreno (Ret.) of the law
firm McCarter & English, LLP, as Special Mediator for
Settlement
Purposes in this MDL. The Special Mediator's appointment
shall
be effective as of October 31, 2023 and conclude on February
23,
2024 unless modified by subsequent order of this Court.
2. The Special Mediator's hourly rate shall be $1100 an hour to
be
borne equally by all participants to any mediation-related
activities involving the Special Mediator unless otherwise
modified by subsequent agreement of the Special Mediator and
the
parties.
3. Mediation shall commence on or after October 31, 2023.
4. The parties shall coordinate with the Special Mediator to
develop a detailed Mediation Protocol identifying the
specific
rules and procedures governing mediation, which shall be
subject
to approval by both the Special Mediator and the Court. The
Mediation Protocol shall be submitted to the Court for
approval
on or before November 10, 2023.
5. Oral argument on the issue of class certification is set for
10:00 A.M. on Friday, February 9, 2024 in Courtroom 11-2,
11th
Floor, at the Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. U.S. Courthouse, 400 N.
Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida 33128.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45MoyRT at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Judge Eduardo C. Robreno (Ret.)
MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
2525 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 300
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
MENARD INC: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Hawkins Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hawkins v. Menard, Inc.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-01363-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.
Menard owns and operates home improvement stores.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46Qfk8z at no extra charge.[CC]
MISS TOYAS: Johnson Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
------------------------------------------------------
Candice Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Miss Toyas Creole House, LLC and Miskiri
Hospitality Group, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02821-GLR (D.
Md., October 18, 2023) asserts claims against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and
Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law in
connection with the Defendants' unlawful compensation scheme.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants to work as a bartender in
Maryland. She began working for Defendants on or about November of
2022 and continued working for Defendants until sometime in
February of 2023. Pursuant to Defendants' compensation policies,
rather than pay Plaintiff and their other servers and bartenders an
hourly wage that met or exceeded the applicable hourly minimum
wage, Defendants paid Plaintiff and their other servers and
bartenders hourly wages required. Moreover, the Defendants' illegal
practices in violation of Maryland Wage Laws and the FLSA have
nullified any allowable use of the tip credit, the Plaintiff
asserts.
Miss Toya's Creole House offers authentic Creole food in Maryland.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
335 18th Pl NE
Washington, D.C. 20002
Telephone: (202) 830-2016
Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
E-mail: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com
- and -
Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Telephone: (817) 479-9229
Facsimile: (817) 887-1878
E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com
pamela@herrmannlaw.com
- and -
Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
Matthew Thomson, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, PC
729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
mthomson@llrlaw.com
MORCA CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Overtime Premiums, Flores Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN JESUS RIVERA FLORES, for himself and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MORCA CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC.,
a Florida Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00907
(M.D. Fla., October 17, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under
Fair Labor Standards Act.
In 2018, the Defendant hired Plaintiff to work as a non-exempt
construction laborer, and specifically, a carpenter. The Plaintiff
was required to work over 50 hours in a workweek. However, the
Defendant paid Plaintiff only his regular hourly pay for hours over
40, with no overtime premiums, says the suit.
Plaintiff Flores also alleges claims against the Defendant for
unjust enrichment in connection with the unlawful deduction of $35
each week as a fee for gas in using the company vehicle to perform
work.
Morca is a company that constructs and repairs/restores commercial
projects. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Angeli Murthy, Esq.,
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Rd. Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) 327-5369
Facsimile: (954) 327-3016
E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC: Nguyen Sues Over Private Info Disclosure to FB
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TRAM NGUYEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC PARTNERS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-02359 (M.D. Fla., October 18, 2023)
alleges that the Defendant has violated the Video Privacy
Protection Act.
The Defendant violated the VPPA by embedding the Meta Pixel within
its website and by sharing Plaintiff's and the Class Members' video
viewing history to Facebook without providing any notification to
Plaintiff and the Class Members, and without Plaintiff's and the
Class Members' informed, written consent.
Headquartered in Washington, DC, National Geographic Partners, LLC
engages in the business of publishing magazines and operating
television channels. [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
NEAPOLITAN EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Mizquiri Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS MIZQUIRI, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
and the Class, Plaintiff v. NEAPOLITAN EXPRESS LLC d/b/a NEAPOLITAN
EXPRESS, NEAPOLITAN EXPRESS STORE 10001 LLC d/b/a NEAPOLITAN
EXPRESS NEAPOLITAN TRUCK 10001-20000, and MAX CRESPO, Defendants,
Case No. 1:23-cv-09170 (S.D.N.Y., October 18, 2023) alleges
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
In or around June 2017, the Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to
work as a driver. Plaintiff's employment with Defendants terminated
in or around April 2022. Throughout his employment, Plaintiff
worked for an average of 70 hours a week but was only compensated
at a fixed salary of $800 per week. Moreover, Plaintiff was not
paid for the proper overtime wages at a rate that is at least
one-and-one-half times the regular rate of pay for hours worked in
excess 40. In addition, he was not also paid with the spread of
hours premium for shifts longer than 10 hours a day and not
provided with provide proper wage statements per requirements of
the NYLL, says the Plaintiff.
Neapolitan Express LLC owns and operates dine-in pizzerias and food
trucks in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
NESTLE PURINA: Pietres Sues Over Misleading Pet Food Labels
-----------------------------------------------------------
ADRIENNE PIETRES and BRENDA NATOLI, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NESTLE PURINA PETCARE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 7:23-cv-08959 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12,
2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and similarly situated purchasers, asserting claims
against the Defendant for violations of the New York General
Business Law, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment.
According to the complaint, the Defendant clearly claims the
products are "natural" on the products' label, capitalizing on the
preference of health-conscious pet owners to purchase pet food that
is free from synthetic ingredients. However, Defendant's products
contain multiple synthetic ingredients. The Defendant makes natural
claims in an effort to capitalize on the growing market for natural
products, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs and New York Subclass members suffered ascertainable
loss as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's GBL violations
in that: (i) they would not have purchased the products had they
known the truth; and (ii) they overpaid for the products on account
of the misrepresentations and omissions, as alleged in this suit.
Nestle Purina PetCare Company is an American subsidiary of the
Swiss corporation Nestle, based in St. Louis, Missouri. It produces
and markets pet food, treats, cat and dog litter.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Fl.
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: jarisohn@bursor.com
jdiamond@bursor.com
OKTA INC: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Bid Filing
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Okta, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 3:22-cv-02990-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff and Defendants
stipulate, subject to the Court's approval, that:
1. The Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion is withdrawn
without
prejudice to Plaintiff's ability to file its Renewed Class
Certification Motion consistent with the Parties' stipulated
schedule for briefing on the Renewed Class Certification
Motion;
2. Plaintiff shall file its Renewed Class Certification Motion
on
or before November 1, 2023;
3. The Defendants shall file any opposition to Plaintiff's
Renewed
Class Certification Motion on or before January 17, 2023;
4. The Plaintiff shall file any reply in support of the Renewed
Class Certification Motion on or before March 4, 2024;
5. The hearing date on Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion is
removed from the Court's calendar, and the hearing date on
Plaintiff’s Renewed Class Certification Motion shall be
scheduled for a to-be-determined date subject to the
Court’s
availability; and
6. The Case Management Conference shall be rescheduled from
January
12, 2024 at 3:00 PM to a to-be-determined date following the
hearing on Plaintiff's Renewed Class Certification motion,
subject to the Court's availability.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 25, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45NtnKN at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael P. Canty, Esq.
James T. Christie, Esq.
Nicholas Manningham, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
E-mail: mcanty@labaton.com
jchristie@labaton.com
nmanningham@labaton.com
- and -
James M. Wagstaffe, Esq.
Frank Busch, Esq.
WAGSTAFFE, VON LOEWENFELDT,
BUSCH & RADWICK, LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 2250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 357-8900
E-mail: wagstaffe@wvbrlaw.com
busch@wvbrlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Brian M. Lutz, Esq.
Jason J. Mendro, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Lombard, Esq.
Wesley Sze, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
San Francisco, CA 94105-0921
Telephone: (415) 393-8200
E-mail: blutz@gibsondunn.com
jmendro@gibsondunn.com
jlombard@gibsondunn.com
wsze@gibsondunn.com
ONSITE FACILITY: Class Action Settlement in Pickard Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALBERT PICKARD,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
who were employed by ONSITE FACILITY SERVICES, LLC and/or any other
entities affiliated with or controlled by ONSITE FACILITY SERVICES,
LLC, v. ONSITE FACILITY SERVICES, LLC and other related entities,
Case No. 5:22-cv-00207-AMN-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Anne M.
Nardacci entered an order granting Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
final approval of the class action settlement.
The Court further orders that the Clerk of the Court shall enter
judgment in Plaintiffs' favor and close this case; and 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.
Here, Class Counsel asserts that its lodestar is $36,175, making
Class Counsel's request for 33% of the Total Settlement Fund to be
1.56 their lodestar. The lodestar multiplier further supports the
Court’s decision that the attorneys' fees award should be based
on the Total Settlement Fund.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Class Counsel is entitled to
$57,750 in reasonable attorney's fees.
Class Counsel also seeks that the Settlement Administrator be paid
out of the Total Settlement Fund.
On March 4, 2022, Albert Pickard, on behalf of himself and
similarly situated persons who are presently or formerly employed
by OnSite, brought this putative class action against Defendant
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); and New
York Labor Law; New York Labor Law (NYLL).
Onsite is a New York corporation involved in the business of
property design, management, and maintenance.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MhXQK4 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank S. Gattuso, Esq.
Ryan G. Files, esq.
GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC
The White House
7030 East Genesee Street
Fayetteville, NY 13066
The Defendant is represented by:
Edward G. Melvin, Esq.
Ross M. Greenky, Esq.
BARCLAY DAMON LLP
125 East Jefferson Street
Syracuse, NY 13202
OTIS WORLDWIDE: Peguese Sues Over FLSA and PUMP Act Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Markia Peguese, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Otis Worldwide Corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 3:23-cv-01363 (D. Conn., October 18, 2023) arises from the
Defendant's failure provide proper accommodations to its nursing
employees for minimum appropriate break times and space to express
breast milk in private in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 and the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing
Mothers Act (PUMP Act).
Plaintiff Markia Peguese was an employee of Otis at 1500 Otis Way
in Florence, SC. She gave birth to her child in November 2022 and
commenced her employment in February 2023. Before starting at Otis,
Ms. Peguese discussed pumping accommodations with the hiring staff,
who assured her that there would be lactation accommodations.
However, when she arrived on her first shift, Otis did not
accommodate her to pump breast milk at work. Despite having empty
offices, Otis refused to allow Ms. Peguese to use them, and she was
forced to go to the bathroom and squeeze the milk out of her
breasts in a bathroom stall. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks
injunctive and declaratory relief, compensatory and punitive
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, litigation costs, and pre-and
post-judgment interest for the Defendant's violations of PUMP Act.
Headquartered in Farmington, CT, Otis is an elevator and escalator
manufacturing, installation and service company. The company offers
new equipment and services related to passenger and freight
elevators and escalators. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Oren Faircloth, Esq.
Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
Facsimile: (646) 417-5967
E-mail: ofaircloth@sirillp.com
lconsidine@sirillp.com
PACIFIC STEEL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 26, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISRAEL BERBER,
individually, and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant
to the California Private Attorneys General Act; v. PACIFIC STEEL
GROUP, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 4:21-cv-03446-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Parties file
a joint stipulation regarding Briefing schedule for the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and trial:
1. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file their motion for class
certification is set for April 26, 2024.
2. The Defendant's deadline to file its opposition to
Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification is set for June 10, 2024
(i.e.,
approximately 45 days after Plaintiffs' filing deadline).
3. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file their reply to Defendant's
opposition in support of their motion for class certification
is
set for July 19, 2024 (i.e., approximately 45 days after
Defendant’s opposition deadline).
4. The Parties agree that the hearing for Plaintiffs’ motion
for
class certification shall be set on Friday, August 2, 2024,
or a
date shortly thereafter as convenient for the Court (i.e.,
approximately two weeks after Plaintiffs’ deadline to file
their
reply).
5. The Parties agree that it is premature to set a trial date at
this time as a result of Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. However, if the Court is inclined to set a
trial
date at this time, the Parties agree that a trial can be set
in
November or December 2024 for a date and time that is
convenient
for the Court (i.e., approximately one year after the Parties
October 19, 2023 Case Management Conference).
Pacific is a leading independent reinforcing steel fabricator and
placer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QzHLSG at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jacob Karczewski, Esq.
Melissa Rinehart, Esq.
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 265-1020
Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
E-mail: jacob@calljustice.com
m.rinehart@calljustice.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Lindsay C. David, Esq.
Janna I. Jamil, Esq.
PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP
12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: (858) 720-6300
Facsimile: (619) 235-0398
E-mail: lindsay.david@procopio.com
janna.jamil@procopio.com
PACIFIC STEEL: Filing for Class Cert in Gay Due April 26, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON GAY, individually,
and on behalf of the general public similarly situated; ISRAEL
BERBER, individually, and on behalf of other aggrieved employees
similarly situated; v. PACIFIC STEEL GROUP, an unknown business
entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
4:20-cv-08442-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Parties file a joint stipulation
regarding Briefing schedule for the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and trial:
1. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file their motion for class
certification is set for April 26, 2024.
2. The Defendant's deadline to file its opposition to
Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification is set for June 10, 2024
(i.e.,
approximately 45 days after Plaintiffs' filing deadline).
3. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file their reply to Defendant's
opposition in support of their motion for class certification
is
set for July 19, 2024 (i.e., approximately 45 days after
Defendant’s opposition deadline).
4. The Parties agree that the hearing for Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification shall be set on Friday, August 2, 2024,
or a
date shortly thereafter as convenient for the Court (i.e.,
approximately two weeks after Plaintiffs’ deadline to file
their
reply).
5. The Parties agree that it is premature to set a trial date at
this time as a result of Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. However, if the Court is inclined to set a
trial
date at this time, the Parties agree that a trial can be set
in
November or December 2024 for a date and time that is
convenient
for the Court (i.e., approximately one year after the Parties
October 19, 2023 Case Management Conference).
Pacific is a leading independent reinforcing steel fabricator and
placer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tYmzwx at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jacob Karczewski, Esq.
Melissa Rinehart, Esq.
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 265-1020
Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
E-mail: jacob@calljustice.com
m.rinehart@calljustice.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Lindsay C. David, Esq.
Janna I. Jamil, Esq.
PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP
12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: (858) 720-6300
Facsimile: (619) 235-0398
E-mail: lindsay.david@procopio.com
janna.jamil@procopio.com
PRIORITY 1 SECURITY: Avila Sues Over Untimely Payment of Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Bermudez Avila, on behalf of all other similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff v. Priority 1 Security, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 529880/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., October 17, 2023) alleges
claims against the Defendant for breach of contract and for
violations of the New York Labor Law, the New York Code of Rules
and Regulations, and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act.
The Plaintiff performed entirely physical tasks for Defendant while
working as a security guard and therefore qualifies as a manual
worker under NYLL. However, her wages are paid by the Defendant on
bi-weekly basis. In addition, Defendant failed to provide
Plaintiff with accurate annual and periodic wage notices listing
the correct payment days and frequency of pay as required by NYLL
and the NYCRR, says the Plaintiff.
Priority 1 Security describes itself as a security company,
providing temporary, contract, contract-to-hire and full-time
staffing solutions to governments, local business owners and large
international corporations. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810,
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (718) 669-0714
E-mail: mgangat@gangatpllc.com
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 2, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA WATSON, V.
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
5:22-cv-00203-DCR-MAS (E.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Danny C. Reeves
entered an amended
scheduling order as follows:
1. No later than February 2, 2024, the plaintiff is directed to
file a motion to certify the class.
2. Any brief by defendant in opposition to class certification
must
be filed no later than March 15, 2024.
3. No later than February 2, 2024, the plaintiff is directed to
disclose the identity of expert witnesses who may be used at
trial and written reports by the expert witnesses as required
by
Rule 26(a)(2).
4. No later than March 15, 2024, the defendant is directed to
disclose the identity of expert witnesses who may be used at
trial and written reports by the experts as required by Rule
26(a)(2).
5. The parties are directed to complete all discovery (with
discovery requests served in a manner calculated for
responses
compliant with this deadline) on or before April 15, 2024.
6. No later than May 31, 2024, the parties are directed to file
all
dispositive motions and Daubert motions.
7. The final pretrial conference in this matter previously
scheduled for Tuesday, May 28, 2024, at the United States
Courthouse in Lexington, Kentucky is canceled.
Progressive underwrites auto, fire, marine, and casualty
insurance.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s8s0sv at no extra charge.[CC]
PROSPECT CHARTERCARE: Del Sesto Seeks Initial OK of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN DEL SESTO, AS
RECEIVER AND ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ST. JOSEPH HEALTH SERVICES OF
RHODE ISLAND RETIREMENT PLAN, ET AL., v. PROSPECT CHARTERCARE, LLC,
ET AL., Case No. 1:18-cv-00328-WES (D.R.I.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order:
1. granting preliminary approval of the settlement pursuant to
Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(e);
2. preliminarily certifying a non-opt-out Settlement Class
consisting of all Plan participants;
3. preliminarily appointing the Individual Named Plaintiffs Gail
J.
Major, Nancy Zompa, Ralph Bryden, Dorothy Willner, Caroll
Short,
Donna Boutelle, and Eugenia Levesque, as Representatives of
the
Settlement Class;
4. preliminarily appointing Wistow, Sheehan & Loveley, PC to
represent the Settlement Class;
5. authorizing the Receiver to carry out the Notice Plan and
issue
the Class Notice to the Settlement Class;
6. scheduling the submission of Plaintiffs’ motion for final
class
action settlement approval;
7. scheduling the hearing for final approval of the settlement
and
approval of WSL's motion for an award of attorneys’ fees
and set
deadline(s) for objections to both; and
8. granting approval of the settlement between Plaintiffs and
the
Diocesan Defendants as a good faith settlement pursuant to
R.I.
Gen. Laws section 23-17.14-35.
-- Terms of Settlement
The terms of settlement are set forth in the Settlement
Agreement.112 Under the agreement, the Diocesan Defendants will
make a $2,500,000 payment to the Plan Receivership, upon the
occurrence of the following events:
-- First, the Court agrees to stay113 the pending litigation
pending the action by Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation;
-- Second, as of an appropriate time (expected to be no sooner
than the Spring of 2024) the Plan's Receiver will seek to
have
PBGC terminate the Plan, and PBGC agrees to take over the
Plan;
-- Third, PBGC agrees, upon Plan termination and trusteeship,
to
release, or to not assert, any claims against any Diocesan-
related entities; and
-- Fourth, PBGC agrees to provide the maximum statutory
guaranteed
Benefits.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 25, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45Va8iq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Max Wistow, Esq.
Stephen P. Sheehan, Esq.
Benjamin Ledsham, Esq.
WISTOW, SHEEHAN & LOVELEY, PC
61 Weybosset Street
Providence, RI 02903
Telephone: (401) 831-2700
Facsimile: (401) 272-9752
E-mail: mwistow@wistbar.com
spsheehan@wistbar.com
bledsham@wistbar.com
PROVIDENCE PUBLIC: Parties Seek Final Approval of Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Parents Leading for
Educational Equity (PLEE); et al. v. Providence Public School
Department; et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00301-MSM-PAS (D.R.I.), the
Parties submit to the Court a joint motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(e) seeking certification of class action status under Fed. R.
Civ. P 23(b)(2) for settlement purposes and final approval of the
proposed settlement.
By Order entered on September 11, 2023, ECF 29, the Court
provisionally granted certification of class action status under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) for settlement purposes; granted
preliminary approval of the class settlement; and approved the
proposed notice to class members and proposed notice plan, with a
fairness hearing scheduled for November 2, 2023 at 10 am.
The Court identified the two classes for settlement purposes only
and appointed attorneys Ellen Saideman, Lynette Labinger and
Jennifer Wood as class counsel for both subclasses:
-- The Evaluation Subclass (Subclass 1)
"Identified children denied timely evaluation and
determination
of eligibility for special education and related services: All
children, who on or after July 17, 2023, are or hereafter will
be
between the ages of three and five, with disabilities as
defined
by the IDEA, living or will live in the City of Providence and
who have been identified by PPSD as requiring an initial
evaluation for eligibility for special education services and
have not received or will not receive an initial evaluation
and
determination of eligibility for special education and related
services.
-- The Services Subclass (Subclass 2): Children with IEPs denied
IEP
Services: All children, who on or after July 17, 2023, are or
hereafter will be between the ages of three and five, with
disabilities, as defined by the IDEA, living or will live in
the
City of Providence, who have been determined eligible for
preschool programs under Part B of the IDEA and have been
provided an IEP, but have been denied or delayed in the
provision
of the preschool programs and services identified in their
IEPs
on the claimed basis of unavailable resources or staffing.
-- The Court designated A.A. and his parent Rachel Cohn, and J.I.
and his parent Karen Imbert as class representatives of the
Evaluation Subclass and designated R.G. and his mother Dell
Johnny, and L.C. and his parent Lorena Rodriguez as class
representatives of the Services Subclass.
Providence Public is the administrative force behind the primary
public school district of Providence, Rhode Island.
A copy of the Parties's motion dated Oct. 25, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45SRW9p at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ellen Saideman, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ELLEN SAIDEMAN
7 Henry Drive
Barrington, RI 02806
Telephone: (401) 258-7276
Facsimile: (401) 709-0213
E-mail: esaideman@yahoo.com
- and –
Lynette Labinger, Esq.
128 Dorrance St., Box 710
Telephone: (401) 465-9565
Providence, RI 02903
E-mail: ll@labingerlaw.com
- and –
Jennifer L. Wood, Esq.
THE R.I. CENTER FOR JUSTICE
1 Empire Plaza, Ste. 410
Providence, RI 02903
Telephone: (401) 837-6431
E-mail: jwood@centerforjustice.org
The Defendants are represented by:
Anthony Cottone, Esq.
Kaelyn R. Phelps Prigge, Esq.
RI DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
255 Westminster Street
Providence, RI 02903
Telephone: (401) 222-4600
E-mail: Anthony.Cottone@ride.ri.gov
- and -
Mary Ann Carroll, Esq.
HENNEOUS CARROLL LOMBARDO LLC
155 South Main Street, Suite 406
Providence, RI 02903
Telephone: (401) 424-5224
E-mail: macarroll@hcllawri.com
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Court OK's Borozny Bid for Leave to Amend
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TARAH KYE BOROZNY, ANTHONY
DeGENNARO, RYAN GLOGOWSKI, ELLEN McISAAC, SCOTT PRENTISS, ALEX
SCALES, AUSTIN WAID-JONES, NICHOLAS WILSON, and STEVEN ZAPPULLA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, PRATT & WHITNEY DIVISION; AGILIS
ENGINEERING, INC.; BELCAN ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC; CYIENT, INC.;
PARAMETRIC SOLUTIONS, INC.; and QUEST GLOBAL SERVICES-NA, INC.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-01657-SVN (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Sarala V.
Nagala entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for leave
to amend.
-- By November 2, 2023, Plaintiffs shall docket a public, redacted
version of the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint,
with
redactions consistent with this order. Plaintiffs shall also
docket, as a sealed document, the unredacted Amended
Consolidated
Class Action Complaint in its final form.
-- The deadlines for class certification filings in ECF No. 713
remain operative.
In the antitrust putative class action, the Plaintiffs have alleged
that Defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by conspiring
to restrict competition in the recruitment and hiring of aerospace
engineers and other skilled workers in the jet propulsion systems
industry.
The Court previously denied the Defendants' motions to dismiss
their consolidated amended complaint, and then denied Plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration of a portion of its ruling relating to
alleging a market definition.
Raytheon is an American multinational aerospace and defense
conglomerate.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46UtW6X at no extra charge.[CC]
RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, Case No. 0:21-cv-01965-WMW-ECW (D. Minn.),
the Hon. Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright entered an order granting the
plaintiffs' motions for final approval of class action settlement:
1. The Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action
settlement is granted.
a. The Settlement Agreement and Plan of Allocation are
finally
approved as being fair, reasonable and adequate pursuant
to
Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
b. The Settlement Class is finally certified, for settlement
purposes only, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of
the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
c. The Court confirms that the Notice provided to the
Settlement Class was the best notice practicable under
the
circumstances and satisfied the requirements of Rule 23
of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, due process, and
the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.
d. All Settlement Class Members who timely requested
exclusion
are excluded from the Settlement. The Settlement Class
Members who did not timely request exclusion are hereby
bound by the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
e. The Court awards $1,600,000, plus any accrued interest,
in
attorneys' fees to Plaintiffs' counsel.
f. The Court approves service awards of $2,500 each to
Riviera
Beach Police Pension Fund, City of Hialeah Employees
Retirement System, Jawad A. Ayaz, Daniel Sanclemente,
Harry
Frashier on behalf of Bud & Sue Frashier Family Trust,
and
Alice Burstein for the time spent directly related to
their
representation of the Settlement Class.
2. Without affecting the finality of this Order and the
judgment,
the Court retains jurisdiction over this matter for the
purpose
of resolving disputes related to the interpretation,
administration, implementation, effectuation and enforcement
of
the Settlement.
The Plaintiffs and Defendants have entered into a Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement dated February 7, 2023, which
provides for a complete dismissal with prejudice of the
claims
against Defendants in this action, as well as a release of
claims on the terms and conditions set forth in the
Stipulation.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FDr3eG at no extra charge.[CC]
ROBINHOOD: Filing for Class Cert Bid Continued to Feb. 9, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Robinhood Order Flow Litigation,
Master File No. 4:20-cv-09328-YGR, Case No. 4:20-cv-09328-YGR (N.D.
Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order, subject to the
Court's approval, that:
1. The deadline for Plaintiff to file his motion for class
certification shall be continued from November 17, 2023 to
February 9, 2024.
2. The deadline for Plaintiff to disclose his experts with
complete
documentation shall be continued from November 17, 2023 to
February 9, 2024.
3. The deadline for Defendants to complete their depositions of
Plaintiff's experts shall be continued from January 5, 2024
to
April 5, 2024.
4. The deadline for Defendants to file their opposition to
Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be
continued
from January 26, 2024 to April 19, 2024.
5. The deadline for Defendants to disclose their experts with
complete documentation shall be continued from January 26,
2024
to April 19, 2024.
6. The deadline for Plaintiff to complete his depositions of
Defendants' experts shall be continued from February 23,
2024,
to May 17, 2024.
7. The deadline for Plaintiff to file his reply in support of
class
certification shall be continued from March 22, 2024 to June
14,
2024.
8. The hearing for Plaintiff’s motion for class certification
shall be continued from April 23, 2024, to July 16, 2024 at
2:00
p.m.
9. In the event Defendants do not produce the requested trading
data by November 17, 2023, the Parties will not oppose an
additional extension of the above schedule.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3seAJcD at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
Matthew Z. Robb, Esq.
LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON P.C.
975 E. Jefferson Ave.
Detroit, MI 48207
Telephone: (313) 392-0015
Facsimile: (313) 392-0025
E-mail: ncoulson@lsccounsel.com
mrobb@lsccounsel.com
- and -
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
Bradley K. King, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500
Burbank, CA 91505
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
bking@ahdootwolfson.com
- and -
Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
Stephen A. Beck, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Ave, Suite 1420
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 679-9006
E-mail: scott@bursor.com
swestcot@bursor.com
sbeck@bursor.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Karen P. Kimmey, Esq.
FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP
235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 954-4400
E-mail: kkimmey@fbm.com
- and -
Maeve L. O'Connor, Esq.
Elliot Greenfield, Esq.
Brandon Fetzer, Esq.
DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP
66 Hudson Boulevard
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 909-6000
E-mail: mloconnor@debevoise.com
egreenfield@debevoise.com
bfetzer@debevoise.com
ROBINHOOD: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Feb. 9, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Robinhood Order Flow Litigation,
Master File No. 4:20-cv-09328-YGR, Case No. 4:20-cv-09328-YGR (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order
granting second stipulation to extend class certification briefing
schedule.
The Court grants the parties' second stipulation to extend the
class certification briefing schedule. Plaintiff shall move for
class certification and disclose expert reports in support of class
certification no later than February 9, 2024.
The Defendants shall depose Plaintiff's experts no later than April
5, 2024. The Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's class
certification motion and all expert reports opposing class
certification are due by April 19, 2024.
The Plaintiff shall depose Defendants' experts no later than May
17, 2024. The Plaintiff’s reply in support of class certification
shall be filed no later than June 14, 2024.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 26, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MnKv2V at no extra
charge.[CC]
ROTHCO INC: Faces Mackey Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
HUNTER MACKEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROTHCO, INC., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-23-019371 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., Oct. 7,
2023) is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief, and
damages for violations of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant made text message sales
calls that promoted Rothco and violated the Caller ID Rules when it
transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a
telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone
calls.
Rothco, Inc. is a wholesale supplier of military, tactical and
outdoor products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Telephone: (202) 709-5744
Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
RUIXUE SHI: Wu Seeks to File Class Cert Supplementary Materials
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUN WU, et al. v. RUIXUE
SHI, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-11799-FMO-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order permitting him to file
certain supplementary materials in support of his Renewed Motion
for Class Certification, currently set for hearing on November 9,
2023 at 10 a.m. as follows:
The supplementary materials that we hereby seek permission to file
are
submitted herewith as follows:
-- Exhibit A Supplemental Brief in Support of Renewed Motion
for Class Certification
-- Exhibit B Declaration of Peter Fredman in Support of
Renewed Motion for Class Certification
-- Exhibit C Declaration of Keliang Clay Zhu in Support of
Renewed Motion for Class Certification
-- Exhibit D Declaration of Plaintiff Jun Wu in Support of
Renewed Motion for Class Certification
-- Exhibit E Request For Judicial Notice in Support of Renewed
Motion for Class Certification
-- Good cause exists to grant this Ex Parte Application because
permitting the filing of these supplemental materials will
enhance the record in this case and facilitate this Court's
determination of Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Class
Certification.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 25, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45T1SzF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Keliang ("Clay") Zhu, Esq.
Andre Y. Bates, Esq.
Yi Yao, Esq.
Mei Xuan, Esq.
DEHENG LAW OFFICES PC
7901 Stoneridge Drive, Ste. 208
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Telephone: (925) 399-5856
E-mail: czhu@dehengsv.com
aybates@dehengsv.com
yyao@dehengsv.com
mxuan@dehengsv.com
- and -
Peter Fredman, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER FREDMAN PC
2930 Domingo Ave, Ste. 227
Berkeley, CA 94705
Telephone: (510) 868-2626
E-mail: peter@peterfredmanlaw.com
SAFECO INSURANCE: Dow Appeals Judgment in Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff SUSAN DOW filed an appeal from the District Court's Order
dated September 6, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled SUSAN DOW,
v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, A LIBERTY MUTUAL COMPANY;
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; and LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00031-SPW, in the United States District
Court for the District of Montana, Billings.
In August 2018, a storm damaged Plaintiff Dow's property, including
the roof. The Plaintiff insured the property with Safeco under
Policy No. OM2676703. She made a claim under the policy due to the
storm damage. Safeco agreed that the damage was covered and agreed
to pay Dow's loss amount as provided by the policy.
The proposed class action concerns the Defendants' alleged
underpayment of general contractor overhead and profit ("GCOP") on
certain claims. The Plaintiff asked the Court for an order
certifying two related classes under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure on August 7, 2020.
On May 28, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
On October 3, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment which the Court granted on May 19, 2023. As the Motion
pertains solely to Class Representative Dow and not the class as a
whole, judgment was entered against Dow. The Class Counsel was
directed to identify a new Class Representative within 60 days of
the Order. Judge Susan P. Watters added that after a suitable Class
Representative has been produced, the Court will calendar a
scheduling conference to set the remaining deadlines for this
matter.
On September 6, 2023, Judge Watters vacated the Court's Order
Granting Plaintiff Susan Dow's Motion to Certify Class. Judgment
was entered against Dow and the matter was closed.
The appellate case is captioned as Dow v. Safeco Insurance Company
of America, et al., Case No. 23-2641, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Oct. 10, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Mediation Questionnaire was due October 16, 2023;
-- Appeal Opening Brief is due on November 13, 2023;
-- Appeal Answering Brief is due on December 12, 2023; and
-- All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. Failure of
the petitioner(s)/appellant(s) to comply with this briefing
schedule will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant SUSAN DOW, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Jesse C. Kodadek, Esq.
Alissa M. Mellem, Esq.
PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER
127 E Main Street Suite 301
Missoula, MT 59802
Defendant-Appellee SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Liberty
Mutual Company, is represented by:
David Timothy Moran, Esq.
Christopher Andrew Thompson, Esq.
JACKSON WALKER, LLP
2323 Ross Avenue Suite 600
Dallas, TX 75201
- and -
Jeffery J. Oven, Esq.
CROWLEY FLECK, PLLP
Transwestern Plaza II
490 N 31st Street Suite 500
Billings, MT 59101-1288
SAME DAY FUNDING: Hanson Sues Over TCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------
JIM HANSON, Plaintiff, v. SAME DAY FUNDING INC., Defendant., Case
No. 2:23-cv-00910-SPC-KCD (M.D.Fla., October 17, 2023) is brought
by the Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of putative Class
members, seeking injunctive relief and damages under Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991.
Plaintiff Hanson registered his number on the national Do Not Call
Registry on July 26, 2022. However, the Defendant initiated calls
and text messages to Plaintiff at least 14 times and using an
automated system. In addition, the Defendant did not disclose its
identity in any of the text messages received by the Plaintiff,
says the suit.
Same Day Funding Inc. is an Illinois-registered corporation with
its principal place of business in Lynwood, IL. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Kauffman, Esq.
LAWHQ, PC
299 S. Main St. #1300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (385) 285-1090
E-mail: john.kauffman@lawhq.com
SANDISK LLC: Larkland Studios Sues Over Defective Storage Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Larkland Studios, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SANDISK LLC and WESTERN DIGITAL
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-05308 (N.D. Cal., October
17, 2023) asserts claims against the Defendants for breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability; (ii) unjust enrichment; (iii)
violations of the California's Unfair Competition Law and the
California's False Advertising Law.
Allegedly, the Defendants have sold numerous defective SanDisk and
Western Digital solid-state drives (SSDs) upon which their
customers can no longer depend or rely. They have claimed that
their SSDs are appropriate for photographers, videographers, and
other creative professionals and hobbyists who need to work with
and preserve large data files. However, these SSDs face an extreme
risk of failing within months or even days of purchase due to a
design and manufacturing defect. The Plaintiff asserts that lost
data cannot be retrieved from the SSDs, and, especially for
creative work such as photographs, or milestone video footage such
as the recording of a wedding, such work cannot be recreated.
Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of
purchasers of the SSDs.
Headquartered in San Jose, CA, SanDisk LLC develops, manufactures,
and sells data storage solutions, including memory cards and
readers, USB flash drives, digital media players, wafers, and other
related components. SanDisk sells products in the United States.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christian Schreiber, Esq.
OLIVIER & SCHREIBER LLP
475 14th Street, Suite 250
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 484-0980
Facsimile: (415) 658-7758
E-mail: christian@os-legal.com
- and -
Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
Craig S. Davis, Esq.
Krista K. Freier, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
rapeterson@locklaw.com
csdavis@locklaw.com
kkfreier@locklaw.com
- and -
D. Michael Campbell, Esq.
CAMPBELL LAW
P.O. Box 24358
Lakeland, FL 33802
Telephone: (863) 227-4315
E-mail: dmcampbell@campbelllaw.com
SELECT REHABILITATION: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to Amend Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE MCLAUGHLIN,
CRYSTAL VANDERVEEN, and JUSTIN LEMBKE, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. SELECT REHABILITATION LLC,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00059-HES-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs file a
renewed motion for leave of court to amend the complaint and
withdraw the Rule 23 class action claims.
Any arguments that Plaintiffs or Plaintiff Vanderveen must maintain
the Rule 23 class action claims here should be wholly treated as
stipulation of Rule 23 class certification and thus the court can
give Defendant what they want and are telling the NDILL court in
Hovorka they want to happen and the same here.
It would be pointless to force all this here only then to oppose a
motion to certify a rule 23 class action here.
Illinois is further the more convenient Venue and Illinois has more
of an interest in address the claims of a 4000-5000 members class
action than Florida.
The Plaintiffs seek leave of Court to amend the Complaint to remove
and withdraw the putative Rule 23 Illinois Class action claims.
Plaintiffs herein attach Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint as
Exhibit 1 and state as follows:
-- The operative complaint is Plaintiffs' Second Amended
Complaint
(SAC), which includes claims under the Illinois Minimum Wage
Law
(IMWL) for failure to pay overtime premiums to Therapists and
hourly paid Program Managers who worked for Defendant in the
state of Illinois.
Select Rehabilitation provides comprehensive physical,
occupational, and speech therapy.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47aYVvq at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mitchell Feldman, Esq.
FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
6916 W. Linebaugh Ave #101
Tampa, FL 33625
Telephone: (813) 639-9366
Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com
- and -
Benjamin Lee Williams, Esq.
WILLIAMS LAW P.A.
464 Sturdivant Ave
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
Telephone: (904) 580-6060
Facsimile: (904) 417-7494
E-mail: bwilliams@williamslawjax.com
SHOO LOONG: Faces Lopez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS HERRERA LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHOO LOONG KAN FLUSHING LLC and YU
LIAO, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-07505
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 6, 2023) seeks to recover damages for Defendants'
egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law arising from Plaintiff's employment with the
Defendants.
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay proper
overtime, failure to pay wages for all hours worked, failure to pay
spread of hours compensation, failure to provide with wage
statements, and failure to furnish a written wage notice.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a dishwasher, kitchen
worker and cleaner while performing related miscellaneous duties
for the Defendants from May 2022 until November 2022.
Shoo Loong Kan Flushing LLC is a hot pot chain restaurant based in
New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
SHOT OF ART: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Christensen Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
ELYSSA CHRISTENSEN, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHOT OF ART LA LLC; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV25678 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Oct. 20, 2023) is an action against the Defendants
for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize
and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements,
and reimburse necessary business expenses.
Plaintiff Christensen was employed by the Defendant as an art
instructor.
SHOT OF ART LA LLC operate as an art studio in Los Angeles,
California that offers art classes and parties. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
Melissa Robinson, Esq.
HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 696-2306
Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
Email: haig@hbklawyers.com
melissa@hbklawyers.com
SILVESTRE CHAVEZ: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Avila Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
JUVENTO BRAVO AVILA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SILVESTRE CHAVEZ d/b/a BROTHERS
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-04004 (S.D.
Tex., Oct. 20, 2023) is an action against the Defendant's failure
to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Plaintiff Avila was employed by the Defendants as a laborer.
SILVESTRE CHAVEZ d/b/a BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY is engaged as
a construction company in Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas H. Padgett, Jr., Esq.
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 10099
Houston, TX 77206
Telephone: (713) 868-3388
Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
STELLAR MANAGEMENT: Peralta Sues Over Improper Payment of Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Graciliano Johnny Concepcion Peralta, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Stellar Management
Co. Inc., Laurence Gluck, Yecheskel Geller and Anderson Santos,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-09165 (S.D.N.Y., October 18, 2023)
asserts claims against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
Mr. Peralta has been employed in such position by Defendants from
2003 until March 2, 2022. Consequently, Mr. Peralta has been
working approximately 62.5 hours per week during his employment by
Defendants. However, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at
least applicable minimum wage for each hour worked in a given
workweek, in violation of the FLSA, the NYLL and the supporting New
York State Department of Labor regulations. In addition, the
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff any overtime "bonus" for hours
worked beyond 40 hours in a given workweek, says the suit.
Headquartered in New York City, Stellar Management Co. Inc. is
engaged in the business of real estate and building management. It
owns and/or operates 300 buildings in the New York City area. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Samuel, Esq.
THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
1441 Broadway, Suite 6085
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 563-9884
E-mail: michael@samuelandstein.com
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Garrett Sues Over Vehicles' Obsolete Telematics
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES GARRETT, CHRISTOPHER ROACH, DEMARIS MARTZ, MARCUM MARTZ,
KIMBERLY ROHRBERG, ROBERT DONNELLY and TAYLOR PADDOCK on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SUBARU
OF AMERICA, INC. and SUBARU CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-20971 (D.N.J., Oct. 6, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendants for unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and for violations
of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the Michigan Consumer Protection
Act, the New York Deceptive Practices Act, the California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California's Unfair Competition
Law, the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated persons in the United States who purchased or
leased any Subaru vehicles whose telematics equipment was rendered
wholly or partially inoperable when the major wireless carriers
phased out "3G" beginning in early 2022. The Class Vehicles'
Internet-enabled features which include Automatic Collision
Notification; Enhanced Roadside Assistance; Emergency Assistance
Button; Stolen Vehicle Locator; and Bluetooth Hands-Free Calling,
inter alia, 3G Features, were rendered inoperable after 3G was
phased out by carriers and replaced with 4G and/or 5G due to
Defendants' use of obsolete telematics equipment they installed in
the Class Vehicles, says the suit.
This action was commenced to obtain refunds of overpayments and/or
recompense for diminution in value, and/or the cost to replace the
telematics features in the Class Vehicles.
Subaru of America, Inc. based in Camden, New Jersey, is the United
States-based distributor of Subaru's brand vehicles. SOA is a
subsidiary of Subaru Corporation of Japan.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lisa J. Rodriguez, Esq.
DILWORTH PAXSON LLP
457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 700
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-1165
Telephone: (856) 674-1926
E-mail: lrodriguez@dilworthlaw.com
- and -
Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
Kara A. Elgersma, Esq.
Margaret L. Shadid, Esq.
WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA LLP
311 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 5450
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 346-2222
Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
E-mail: kaw@wbe-llp.com
kae@wbe-llp.com
ms@wbe-llp.com
- and -
Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
Mark R. Miller, Esq.
WALLACE MILLER
150 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 1100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 261-6193
Facsimile: (312) 275-8174
E-mail: eaw@wallacemiller.com
mrm@wallacemiller.com
SYNEOS HEALTH: Kempen Int'l Sues Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------
KEMPEN INTERNATIONAL FUNDS (KEMPEN INTERNATIONAL FUNDS-MERCLIN
GLOBAL EQUITY), KEMPEN INTERNATIONAL FUNDS (KEMPEN INTERNATIONAL
FUNDS - MERCLIN PATRIMONIUM), and MERCLIN INSTITUTIONAL FUND
(MERCLIN INSTITUTIONAL EQUITY FUND DBI-RDT), individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SYNEOS
HEALTH, INC., ALISTAIR MACDONALD, MICHELLE KEEFE, and JASON MEGGS,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-08848 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 8, 2023) is a
federal securities class action brought by the Plaintiffs for
Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Syneos
between September 9, 2020 and November 3, 2022, inclusive.
According to the complaint, during the Class Period, Defendants
made false and misleading statements and engaged in a scheme to
deceive the market and a course of conduct that artificially
inflated the price of Syneos common stock and operated as a fraud
or deceit on Class Period purchasers of Syneos common stock by
misrepresenting the value of the Company's business and prospects
in the Company's operations. As Defendants' misrepresentations and
fraudulent conduct became apparent to the market, the price of the
Company's stock fell precipitously on numerous occasions as the
prior artificial inflation came out of the stock's price.
As a result of their purchases of Syneos common stock during the
Class Period, Plaintiffs and other members of the Class suffered
economic loss, i.e., damages, under the federal securities laws.
Syneos Health Inc. is a multinational clinical research
organization. During the Class Period, the Company's common stock
was listed on the NASDAQ and traded in an efficient market under
the ticker symbol "SYNH."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Greg G. Gutzler, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 933-1000
E-mail: ggutzler@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Patrick W. Daniels, Esq.
Brian O. O'Mara, Esq.
Steven Jodlowski, Esq.
Caroline M. Robert, Esq.
Hani Y. Farah, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
4747 Executive Drive, Second Floor
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (619) 923-3939
E-mail: pwdaniels@dicellolevitt.com
briano@dicellolevitt.com
stevej@dicellolevitt.com
cmrobert@dicellolevitt.com
hfarah@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Bruce Bernstein, Esq.
Roxana Pierce, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
1101 17th Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 975-2288
E-mail: bbernstein@dicellolevitt.com
rpierce@dicellolevitt.com
TESCO INC: Faces Young Suit Over Unpaid OT, Sick Leave
------------------------------------------------------
ADELIA YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TESCO, INC. and BARTON LAWRENCE MUNRO JR.
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-12353-WGY (D. Mass., Oct. 12, 2023)
seeks to recover damages arising from the Defendants'
misclassification of Plaintiff and the putative collective/class as
independent contractors and resultant failure to pay overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act as well
as failure to comply with the Massachusetts Earned Sick Time Law,
General Laws.
The Plaintiff worked for Tesco from approximately January 2021 to
July 2022 performing housekeeping related services at hospitals
throughout Massachusetts. She asserts that Defendant has knowingly
and willfully failed to pay time-and-a-half for hours worked more
than 40 in a workweek and failed to accrue and pay sick time.
Tesco, Inc. provides staffing for hospitals and medical
facilities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam J. Shafran, Esq.
RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP
92 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 723-7700
Facsimile: (617) 227-0313
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Suit Seeks Conditional Status of Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARRY KUSHELOWITZ and
KERRI BALDWIN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, USA, INC. and TEVA SALES AND
MARKETING, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-07599-SDW-JRA (D.N.J.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying
the collective action pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Teva manufactures, markets and/or distributes more than 461 drugs
in the United States.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 25, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SjE98p at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Paolo Meireles, Esq.
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Tamra Givens, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 447-8888
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael G. Greenfield, Esq.
Larry J. Rappoport, Esq.
STEVENS & LEE, P.C.
1500 Market Street
East Tower, Suite 1800
Philadelphia, PA 19102
THERMO TECH: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 1
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN LOPEZ, v. THERMO TECH
MECHANICAL INC., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-09113-LTS-BCM (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered a scheduling order as
follows:
-- The status conference previously scheduled for November 8,
2023,
is adjourned sine die.
-- The Plaintiff shall file any class certification motion no
later
than December 1, 2023.
-- The parties shall propose a briefing schedule for the motion.
-- If plaintiff files a class certification motion, summary
judgment
motions shall be deferred until 30 days after that motion is
determined.
Thermo Tech is an HVAC solution company that offers commercial
equipment installations, troubleshooting, repairs, and service.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tPEgi6 at no extra charge.[CC]
TIER-ONE PROPERTY: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLANCA CASTILLO DE
MARTINEZ, et al. v. TIER-ONE PROPERTY SERVICES, LLC, et al., Case
No. 1:23-cv-02339-RDM (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs seek to Enlarge the
Period for Filing a Motion for Class Certification outlined in this
Court's Local Rule 23.1(b) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 6(b)(1)(A).
The Plaintiffs request that the Court grant the instant motion and
order that:
(1) the Motion to Enlarge the Period for Filing a Motion for
Class
Certification is hereby granted;
(2) Plaintiffs be permitted to file their Motion for Class
Certification at a date to be set at the Federal Rule of
Civil
Procedure 26(f) conference for this matter; and
(3) for any such other and further relief as this Court deems
appropriate.
The Plaintiffs are Blanca Castillo De Martinez, Vilma Somoza De
Cienfuegos, Richard Cienfuegos, and Armida Garcia
Tier One is a facility services provider of commercial janitorial,
building maintenance, and specialty property services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 25, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/466Itvj at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael K. Amster, Esq.
Thomas J. Eiler, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 587-9373
Facsimile: (240) 839-9142
E-mail: mamster@zagfirm.com
teiler@zagfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
John Remy, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
1701 Parkridge Blvd., Suite 300
Reston, VA 20191
Telephone: (703) 483-8300
Facsimile: (703) 483-8301
E-mail: John.Remy@jacksonlewis.com
TURQUOISE HILL: Seeks to Maintain Redacted Info Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:20-cv-08585-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order maintaining under seal
the redacted information and sealed exhibits filed in connection
with Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
Specifically, the Defendants seek approval of their proposed
redactions to Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion and the
accompanying Graziano Declaration and to seal Exhibits D-L of the
same.
The Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion and certain accompanying
exhibits contain confidential information and should be kept under
seal or partially redacted.
The Defendants seek to redact minimal portions of Plaintiffs' Class
Certification Motion that reflect information from documents
Defendants have designated "Confidential" pursuant to the
Protective Order in this action.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 26, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40hcRld at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Corey Worcester, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL TRIAL LAWYERS | NEW YORK
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor,
New York, New York 10010-1601
Telephone: (212) 849-7000
Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
E-mail: coreyworcester@quinnemanuel.com
VILLAS OF HOLLY BROOK: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANEEN MITCHELL,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
VILLAS OF HOLLY BROOK SENIOR LIVING, LLC, Case No.
2:22-cv-02269-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill.), the Defendant asks the Court
extending its deadline to respond to Defendant's Motion to Certify
Class and Court-Supervised Notice to Putative Collective Members,
by 14 days to November 9, 2023.
The Defendant also requests that the Court extend Plaintiff's
deadline to file a reply to Defendant's response by four days to
November 16, 2023.
On September 29, 2023, the Parties submitted their proposed
scheduling order, which contained an agreed briefing schedule for
Plaintiff's Motion. The briefing schedule provided that the
Defendant's deadline to respond to Plaintiff's Motion is October
26, 2023, and Plaintiff's deadline to submit a reply is November 2,
2023.
The Defendant seeks a 14 days extension of these deadlines, which
would result in a new due date for the Defendant's response to
Plaintiff's Motion of November 9, 2023, and for Plaintiff's reply,
November 16, 2023.
Villas of Holly offers senior living in central Illinois and
beyond, featuring independent, assisted living, and memory care
options.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 25, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FAHZT5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Lorna K Geiler, Esq.
MEYER CAPEL PC
306 West Church Street
Champaign, IL 61820
Telephone: (217) 352-1800
E-mail: lgeiler@meyercapel.com
VIMEO.COM INC: Baker Sues Over Data Privacy Violations
------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANY BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VIMEO.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No.
6:23-cv-02030 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 20, 2023) alleges Defendant's
violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant is
engaged in the practice of knowingly disclosing to Meta Platforms,
Inc. or Facebook, information which identifies the Plaintiff and
the putative Class Members as having requested or obtained specific
video materials or services from Defendant.
The Defendant embedded within its website a "Meta Pixel" that was
provided to Defendant by Facebook. That pixel tracked the
Plaintiff's and the Class Members' video viewing history while on
Defendant's website and reported the viewing history to Facebook
along with Plaintiff's and the Class Members' unique Facebook
Identification numbers. The Defendant knowingly violated the VPPA
by embedding the Meta Pixel within its website and by sharing
Plaintiff's and the Class Members' video viewing history. The
Defendant shared the Plaintiff's and the Class Members' video
viewing history without providing any notification to the Plaintiff
and the Class Members, and without Plaintiff's and the Class
Members' informed, written consent, says the suit.
VIMEO.COM, INC. operates as a video sharing site. The Company
enables its users to upload, share, and watch videos, as well as
provides news, sports, and entertainment content online in a
searchable format. [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
Tel: (954) 907-1136
-and-
Manuel Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (305) 336-7466
Email: 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
Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com
WAREHOUSE HOME: Smith Sues Over Credit Managers' Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------
ANIQUE SMITH, individually, and on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAREHOUSE HOME FURNISHINGS
DISTRIBUTORS, INC., d/b/a FARMERS HOME FURNITURE, Defendant, Case
No. 3:23-cv-01069 (M.D. Tenn., Oct. 12, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime compensation owed
to Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly-paid employees
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Smith was employed as an hourly-paid credit manager by
Defendant. He asserts that he and those similarly situated did not
qualify as exempt from overtime compensation under the FLSA as
either administrative or executive exempt because they were paid on
an hourly basis instead of on a salaried basis.
Warehouse Home Furnishings Distributors, Inc. is a furniture
company in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
J. Joseph Leatherwood, IV, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
jholt@jsyc.com
jleatherwood@jsyc.com
YGRENE ENERGY: Breaches Financing Agreement Terms, Leon Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
GINO SILVA LEON, MARIELLA LEON, NIVALDO PRIETO, and TANIA CHINEA
PRIETO, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. YGRENE ENERGY FUND, INC., YGRENE ENERGY FUND FLORIDA
LLC, YGRENE ASSOCIATION FUNDING, LLC, and YGRENE HOLDINGS FLORIDA,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-23904-CMA (S.D. Fla., Oct. 12,
2023) arises from Defendants' practice of systemically, repeatedly,
and continually breaching material terms in their financing
agreement by disbursing funds to Defendants' authorized contractors
before home improvements were completed in accordance with all
applicable building codes, regulations, and other governmental
requirements.
The Plaintiffs and Class Members have uniformly suffered
quantifiable financial harm as a result of 1) being deprived the
full use of their home improvements while paying for these home
improvements as tax assessments on their property tax bills; 2)
having to pay third-party contractors to complete the work that was
never finished by Defendants' authorized contractors; and/or 3)
having to pay fees for code violations and other costs arising from
Defendants' breaches of contract.
Plaintiffs Gino Silva Leon, Mariella Leon, Nivaldo Prieto, and
Tania Chinea Prieto as well as many other Class Members, financed
their home improvements from Defendants' office located in this
District.
Ygrene Energy Fund, Inc. is a company that provides financing to
residential and commercial properties for energy efficiency
projects.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew J. Vargas, Esq.
121 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 1140
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 631-2528
Facsimile: (305) 631-2741
E-mail: Andrew@vargasgonzalez.com
- and -
Jacob Alex Flint, Esq.
JACOB FLINT LAW
2 City Place Dr. #200
St. Louis, MO 63141
Telephone: (314) 677-7613
E-mail: jacob@jacobflintlaw.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***