/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231117.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, November 17, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 231
Headlines
1-800-FLOWERS.COM INC: Collects Data Without Consent, Reyes Says
2408 RAVENSWOOD: Vargas Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
28351 DIEHL ROAD: Tahernezhadi Alleges Illegal Biometric Collection
ACTALENT INC: Gokhman Sues Over Labor Law Violations
AETNA MEDICAID: Parties Seek More Time for Conditional Cert Reply
AMERICAN BEAD: Suarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AMERICAN EDGE: Lindner Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
AMSCOT CORP: Sancruzado Sues Over Unsolicited Voice Calls
APACHE CORP: Continues to Defend Kulp Minerals Class Suit
APACHE CORP: Continues to Defend PCRS Class Suit in Texas
ARAPAHOE COUNTY, CO: Jurinsky Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal
ASIAN CORNER: Salazar Sues Over Cooks' Unpaid Overtime Wages
ASTEC INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend TGERS Class Suit
AUTOMATIC DATA: Continues to Defend ERISA Class Suit in New Jersey
BOOST HEALTH INSURANCE: Cochran Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Florida
BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP: Settlement Reached in TCPA Suit
BUILDERS MUTUAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Rogolino Claims
BURGERFI INTERNATIONAL: Walker Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
C3.AI INC: Reckstein Trust Suit Ongoing in California
CARESOURCE: Clay Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
CHEVRON FEDERAL: Miller Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
CLEVELAND AVE: Camillus Re-Engaged as Special Master in Hogan Deal
COMPASS INC: Batton Sues Over Real Estate Commission Monopoly
CONTRACT LAND: All Case Deadlines in Weinmann Stayed
CREDIT BUREAU: Kang Seeks Amendment of Settlement Order
DAVID CORNELL: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DECOCRATED INC: Nguyen Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
DISTRIBUTION SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Cyber Incident Suit
DOCUSIGN INC: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Ongoing
DOCUSIGN INC: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Ongoing in CA Court
DOCUSIGN INC: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Stayed
DOCUSIGN INC: Weston Shareholder Suit Ongoing in California Court
ELANCO ANIMAL: Hunter Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION: Morvant Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
FINE RAW: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Knowles Claims
FORD MOTOR: Dorfman Sues Over Defective Motor Vehicle Cameras
FORD MOTOR: S.D. California Tosses Bid for Arbitration in Scriber
FSL MAGNOLIA: Osumgboye Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
FULFILLMENT LAB: Method of Class Notice in Sihler Suit Approved
GOLDMAN SACHS: $215MM Settlement in Chen-Oster Suit Wins Final OK
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Willis Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GUARDIAN INTERNATIONAL: Guzman Sues Over Wage and Hour Violations
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Humphries Files Suit in D. South Carolina
HARVARD COLLECTION: Steinmetz Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. New York
HONG KONG LAUNDROMAT: Lawrence Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ILINKO INC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
IQVIA HOLDINGS: Faces Ramirez Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
JELD-WEN INC: Faulk Has Leave to File 2nd Amended Class Complaint
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: Ebneshahidi Suit Transferred to D. Mass.
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: Riffey Suit Transferred to D. Mass.
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: Schaffer Suit Transferred to D. Mass.
KANSAS CITY LIFE: Meek Appeals Rulings in Breach of Contract Suit
KINDER MORGAN: Rodriguez Suit Removed to S.D. California
KOSAS COSMETICS: Wurm Balks at Unwanted Text Message Sales Calls
LEGACY CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Haskins Suit Claims
LIMELIFE USA: Melendez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Warren Files Suit in S.D. West Virginia
LRG ENERGY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brooks Suit Alleges
LTC DELIVERY: Misclassifies Delivery Drivers, Wells Suit Says
MADISON COUNTY, GA: Dove Suit v. Jail Dismissed Without Prejudice
MAMIYE BROTHERS: Suarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MARATHON STAFFING: Williams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MERRILL GARDENS: Court Consolidates Ramirez & Holguin Class Suits
MIIR HOLDINGS: Knowles Sues Over Website's Inaccessibility to Blind
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Abdellatif Suit Removed to C.D. California
MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Auguste Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
MORGAN TRUCK: Sigala Suit Removed to C.D. California
NEW DIRECTION IRA: Theriault Files Suit in D. Kansas
ONLY WHAT YOU NEED: Julian Sues Over False Ads of Protein Products
OPENDOOR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Alich Securities Suit
ORTHOALASKA LLC: Prestegard Files Suit in D. Alaska
OUTDOORSY INC: Venue of Nautilus Suit Moved to District of Hawaii
PILOT AIR FREIGHT: Vera Suit Removed to C.D. California
PONY TAIL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bell Suit Alleges
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Tucker Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
PROGRESSIVE LEASING: Bell Files Suit in D. Utah
PROGRESSIVE LEASING: Whitmore Files Suit in D. Utah
PSL ASSOCIATES: Lambert Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PUBLIX SUPER: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Roberts Claims
QUI INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Servers, Cho Suit Claims
RAY PROPERTIES: Robles Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
RENSSELAER COUNTY, NY: Merckx Files Suit in N.D. New York
RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Class Deal in Derivative Suit Wins Final Nod
SABON WEB: Black Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SACRAMENTO LGBT: Taylor Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SARAYA USA: Cohen Sues Over Deceptive Marketing of Food Products
SELECT COMFORT: Hargraves Sues Over Untimely Payment of Wages
SHMALTZ BREWING: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SHOEWELL INC: Martin Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE: Souza Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
SOBER LIVING: Lincoln Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
SPECIALIZED LOAN: Rowland Asserts Unfair Fee Collection Practices
SPECTRAFEM LLC: Melendez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
TD AMERITRADE INC: Schultz Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
THOMAS C. PRIORE: Edelman Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
TIP-TOP ROOFING: Vriens Sues Over Substandard Roofing Installation
TMG HEALTH INC: Herman Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
UNIVERSAL CITY: Clarke Suit Removed to C.D. California
US MED-EQUIP: Bid for Approval of Ambrose Settlement Due Dec. 29
USI INSURANCE: Powell Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
WELLBE SENIOR: Purnell Seeks Customer Service Reps' Unpaid Wages
WHOOP INC: Sanderson Sues Over Automatic Membership Renewal
WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Sorto Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
XTO ENERGY: Brusamonti Appeals Summary Judgment to 3rd Cir.
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Defends Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carrier Global Has $223MM Liabilities at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Has 900 Pending PI Lawsuits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Defends 271 Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Faces 582 New PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Financial Still Receives A&E Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Still Defends PI Claims as of Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Int'l. Paper Has $102MM Liabilities at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Reports $15.3MM Accrued Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Has 561 Claims as of Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Has 459 Pending Cases as of Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Defends 920 Active Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $884MM Pending and Future Claims
*********
1-800-FLOWERS.COM INC: Collects Data Without Consent, Reyes Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROXANNE REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, INC.; and INTERACTIONS
LLC, Defendants, Case No. _____ (Mass. Super., Nov. 2, 2023)
alleges violation of the Massachusetts Wiretapping Statute.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants
intercepted 1-800-FLOWERS phone line callers' ("Callers") wire and
oral communications made during their calls ("Calls") without
consent.
1-800-Flowers employs Interactions, a third party, to provide the
System on the Phone Line. Callers' wire and oral communications
with 1-800-Flowers on the Phone Line are routed through
Interactions' System. Interactions thereby intercepts the contents
of Callers' wire and oral communications in real time without the
consent of the Plaintiff and Class, says the suit.
1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. is an e-commerce provider of floral
products and gifts. The Company's product offerings, including
fresh-cut and seasonal flowers, plants, floral arrangements, and
home and garden merchandise, can be purchased online and by calling
its toll-free telephone number.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel Smith, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North CA Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: jsmith@bursor.com
-and-
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
Matt A. Girardi, Esq.
Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: jmarchese@bursor.com
mgirardi@bursor.com
jdiamond@bursor.com
2408 RAVENSWOOD: Vargas Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Isabel Vargas, and Omar Romero, on behalf of themselves and
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 2408 Ravenswood
Gourmet Corporation d/b/a Ravenswood Gourmet Deli, Bashar Alsaidi,
and Alex Doe, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-07914 (E.D.N.Y., Oct.
24, 2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor
practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New
York Labor Law, and Wage Theft Prevention Act.
The Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to: (i) compensation
for wages paid at less than the statutory minimum wage, (ii) unpaid
wages from Defendants for overtime work for which they did not
receive overtime premium pay as required by law, (iii) liquidated
damages, (iv) compensation for the Defendants' illegal deductions
from gratuities, and (v) statutory damages for the Defendants'
violation of the Wage Theft Prevention Act.
The Plaintiffs are current and former employees of the Defendants'
restaurant in Astoria, New York.
Ravenswood Gourmet Corporation d/b/a Ravenswood Gourmet Deli is a
restaurant owned and operated by Defendants Bashar Alsaidi and Alex
Doe.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Samuel, Esq.
THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
1441 Broadway Suite 6085
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 563-9884
28351 DIEHL ROAD: Tahernezhadi Alleges Illegal Biometric Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLIZE TAHERNEZHADI, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 28351 DIEHL ROAD CO. d/b/a HONEY
BERRY PANCAKES, Defendant, Case No. 2023LA001117 (Ill. Cir., Dupage
Cty., Oct. 24, 2023) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation
of the Biometric Information Privacy Act.
The complaint alleges that Defendant has collected, stored, and
used its employees' biometric information without their informed
written consent and has failed to make publicly available their
retention schedule for this biometric information. The Defendant's
violations of BIPA were intentional or reckless or, alternatively,
negligent, says the suit.
Plaintiff Tahernezhadi was employed by the Defendant in its
Warrenville location from May 2021 to August 2021.
28351 Diehl Road Co. operates Honey Berry Pancakes, which is a
restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher J. Wilmes, Esq.
Karen Villagomez, Esq.
HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK DYM, LTD.
70 West Madison Street, Suite 4000
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 580-0100
E-mail: cwilmes@hsplegal.com
kvillagomez@hsplegal.com
ACTALENT INC: Gokhman Sues Over Labor Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------
BRITTANY GOKHMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACTALENT, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:23-cv-04183 (E.D. Pa., October 30, 2023) arises from the
Defendant's failure to properly compensate Plaintiff and other
similarly situated individuals employed in the position of
Recruiter. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the
Federal Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.
Plaintiff Gokhman is a former employee of the Defendant and was
improperly misclassified as an exempt employee under FLSA and PMWA.
She regularly worked more than 40 hours per week but was not
properly compensated for her work at one and a half times her
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.
Actalent, Inc. is a for-profit business entity, duly organized and
existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The
company provides talent and services solutions in engineering and
sciences for companies in a variety of industries, including
laboratory sciences and healthcare. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Schreiber, Esq.
Michael Murphy, Esq.
Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000
1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 273-1054
Facsimile: (215) 525-021
E-mail: aschreiber@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
AETNA MEDICAID: Parties Seek More Time for Conditional Cert Reply
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRYSTAL PALMER,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AETNA MEDICAID ADMINISTRATORS LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-01010-RNC (D.
Conn.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending by
four weeks Aetna Medicaid's time to respond to Palmer's Motion for
Conditional Certification up to and including December 8, 2023, and
extending Plaintiff's time to file any reply to Aetna Medicaid's
response brief by one week (up to and including December 29, 2023).
The Plaintiff filed her Pre-Discovery Motion for Conditional
Collective Certification and Court-Authorized Notice to Potential
Opt-In Plaintiffs on October 17, 2023, making Aetna Medicaid's
Response in Opposition due on November 7, 2023.
The parties request the extension of time to enable the parties to
confer regarding jurisdictional issues raised by the parties’
while conferring on their Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f)
report (which was filed on October 31, 2023) as well as issues
relating to arbitration. Good cause exists for the requested
extension because should the discussions result in agreements
between the parties on either arbitration issues or
jurisdictional.
On November 1, 2023, the Parties conferred about the Motion, and
they both agree with the relief sought herein. No extensions have
been sought before now with respect to briefing on Plaintiff's
Motion for Conditional Certification.
Aetna is an industry leader in coordinating care and controlling
costs.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 1, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45TXVuw at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Albert J. Asciutto, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
aasciutto@sommerspc.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Morneau, Esq.
CONNOR & MORNEAU, LLP
273 State Street, 2nd Floor
Springfield, MA 01103
Telephone: (413) 455-1730
E-mail: jmorneau@cmolawyers.com
The Defendant is represented by:
James J. Swartz, Jr., Esq.
Andrew M. McKinley, Esq.
Bailey G. Green, Esq.
Anthony S. Califano, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
1075 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2500
Atlanta, GA 30309-3958
Telephone: (404) 885-150
E-mail: jswartz@seyfarth.com
amckinley@seyfarth.com
bgreen@seyfarth.com
acalifano@seyfarth.com
AMERICAN BEAD: Suarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Bead
Corporation. The case is styled as Alvin Suarez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. American Bead
Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-09545 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
American Bead Corporation -- https://americanbeadcorp.com/ -- take
pride in supplying the highest quality gemstone beads to industry
wholesalers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: (516) 287-3458
Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com
AMERICAN EDGE: Lindner Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Edge, et al.
The case is styled as Shannon Lindner, for herself and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Boost Health Insurance Agency,
LLC, American Edge, Unknown Parties named as John & Jane Does 1-10;
and Does 110, Case No. 2:23-cv-02260-JZB (D. Ariz., Oct. 31,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
American Edge -- https://americanedgeproject.org/ -- is a U.S.
political advocacy group that lobbies for the technology
industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon Laurence Phelps, Esq.
PHELPS & MOORE PLLC - SCOTTSDALE
6424 E Greenway Pkwy., Ste. 100
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
Phone: (480) 534-1400
Fax: (480) 477-3900
Email: jon@phelpsandmoore.com
AMSCOT CORP: Sancruzado Sues Over Unsolicited Voice Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD SANCRUZADO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMSCOT CORPORATION d/b/a AMSCOT
AND AMSCOT FINANCIAL, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-24065 (S.D. Fla.,
Oct. 24, 2023) is a putative class action against the Defendant
pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant utilizes prerecorded
voice calls to collect debts. It places calls to consumers'
cellular phone numbers without consent, and even after being
notified that it is calling the wrong number, as was the case with
Plaintiff.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life
of thousands of Plaintiff and the Class members. The Plaintiff also
seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the
Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies.
Amscot Corporation is an American financial services company
headquartered in Tampa, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street Suite 1744
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
APACHE CORP: Continues to Defend Kulp Minerals Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Apache Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Kulp Minerals class
suit in the Fifth Judicial District.
On or about April 7, 2023, Apache was sued in a purported class
action in New Mexico styled Kulp Minerals LLC v. Apache
Corporation, Case No. D-506-CV-2023-00352 in the Fifth Judicial
District.
The Kulp Minerals case has not been certified and seeks to
represent a group of owners allegedly owed statutory interest under
New Mexico law as a result of purported late oil and gas payments.
The amount of this claim is not yet reasonably determinable.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims
asserted in this lawsuit.
Apache Corporation is an independent energy company, which
explores for, develops, and produces natural gas, crude oil, and
natural gas liquids. The company is based in Houston, Texas.
APACHE CORP: Continues to Defend PCRS Class Suit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
Apache Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from Plymouth County Retirement
System class suit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.
On February 23, 2021, a case captioned Plymouth County Retirement
System v. Apache Corporation, et al. was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston
Division) against the Company and certain current and former
officers.
The complaint, which is a shareholder lawsuit styled as a class
action, alleges that (1) the Company intentionally used unrealistic
assumptions regarding the amount and composition of available oil
and gas in Alpine High; (2) the Company did not have the proper
infrastructure in place to safely and/or economically drill and/or
transport those resources even if they existed in the amounts
purported; (3) certain statements and omissions artificially
inflated the value of the Company's operations in the Permian
Basin; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit.
Apache Corporation is an independent energy company, which
explores for, develops, and produces natural gas, crude oil, and
natural gas liquids. The company is based in Houston, Texas.
ARAPAHOE COUNTY, CO: Jurinsky Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff DANIELLE JURINSKY filed an appeal from the District
Court's Order and Final Judgment dated October 25, 2023 entered in
the lawsuit styled DANIELLE JURINSKY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARAPAHOE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, DIVISION OF CHILD AND ADULT
PROTECTION SERVICES, ROBIN NICETA, MICHELLE DOSEY, and ARAPAHOE
COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-CV-02201-PAB-MEH, in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado-Denver.
This case was removed from the Arapahoe County District Court, with
Case No. 22cv31612, to the District Court for the District of
Colorado on August 26, 2022.
Plaintiff Jurinsky filed the case on behalf of herself and other
families after Robin Niceta -- a former DHS caseworker and the
ex-girlfriend of Aurora's ex-police chief, Vanessa Wilson --
anonymously and falsely reported that Jurinsky had sexually
molested her own son.
Niceta made the report shortly after Jurinsky criticized Wilson on
a talk radio show. Investigators later concluded that Niceta's
accusation was unsubstantiated. Niceta has since been charged with
retaliation against an elected official and making a false report
of child abuse as a mandatory reporter.
Plaintiff Jurinsky brings four claims against all Defendants: (1)
deprivation of procedural due process; (2) deprivation of
substantive due process; (3) violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983;
and (4) deprivation of rights protected by equal protection
clause.
On September 21, 2022, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint
against the Defendants.
On October 12, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's amended complaint.
On September 26, 2023, Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer entered an
Order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's amended
complaint. Plaintiff Danielle Jurinsky's first, second, third, and
fourth claims were DISMISSED with prejudice. It was further ordered
that the case is closed.
The appellate case is captioned as Jurinsky v. Arapahoe County, et
al., Case No. 23-1338, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit, filed on Oct. 25, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Docketing statement was due on November 8, 2023 for Danielle
Jurinsky;
-- Transcript order form was due on November 8, 2023 for
Danielle Jurinsky; and
-- Notice of appearance was due on November 8, 2023 for Arapahoe
County Board Of County Commissioners, Arapahoe County Department of
Human Services, Michelle Dosey, Danielle Jurinsky and Robin
Niceta.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant DANIELLE JURINSKY, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Kristine L. Brown, Esq.
8700 East Jefferson Avenue, Unit 371703
Denver, CO 80237
Telephone: (720) 285-9552
- and -
Elliot Asher Singer, Esq.
CONDUIT LAW
2590 Welton Street, Suite 200
Denver, CO 80205
Telephone: (720) 432-7032
Defendants-Appellees ARAPAHOE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Division of Child & Adult Protection, et al., are represented by:
Writer Mott, Esq.
Rebecca M. Taylor, Esq.
ARAPAHOE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
5334 South Prince Street
Littleton, CO 80120-1136
ASIAN CORNER: Salazar Sues Over Cooks' Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS SALAZAR, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. ASIAN CORNER THAI SUSHI INC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-24062 (S.D. Fla., Oct. 24, 2023) is an action
against the Defendant to recover money damages for unpaid overtime
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as cook from May 19,
2023 until his wrongful termination on August 31, 2023. He asserts
that he worked approximately 60 hours per week without payment for
overtime.
Asian Corner Thai Sushi Inc. is a Thai restaurant based in
Miami-Dade County, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julisse Jimenez, Esq.
THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 482-1475
E-mail: julisse@legalopinionusa.com
ASTEC INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend TGERS Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Astec Industries Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Taylor City General
Employees Retirement System class suit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.
The Company and certain of its former executive officers were named
as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed
on February 1, 2019, as amended on August 26, 2019, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The
action is styled City of Taylor General Employees Retirement System
v. Astec Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-24-CEA-CHS.
The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making allegedly false
and misleading statements and that the individual defendants were
control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The complaint is filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased
stock of the Company between July 26, 2016 and October 22, 2018 and
seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported class. On October
25, 2019, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. On February 19,
2021, the Motion to Dismiss was granted with prejudice and judgment
was entered for the defendants.
On March 19, 2021, plaintiff filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the
Judgment and For Leave to File the Proposed Amended Complaint,
which was denied on May 5, 2021.
Plaintiff appealed the Motion to Dismiss and denial of its Motion
to Alter or Amend the Judgment and For Leave to File the Proposed
Amended Complaint to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit.
On March 31, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit issued an opinion reversing the dismissal of the Company
and one former executive officer, affirming the dismissal of
certain other former executive officers and remanding the action to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
On July 11, 2022 Defendants filed an answer to the complaint, and
the action is now in discovery.
The Company's GEFCO, Inc. ("GEFCO") subsidiary has been named a
defendant in a lawsuit originally filed on August 16, 2018, with an
amended complaint filed on January 25, 2019, in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.
The action is styled VenVer S.A. and Americas Coil Tubing LLP v.
GEFCO, Inc., Case No. CIV-18-790-SLP.
The complaint alleges breaches of warranty and other similar claims
regarding equipment sold by GEFCO in 2013.
In addition to seeking a rescission of the purchase contract, the
plaintiff is seeking special and consequential damages.
The original purchase price of the equipment was approximately $8.5
million.
On July 7, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a separate lawsuit directly
against Astec Industries, Inc. that generally mirrored the
allegations in the GEFCO suit.
In January 2023, the court allowed Astec Industries, Inc. to be
added as a defendant to the GEFCO suit and, as a result, the
separate suit against Astec Industries, Inc. was dismissed.
The Company and GEFCO each dispute the plaintiffs' allegations and
are vigorously defending the GEFCO suit.
Astec Industries, Inc. designs, engineers, manufactures, and
markets equipment and components for the road building, aggregate
processing, geothermal, water, oil and gas, and wood processing
industries in the United States and internationally. The company
was founded in 1972 and is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
AUTOMATIC DATA: Continues to Defend ERISA Class Suit in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------------
Automatic Data Processing Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from ERISA class suit in the
U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey.
In May 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed against
ADP, TotalSource and related defendants in the U.S. District Court,
District of New Jersey.
The complaint asserts violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") in connection with the ADP
TotalSource Retirement Savings Plan's fiduciary administrative and
investment decision-making.
The complaint seeks statutory and other unspecified monetary
damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees.
These claims are still in their early stages and the Company is
unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss, or range of loss,
with respect to this matter.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.
Automatic Data Processing, Inc. provides comprehensive cloud-based
human capital management solutions that unite HR, payroll, talent,
time, tax and benefits administration.
BOOST HEALTH INSURANCE: Cochran Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boost Health
Insurance Agency, LLC. The case is styled as Arthur Cochran,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Boost Health Insurance Agency, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00473-MW-MJF
(N.D. Fla., Oct. 31, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Boost Health Insurance Agency --
https://www.boosthealthinsurance.com/ -- was founded by insurance
industry veterans to deliver health insurance solutions at
affordable prices.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A. - CORAL GABLES FL
237 S. Dixie Highway, 4th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP: Settlement Reached in TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Build-a-Bear Workshop, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the quarterly period ended July 29, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission in September 7, 2023, that it has reached a
settlement with the plaintiff in an August 2021 putative class
action lawsuit was filed against it asserting claims under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) alleging that the company
continued to send marketing text messages to mobile phone numbers
registered on the National Do Not Call Registry after allegedly
opting-out of receiving them.
Statutory damages under the TCPA are assessed at $500 per violation
(i.e. per text message), and up to $1,500 per violation if the
violation was knowing or willful.
Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc. is a mall-based, experiential specialty
retailer where children and their families could create their own
stuffed animals. It operate in three segments that share the same
infrastructure, including management, systems, merchandising and
marketing, and generate revenues as follows: (1) Direct-to-Consumer
Corporately-operated retail stores located in the U.S., Canada, the
U.K., and Ireland and two e-commerce sites, (2) Commercial –
Transactions with other businesses, mainly comprised of wholesale
product sales to third-party retailers and licensing our
intellectual property, including entertainment properties, for
third-party use; and (3) International franchising – Royalties as
well as products and fixtures sales from other international
operations under franchise agreements.
BUILDERS MUTUAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Rogolino Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARK ROGOLINO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BUILDERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and
BUILDERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Defendants, Case No.
5:23-cv-00597 (E.D.N.C., Oct. 24, 2023) is a class action against
Builders Mutual for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' private and
personal identifiable information including name, date of birth,
Social Security Number, and workers' compensation information.
On September 29, 2023, Builders Mutual filed official notice of
data security incident with the Maine Attorney General. Around this
same time, Builders Mutual also sent out data breach notice letters
to individuals whose Private Information was compromised as a
result of the cyber attack. Based on the Notice, Builders Mutual
detected unusual activity on some of its computer systems around
December 14, 2022. In response, Defendant launched an investigation
and notified law enforcement. The Defendant's investigation
revealed that unauthorized third parties had accessed certain files
between December 14, 2023, and December 15, 2023. Yet, Builders
Mutual waited nine months to notify the public that they were at
risk, says the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to address Builders
Mutual's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private
Information that it collected and maintained, and its failure to
provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and Class Members
of the types of information that were accessed, and that such
information was subject to unauthorized access by cybercriminals.
Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class, asserts
claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of third-party
beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory and
injunctive relief.
Builders Mutual is a provider of commercial insurance products to
the construction industry in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana Smith, Esq.
Mason Barney, Esq.
Tyler Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: dsmith@sirillp.com
mbarney@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.com
BURGERFI INTERNATIONAL: Walker Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
BurgerFi International, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K report for
September 3, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on September 7, 2023, that on September 3, 2023, the
lead plaintiffs in a securities class action lawsuit, "John Walker
v. BurgerFi International, Inc. et al.," Case No. 023-cv-60657,
filed against BurgerFi International, Inc. and certain of its
current and former executives, voluntarily dismissed the case.
On September 5, 2023, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida dismissed the lawsuit and closed the
case. Counsel for the lead plaintiffs has agreed to not refile the
case.
BurgerFi International, Inc., is fast-food chain based in
Lauderdale-by-the-Sea, Florida.
C3.AI INC: Reckstein Trust Suit Ongoing in California
-----------------------------------------------------
C3.ai, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended July 29, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in September 7, 2023, that it is facing a putative
securities class action complaint captioned "The Reckstin Family
Trust v. C3.ai, Inc. et al.," Case 22-cv-01413-HSG (March 4, 2022,
N.D. Cal.) against the company, and certain current and former
officers and directors. On December 12, 2022, the court appointed a
lead plaintiff and lead counsel.
On February 15, 2023, the lead plaintiff and three additional named
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint names
as defendants the company, four current and former officers and
directors, the underwriters in its initial public offering (IPO),
and Baker Hughes Company. The amended complaint generally alleges
that the defendants made material misstatements or omissions about
its partnership with Baker Hughes and the company's own salesforce.
The amended complaint alleges that defendants made these
misstatements or omissions in connection with the company's IPO in
violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
between December 9, 2020 and December 2, 2021, inclusive, in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
The amended complaint further alleges that certain defendants
engaged in insider trading in violation of Section 20A of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages, interest, fees and costs. All defendants have now moved to
dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint on May 1, 2023.
On June 30, 2023, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the underwriter
defendants. The remaining motions to dismiss was scheduled last
November 2, 2023.
C3.ai, Inc. is an enterprise artificial intelligence (AI) software
provider with prebuilt and configurable AI applications for
business use cases including predictive maintenance, fraud
detection, sensor network health, supply network optimization,
energy management, anti-money laundering and customer engagement.
CARESOURCE: Clay Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Deidra Clay, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CARESOURCE, Case No. 1:23-cv-01868
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on Oct. 31, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12593-ADB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
CareSource -- https://www.caresource.com/ -- offers a lifetime of
health coverage to over 2.3 million members through plan offerings
including Marketplace, Medicare products and Medicaid.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charles D. Moore, Esq.
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 South 5th Street, Suite 1900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (212) 643-0500
Fax: (212) 253-4272
Email: cmoore@reesellp.com
mreese@reesellp.com
CHEVRON FEDERAL: Miller Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Virchus Ferguson Miller, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Chevron Federal Credit
Union, Case No. 3:23-cv-04629 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 31, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12602-ADB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Contract Dispute.
Chevron Federal Credit Union -- https://www.chevronfcu.org/ -- is a
not-for-profit financial institution dedicated to improving the
economic conditions of its members.[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
Phone: (858) 209-6941
Fax: (865) 522-0049
Email: jnelson@milberg.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael Patrick Brown
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
Phone: (310) 979-8453
Fax: (310) 820-8859
Email: mpbrown@bakerlaw.com
CLEVELAND AVE: Camillus Re-Engaged as Special Master in Hogan Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JESSICA HOGAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. CLEVELAND AVE
RESTAURANT, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-02883 (S.D.
Ohio), Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, grants in part and
denies in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce the Settlement,
Re-Engage the Special Master, and Award Attorney's Fees.
The class action case involves the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
On Dec. 10, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement
Agreement between the Defendants and two separate classes of
Plaintiffs -- the "Entertainer" and the "Bartender" classes. On
Sept. 29, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the
settlement agreement.
On Nov. 23, 2020, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
enforce the settlement agreement. On May 17, 2021, the Court
approved the final Settlement Agreement. On March 31, 2022, it
approved a consent judgment entry resolving the Plaintiffs' Sept.
29, 2020, motion to enforce the agreement.
The Defendants agreed to a total settlement of $600,000 and were
ordered to make $8,000 monthly payments to the Entertainer class.
As of Aug. 8, 2023, the Defendants paid $42,000 toward the total
settlement. According to the Plaintiffs, though, the Defendants
have failed to make their $8,000 monthly payment to the Entertainer
class since December 2022. The Plaintiffs' counsel and the
Defendants' counsel negotiated informal agreements for the
Defendants' missed payments, but the Defendants failed to meet
their obligations under those informal agreements. On Aug. 2, 2023,
the Plaintiffs filed the motion sub judice. On Aug. 30, 2023, the
Defendants responded in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion.
The Defendants allege they have been unable to make their payment
obligations because of their business(es) shutting down during the
COVID19 pandemic. Their counsel states the Defendants anticipate
reopening their business(es) in November 2023 and asserts they will
be able to make their required payments then. On Sept. 11, 2023,
the Plaintiffs replied to the Defendants' response in opposition.
Under the Settlement Agreement, if the Defendants fail to pay, at
the request of the Plaintiffs' counsel, the Court can appoint a
Special Master to ensure that Defendants fulfill their payment
obligations under the Settlement Agreement. The Defendants are
responsible for the costs associated with the Special Master, to be
paid separately and in addition to the Settlement Fund.
The Court previously appointed John Camillus, Esq. to serve as a
Special Master due to the Defendants' failure to pay. The
Plaintiffs request that this Court re-engage Camillus as a Special
Master. The Defendants "reluctantly" consent to the re-appointment
of Camillus as a Special Master, but rather prefer that their
limited financial resources be used to pay settlement funds to the
Plaintiffs rather than be applied toward attorney's fees and/or
Special Master fees.
Judge Marbley states that both parties agree they came to an
agreement on the material terms of the settlement. The sole issue
is Defendants' failure to make its $8,000 monthly payments to the
Entertainer class. Based on the Defendants' repeated failure to
make required payments and meet its obligations under the informal
agreements negotiated between the Plaintiffs' counsel and the
Defendants' counsel, Judge Marbley finds the re-engagement of a
Special Master appropriate. Accordingly, he grants the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Enforce the Settlement and Re-Engage the Services of the
Special Master.
The Plaintiffs also request that the Court imposes an attorney's
fee award that would require the Defendants to pay the Plaintiffs'
counsels' fees after the Defendants have paid all other settlement
money owed to the Entertainer class. Judge Marbley holds that the
Plaintiffs' counsel did not provide the Court with a lodestar rate
or any evidence supporting the hours worked and rates claimed.
Accordingly, he denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of
Attorney's Fees. If the Plaintiffs' counsel wishes to file another
motion for attorney's fees that includes the required information,
he will re-consider his ruling.
For the reasons set forth, Judge Marbley grants in part and denies
in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce the Settlement, Re-Engage
the Special Master, and Award Attorney's Fees. Specifically, he
grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce the Settlement and
Re-Engage the Special Master. The Consent Judgment Entry from March
31, 2022, remains in effect. John Camillus, Esq. is re-engaged as
Special Master.
The scope of Camillus' appointment will be consistent with the
Enforcement Terms in the Settlement Agreement, namely, "The Special
Master will have wide discretion to oversee Defendants Sirens,
Francis Sharrak and/or Michael Sharrak's income and assets to
ensure the required payments are met." Once services are rendered,
Camillus is directed to submit an invoice to the Defendants. The
Defendants will pay the invoice submitted by Camillus within 30
days of receipt of the invoice.
Judge Marbley denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of
Attorney's Fees.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2023, Opinion & Order is
available at https://shorturl.at/diqPX from PacerMonitor.com.
COMPASS INC: Batton Sues Over Real Estate Commission Monopoly
-------------------------------------------------------------
MYA BATTON, AARON BOLTON, MICHAEL BRACE, DO YEON IRENE KIM, ANNA
JAMES, JAMES MULLIS, and THEODORE BISBICOS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COMPASS,
INC.; EXP WORLD HOLDINGS, INC.; REDFIN CORPORATION; WEICHERT
REALTORS; UNITED REAL ESTATE GROUP; HOWARD HANNA REAL ESTATE
SERVICES; and DOUGLAS ELLIMAN INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-15618 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 2, 2023) alleges that the Defendants
violated federal antitrust law and state antitrust statutes,
consumer protection laws, and common law.
According to the complaint, for decades, home buyers across America
have been unwittingly paying too much for, and receiving too little
from, services offered to them by real estate agent members of
National Association of Realtors. Despite agent representations
(which NAR permits and encourages) that such services do not cost
home buyers anything, home buyers in fact pay a hefty cost for
these services -- namely, supracompetitive commissions at levels
fixed by the Defendants.
The Defendants' conspiracy has substantially reduced competition in
the market for buyer-agent services to the detriment of American
home buyers. Specifically, Defendants' conspiracy enables brokers
to raise, fix, and maintain buyer-agent compensation at
artificially high levels that would not exist in a competitive
marketplace, which in turn causes home buyers to pay higher prices.
The conspiracy also enables brokers to "steer" home buyers away
from lower commission homes.
Compass, Inc. operates as a real estate technology company. The
Company provides an online platform that supports buying, renting,
and selling real estate asset workflow. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Esq.
George A. Zelcs, Esq.
Ryan Z. Cortazar, Esq.
KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1950
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 641-9750
Facsimile: (312) 641-9751
Email: gzelcs@koreintillery.com
rewing@koreintillery.com
rcortazar@koreintillery.com
- and -
Michael E. Klenov, Esq.
Carol O’Keefe, Esq.
KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 241-4844
Facsimile: (314) 241-3525
Email: mklenov@koreintillery.com
cokeefe@koreintillery.com
- and -
Vincent Briganti, Esq.
Christian Levis, Esq.
Noelle Forde, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
Email: vbriganti@lowey.com
clevis@lowey.com
nforde@lowey.com
CONTRACT LAND: All Case Deadlines in Weinmann Stayed
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WEINMANN v. CONTRACT LAND
STAFF, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01140 (W.D. Pa., Filed Aug 4, 2022),
the Hon. Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand entered an order granting
joint motion to stay all case deadlines pending mediation.
-- The Court is not inclined to grant any further extensions or
stays to the class certification briefing schedule or the
completion of the second phase of discovery.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
involving denial of overtime compensation.
Contract Land is a service provider for land services in the
Pipeline, Electric, Public, and Renewable Energies sectors
nationwide.[CC]
CREDIT BUREAU: Kang Seeks Amendment of Settlement Order
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUNG GON KANG,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. CREDIT
BUREAU CONNECTION, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-01359-SKO (E.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order amending its Order
Granting Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement and Granting in Part Unopposed Motion for Attorney's
Fees and Costs and for Approval of Service Award and Individual
Settlement.
The Plaintiff Sun Gong Kang accepts the Court's Final Approval
Order and plans to implement the Settlement according to its terms
as ordered by the Court.
In order to ensure the record is correct, however, Plaintiff
requests that the Court make certain amendments to the Final
Approval Order nunc pro tunc. These proposed amendments will not
alter the substance of the Court's Order or change the amounts of
any payments that the Court has ordered to be made.
Rather, the amendments are intended solely to ensure that the
record is consistent and accurately expresses the Court's
intentions.
First, the Final Approval Order contains a misstatement regarding
the Settlement's funding mechanism.
Regarding attorneys' fees, CBC is obligated to pay the amount
awarded by the Court, not to exceed $1,620,000.
Thus, amounts not awarded in fees will not be paid into Escrow and
will not be available for distribution to Class Members. The Final
Approval Order, however, mistakenly suggests that amounts not
awarded in attorneys' fees will be redistributed to the Class
and/or to a cy pres recipient.
Credit Bureau is the industry leader in credit report and
compliance solutions.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 1, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SuaauC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
Amy E. Tabor, Esq.
CADDELL & CHAPMAN
628 East 9th Street
Houston TX 77007-1722
Telephone: (713) 751-0400
Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com
cbc@caddellchapman.com
aet@caddellchapman.com
- and -
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, 25th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
DAVID CORNELL: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against David Cornell & Co.,
Inc. The case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. David Cornell & Co., Inc., Case
No. 1:23-cv-09552 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
David Cornell & Co., Inc. doing business as Cornell's Jewelers --
https://www.cornellsjewelers.com/ -- is an enduring boutique
offering fine jewelry, including custom pieces & designer
collections since 1923.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
DECOCRATED INC: Nguyen Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
KIM NGUYEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DECOCRATED, INC., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-23-020277 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., Oct. 26,
2023) is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief, and
damages for Defendant's violations of the Caller ID Rules of the
Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
The Plaintiff brings this action alleging that Defendant made text
message sales calls that promoted Decocrated 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.
Decocrated, Inc. is a home decor subscription service with its
principal place of business in Florida.[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
DISTRIBUTION SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Cyber Incident Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution Solutions Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the cyber incident class
suit in for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
On February 10, 2022, DSG disclosed that its computer network was
the subject of a cyber incident potentially involving unauthorized
access to certain confidential information (the "Cyber Incident").
On April 4, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit (the "Cyber
Incident Suit") was filed against DSG entitled Lardone Davis, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Lawson
Products, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02118, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.
The plaintiff in this case, who purports to represent the class of
individuals harmed by alleged actions and/or omissions by DSG in
connection with the Cyber Incident, asserts a variety of common law
and statutory claims seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief
and other related relief related to the potential unauthorized
access by third parties to personal identifiable information and
protected health information.
DSG disagrees with and intends to vigorously defend against the
Cyber Incident Suit.
Distribution Solutions Group, Inc. operates as a specialty
distribution company. The Company provides high touch and
value-added distribution solutions to the maintenance, repair and
operations (MRO), original equipment manufacturer (OEM), and the
industrial technologies markets. [BN]
DOCUSIGN INC: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Docusign, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended July 29, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in September 7, 2023, that that it is facing a
consolidated case in the Northern District of California that has
been stayed in light of an existing securities class action and no
response to the complaints in the action will be due unless and
until the stay is lifted.
On May 20, 2022, case captioned "Votto v. Springer, et al.," Case
No. 3:22-cv-02987 filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, named the company as a nominal defendant
and members of its board of directors or, in certain instances,
current or former officers, as defendants. Suit purports to allege
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on
allegedly false and misleading statements about its business and
prospects during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Suit is
purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of company securities
between June 4, 2020 and June 9, 2022. The court consolidated this
on July 19, 2022.
DocuSign is the global leader in the eSignature category offering
products that address broader agreement workflows, and digital
transformation, including electronic signature products, enabling
agreements to be signed electronically on a wide variety of
devices, from virtually anywhere in the world, securely.
DOCUSIGN INC: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Ongoing in CA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Docusign, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended July 29, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in September 7, 2023, that it is facing a consolidated
case in the Northern District of California that has been stayed in
light of an existing securities class action and no response to the
complaints in the action will be due unless and until the stay is
lifted.
On May 19, 2022, case captioned "Lapin v. Springer, et al.," Case
No. 3:22-cv-02980 filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, named the company as a nominal defendant
and members of its board of directors or, in certain instances,
current or former officers, as defendants. Suit purports to allege
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on
allegedly false and misleading statements about its business and
prospects during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Suit is
purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of company securities
between June 4, 2020 and June 9, 2022. The court consolidated this
on July 19, 2022.
DocuSign is the global leader in the eSignature category offering
products that address broader agreement workflows, and digital
transformation, including electronic signature products, enabling
agreements to be signed electronically on a wide variety of
devices, from virtually anywhere in the world, securely.
DOCUSIGN INC: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Stayed
--------------------------------------------------
Docusign, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended July 29, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in September 7, 2023, that it a consolidated shareholder
suit has been stayed by the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware.
Case was originally captioned "Pottetti v. Springer, et al.," Case
No. 1:22-cv-00652 was filed on May 17, 2022, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware names the company as a nominal
defendant and members of its board of directors or, in certain
instances, current or former officers, as defendants. Suit purports
to allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based
on allegedly false and misleading statements about its business and
prospects during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Suit is
purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of company securities
between June 4, 2020 and June 9, 2022. This was voluntarily
dismissed on September 1, 2022, and then re-filed and on September
30, 2022, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an order staying
the action.
DocuSign is the global leader in the eSignature category offering
products that address broader agreement workflows, and digital
transformation, including electronic signature products, enabling
agreements to be signed electronically on a wide variety of
devices, from virtually anywhere in the world, securely.
DOCUSIGN INC: Weston Shareholder Suit Ongoing in California Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Docusign, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended July 29, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in September 7, 2023, that it is facing a putative
securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on February 8, 2022,, captioned
"Weston v. DocuSign, Inc., et al.," Case No. 3:22-cv-00824, naming
DocuSign and certain of its current and former officers as
defendants. An amended complaint was filed on July 8, 2022.
Suit purports to allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, based on allegedly false and misleading statements
about its business and prospects during the course of the COVID-19
pandemic. Suit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of
company securities between June 4, 2020 and June 9, 2022.
Its motion to dismiss the case at the pleading stage was denied by
the U.S. District Court on April 18, 2023 and the suit is now
proceeding.
DocuSign is the global leader in the eSignature category offering
products that address broader agreement workflows, and digital
transformation, including electronic signature products, enabling
agreements to be signed electronically on a wide variety of
devices, from virtually anywhere in the world, securely.
ELANCO ANIMAL: Hunter Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Sandra Hunter, et al., filed an appeal from the District
Court's Order and Final Judgment dated September 27, 2023 entered
in the lawsuit styled SANDRA HUNTER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH
INCORPORATED, JEFFREY N. SIMMONS, and TODD S. YOUNG, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01460-SEB-MG, in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana.
The lawsuit is brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
relating to the precipitous decline in the market value of Elanco's
securities, on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Company's securities between
January 10, 2020, and May 6, 2020, inclusive.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made
materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to
disclose to investors that after consolidating its distributors
from eight to four, the Company increased the amount of inventory,
including companion animal products, held by each distributor, says
the complaint.
On September 27, 2023, Judge Sarah Evans Barker entered an Order
denying Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint and
dismissing the case. For all the reasons discussed in the entry,
the Court concluded that the allegations in Plaintiffs' proposed
second amended complaint are redundant, immaterial, and
unresponsive to the instructions issued in its August 2022 order
dismissing Plaintiffs' first amended complaint. Granting
Plaintiffs' leave to amend, as the current proposed version of the
Complaint stands, would therefore be futile. Consequently,
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint was
DENIED. Final judgment was also entered in favor of Defendants.
The appellate case is captioned as SANDRA HUNTER and MARLA STRAPPE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH INCORPORATED, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 23-3061, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on Oct. 26, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants' Docketing statement was due November 1, 2023;
-- Appellants' Transcript information sheet was due on November
9, 2023; and
-- Appellant's brief is due on December 5, 2023.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants SANDRA HUNTER and MARLA STRAPPE are
represented by:
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Kara M. Wolke, Esq.
Melissa C. Wright, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: kwolke@glancylaw.com
- and -
Offer Korin, Esq.
STOLL KEENON OGDEN, PLLC
The Emelie Building
334 North Senate Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 464-1100
Facsimile: (317) 464-1111
E-mail: offer.korin@skofirm.com
- and -
Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 914-5007
Defendants-Appellees ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH INCORPORATED, et al., are
represented by:
Emanuel McMiller, Esq.
Paul A. Wolfla, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
300 N. Meridian Street Suite 2500
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 237-1126
Facsimile: (317) 237-1000
E-mail: manny.mcmiller@faegredrinker.com
paul.wolfla@faegredrinker.com
- and -
Gena L. Gonzales, Esq.
Gregory S. Silbert, Esq.
John A. Neuwirth, Esq.
Stacy Nettleton, Esq.
WEIL GOTSHAL MANGES LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
Telephone: (212) 310-8000
Facsimile: (212) 310-8007
E-mail: gena.gonzales@weil.com
gregory.silbert@weil.com
john.neuwirth@weil.com
stacy.nettleton@weil.com
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION: Morvant Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Christine Morvant, individually & on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Financial Institution Service
Corp, Case No. 2:23-cv-01361 was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Louisiana, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 31, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12603-ADB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Financial Institution Service Corporation (FISC) --
https://fiscdp.com/ -- is a bank service corporation owned by its
over 55 member banks which collectively represent more than $24
billion in assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd A. Townsley, Esq.
Hannah Elizabeth Mayeaux, Esq.
TOWNSLEY LAW FIRM
3102 Enterprise Blvd
Lake Charles, LA 70601
Phone: (337) 478-1400
Fax: (337) 478-1577
Email: ahebert@townsleylawfirm.com
hannah@townsleylawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
James M. Garner, Esq.
Joshua Simon Force, Esq.
SHER GARNER ET AL (NO)
909 Poydras St Ste 2800
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 299-2100
Email: jgarner@shergarner.com
jforce@shergarner.com
FINE RAW: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Knowles Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FINE & RAW LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-09500-LJL (S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2023) alleges
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act in connection
with the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's website, https://www.fineandraw.com/, is not
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers,
violating the ADA. Accordingly, Plaintiff Knowles seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
FINE & RAW LLC operates the FINE & RAW online retail store across
the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
FORD MOTOR: Dorfman Sues Over Defective Motor Vehicle Cameras
-------------------------------------------------------------
NEIL DORFMAN; TRAVIS CORBY; CHAD HOBSON; and ALLEN DAVIS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-15607
(N.D. Ill., Nov. 2, 2023) seeks damages against Ford for breach of
the manufacturer's warranty and for unfair and deceptive practices
pertaining to its design and manufacture of 2020-2023 Ford
Explorer, 2020-2023 Lincoln Aviator, and 2020-2023 Lincoln Corsair
vehicles outfitted with a 360-Degree Camera system.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant concealed
the latent defects in the Class Vehicles' 360-Degree Camera system
causing glitches, blue or black screens, and camera failures,
rendering the Class Vehicle's Camera inoperative (the "Camera
Defect").
As a result of Ford's unfair, deceptive and fraudulent business
practices, owners and/or lessees of the Class Vehicles, including
Plaintiffs, have suffered an ascertainable loss of money and/or
property and/or loss in vehicle value. As a result of the Camera
Defect and Ford's continued inability to remedy the safety defect,
the Plaintiffs and the Class members have suffered injury in fact,
incurred damages, and have been otherwise harmed and continue to be
harmed by Ford's conduct, the suit alleges.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY designs, manufactures, and services cars and
trucks. The Company also provides vehicle-related financing,
leasing, and insurance through its subsidiary. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Derek Y. Brandt, Esq.
Leigh M. Perica, Esq.
MCCUNE LAW GROUP, MCCUNE
WRIGHT AREVALO VERCOSKI
KUSEL WECK BRANDT, APC
231 North Main Street, Suite 20
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Telephone: (618) 307-6116
Email: dyb@mccunewright.com
lmp@mccunewright.com
- and -
Richard D. McCune, Esq.
David C. Wright, Esq.
MCCUNE LAW GROUP, MCCUNE
WRIGHT AREVALO VERCOSKI
3281 E. Guasti, Road, Suite 100
Ontario, CA 91761
Telephone: (909) 557-1250
Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
Email: rdm@mccunewright.com
dcw@mccunewright.com
- and -
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Sharon Almonrode, Esq.
Emily E. Hughes, Esq.
Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
Mitchell Kendrick, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 W University Dr # 300,
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
Email: epm@millerlawpc.com
ssa@millerlawpc.com
eeh@millerlawpc.com
dal@millerlawpc.com
wk@millerlawpc.com
FORD MOTOR: S.D. California Tosses Bid for Arbitration in Scriber
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL SCRIBER, et al., individually and on behalf
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-1716-MMA-AHG (S.D. Cal.), Judge Michael
M. Anello of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California denies Ford's motion to compel arbitration.
Plaintiffs Michael Scriber, Stacy Powell, Doug Harrigan, and Susan
Wisner Phillips bring this putative class action against Ford
("Second Amended Complaint). On June 29, 2023, Ford filed a motion
to compel arbitration. The Plaintiffs filed an opposition, to which
Ford replied.
Between 2016 and 2020, the Plaintiffs purchased or leased new Ford
vehicles: in August 2020, Scriber purchased a new 2020 Ford Fusion
Energi; in December 2019, Powell leased a new 2019 Ford Fusion
Energi, which she later purchased in October 2020; in October 2020,
Harrigan purchased a new 2020 Ford Fusion Energi; and in July 2016,
Phillips leased a new 2016 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid Reserve. The Vehicles
were covered by a 3 year/36,000-mile New Vehicle Limited Warranty.
All the Vehicles were equipped with a 3G modem, and the Plaintiffs
allege they were not informed of this fact at the time of their
purchase or lease.
The 3G modem is an onboard wireless module that allows vehicle
owners to communicate with their vehicles using AT&T's 3G network.
It equipped the Vehicles with internet-capable features, such as
roadside emergency safety, and allowed the Plaintiffs to remote
start the Vehicles, check whether the Vehicles were charging,
schedule charging, check the Vehicles' location, monitor fuel
level, and check basic system functions such as battery life. These
features were available through the MyFord Mobile App and MyLincoln
App. Generally speaking, the Plaintiffs allege that Ford's 3G modem
was rendered inoperable after AT&T's 3G phase out in 2022. They
allege that Ford knew AT&T's phase out of the 3G network was
inevitable as early as 2019 and yet continued to manufacture the
Vehicles with a 3G modem. The Plaintiffs allege that to date they
have not obtained an adequate repair or replacement for the
non-functional 3G modem.
As a result, they bring the following five causes of action on
behalf of a class of consumers who purchased the Vehicles: (1)
breach of express warranty; (2) breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability; (3) violation of California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750 et seq. (CLRA); (4)
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code Section 17200 et seq. (UCL); and (5) fraudulent omission.
As an initial matter, Ford has filed a request for judicial notice
in connection with its motion. It asks the Court to judicially
notice three exhibits: (1) excerpted pages from Ford Credit Auto
Lease Two LLC, CAB East LLC, and CAB West LLC's Form SF-3
Registration Statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 8, 2022 (RFJN Ex. A); (2) a copy of the Retail
Installment Sale Contract entered into between Plaintiff Harrigan
and Fairway Ford on Oct. 15, 2020 (RFJN Ex. B); and (3) a copy of
the Retail Installment Sale Contract entered into between Plaintiff
Scriber and El Cajon Ford on Aug. 30, 2020 (RFJN Ex. C). The
Plaintiffs have not responded to or otherwise opposed Ford's
request.
Judge Anello finds that Exhibit A is a public record, available on
a government website, that is neither in dispute nor can reasonably
be questioned. Additionally, he finds that the Plaintiff
incorporates Exhibits B and C by reference in the Second Amended
Complaint. Accordingly, he grants Ford's request and takes judicial
notice of Exhibits A, B, and C.
Ford moves to compel arbitration based upon the following
agreements: (1) Scriber and Harrigan's sale contracts; (2) Powell
and Phillips' lease agreements; and (3) Scriber, Harrigan, and
Phillips' "Connected Services" agreements. The Plaintiffs argue
that Ford cannot enforce these agreements, or that they do not
provide for mandatory arbitration.
First, Ford argues that the Plaintiffs concede that Ford's
obligations forming the basis for their claims were part of the
contract they entered with Ford when they purchased their vehicles.
It also points to the Plaintiffs' theory of liability -- that they
paid more for the Vehicles than they were worth -- and the
Plaintiffs' citation to California Civil Code Section 1572 in their
First Amended Complaint.
Judge Anello finds that Ford has not demonstrated it may enforce
the arbitration provisions in the Sale Contracts against the
Plaintiffs Scriber and Harrigan based upon a theory of agency. He
also finds that the doctrine of equitable estoppel does not permit
Ford to compel arbitration. For these reasons, Judge Anello denies
Ford's motion to compel arbitration based upon the Sale Contracts
under a theory of agency or the doctrine of equitable estoppel.
Next, Ford asserts that the Plaintiffs Powell and Phillips must be
compelled to arbitrate their claims based upon the arbitration
provisions in their lease agreements. It argues it may compel
Powell and Phillips to arbitrate their claims based upon equitable
estoppel, agency, and third-party beneficiary theories.
Judge Anello finds that both Lease Agreements provide that the
contract is subject to the FAA and contain arbitration provision.
There is no evidence or argument that the Dealers acted on Ford's
behalf when entering into these Lease Agreements. The express and
implied warranties are independent of the Lease Agreements. Ford's
relative proximity to the contract confirms that the parties easily
could have indicated that the contract was intended to benefit Ford
-- but did not do so. Accordingly, Judge Anello denies Ford's
motion to compel Plaintiffs Powell and Phillips to arbitrate their
claims on this basis.
Finally, Ford contends that Plaintiffs Scriber, Harrigan, and
Phillips must be compelled to arbitrate their claims based upon the
terms of their mobile app agreements (Connected Services
Agreements). It maintains that Scriber, Harrigan, and Phillips
maintain such accounts and that account holders are required to
agree to the Connected Services Agreements' terms and conditions to
access and manage the accounts.
Judge Anello denies Ford's motion to compel arbitration based upon
the Connected Services Agreements. While the Court must address the
gateway issues in resolving a motion to compel arbitration, it is
Ford's burden to demonstrate that these questions of law should be
resolved in its favor. Judge Anello finds that Ford has not met its
burden of showing that there is a mandatory arbitration agreement
that encompasses the dispute under Michigan law.
Based upon the foregoing, Judge Anello denies Ford's motion to
compel arbitration.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/6dh33v from PacerMonitor.com.
FSL MAGNOLIA: Osumgboye Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FSL Magnolia Court,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Miriasiem Osumgboye, on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. FSL MAGNOLIA COURT, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 23CV010852 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 31,
2023).
The Magnolia Court community -- http://magnoliacourtca.com/--
offers assisted senior living & memory care in Vacaville,
California.[BN]
FULFILLMENT LAB: Method of Class Notice in Sihler Suit Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JANET SIHLER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated; CHARLENE BAVENCOFF, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly, Plaintiffs v. THE FULFILLMENT LAB, INC;
RICHARD NELSON; BEYOND GLOBAL, INC.; BRIGHTREE HOLDINGS CORP.; BMOR
GLOBAL LLC; DAVID FLYNN; RICKIE JOE JAMES, Defendants, Case No.
20cv1528-LL-DDL (S.D. Cal.), Judge Linda Lopez of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California grants in part and
denies in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for approval of their
proposed class notice plan.
On March 7, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the operative complaint,
which is their Second Amended Complaint, alleging the Defendants
are involved in a fraudulent online scheme in which they allegedly
use fake celebrity and magazine endorsements, as well as
misrepresentations about price and limited availability, to induce
customers into purchasing weight-loss pills branded as "Ultra Fast
Keto Boost," "Instant Keto," or "InstaKeto" (collectively "Keto
Products"). The Defendants allegedly charge customers more than
they agreed to pay, make it difficult or impossible to return the
products or receive a refund, and operate "false front" websites to
mislead banks and credit card companies investigating chargebacks.
The Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action against the
Defendants: (1) violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act (CLRA), (2) violation of California's False Advertising Law
(FAL), (3) violation of the unfair and fraudulent prongs of
California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), (4) violation of the
unlawful prong of California's UCL, and (5) civil Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations.
On June 23, 2023, two classes were certified and defined as the
following:
(1) A nationwide class for the RICO claim consisting of all
consumers in the United States who, within the applicable
statute of limitations period until the date notice is
disseminated, were billed for shipments of either three
bottles or five bottles of Ultra Fast Keto Boost,
InstaKeto, or Instant Keto; and
(2) A California subclass for the state law causes of action
consisting of all consumers in California who, within the
applicable statute of limitations period until the date
notice is disseminated, were billed for shipments of
either three bottles or five bottles of Ultra Fast Keto
Boost, InstaKeto, or Instant Keto.
The Plaintiffs developed the proposed notice plan in consultation
with Epiq Class Action and Claims Solutions, Inc. and its business
unit Hilsoft Notifications, which they expect will reach at least
90% of the members of the class. They based their proposed notice
plan on the Federal Judicial Center's guidelines for class notice.
The Plaintiffs will send direct email notice to class members at
the email addresses provided by class members when ordering Keto
Products.
If an email is undeliverable, the notice administrator will correct
any errors and attempt to resend the email. If the second attempt
is unsuccessful, the notice administrator will send direct notice
via a postcard mailed first class through the United States Postal
Service to the address provided by the class member when ordering
Keto Products. Both the email and postcard notices will direct
class members to a website created and maintained by Epiq, which
will provide additional information about this case and access to
copies of select court filings.
The email, mail, and website notices will also include a post
office box and email address allowing class members to contact the
administrator with questions, as well as a toll-free number that
will provide recorded answers to frequently asked questions. The
content of the proposed email notice, mail notice, and website
notice was corrected by Plaintiffs at the Court's request and
submitted on Oct. 18, 2023.
Judge Lopez generally finds the content of the proposed corrected
email notice, mail notice, and website notice conveys the
information required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B)
in plain neutral language with a few exceptions. First, to clarify
to class members whether they fit into the class definition, the
notices should include the appropriate specific date range of
purchases that satisfies the statute of limitations. Second,
question No. 11 of the website notice that asks, "Are any
purchasers of Ultra Fast Keto Boost, InstaKeto or Instant Keto not
included in the Class?" includes an explanation that does not fit
the class definitions. Third, the email address of the
administrator should be consistently disclosed. Finally, the
deadline and method for class members to opt out of the class
action should be consistent across the notices.
Judge Lopez also finds that the proposed notice plan is reasonably
calculated to reach class members through individual notice and
inform them of the certification of the class action.
For the reasons set forth, Judge Lopez grants in part and denies in
part the Plaintiffs' Motion for approval of their proposed class
notice plan as follows:
1. The method of notice is approved.
2. The Plaintiffs must revise the content of the notices to
correct the deficiencies noted by the Court and submit a Second
Motion for Court Approval of Proposed Class Notice Plan by Nov. 22,
2023. The Second Motion must contain exhibits of the red-lined
revisions made to the notices. The Plaintiffs must meet and confer
with Defendants regarding the proposed revisions, make a good faith
effort to agree on them, and indicate in the Second Motion whether
the Defendants plan to oppose the revised proposed content of the
notices.
3. Any opposition to the Second Motion must be filed by Nov.
30, 2023.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2023, Order is available at
https://shorturl.at/zDJLU from PacerMonitor.com.
GOLDMAN SACHS: $215MM Settlement in Chen-Oster Suit Wins Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, H. CRISTINA CHEN-OSTER; SHANNA ORLICH; ALLISON GAMBA;
and MARY DE LUIS, Plaintiffs v. GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. and THE GOLDMAN
SACHS GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 10 Civ. 6950 (AT) (RWL)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Analisa Torres of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York grants the Plaintiffs' unopposed
Motions for Final Approval of Settlement, and for Approval of
Service Award and Attorneys' Fees and Costs.
The settlement in the case follows vigorously contested litigation
in the Court on behalf of a class of female associates and vice
presidents in revenue-producing positions at Goldman Sachs in the
Investment Banking, Investment Management, or Securities divisions
or any of their successor groupings in the United States for nearly
13 years.
On May 15, 2023, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement
under Rule 23(e)(1). Since that time, nothing has occurred to alter
the Court's analysis. The Class Member response to the Settlement
has been positive, with only 16 of 2,845 Class Members seeking to
exclude themselves.
One Class Member objected to the Settlement. Judge Torres has
carefully reviewed the written objection and finds that it does not
affect the Court's evaluation of the Settlement's adequacy and
fairness. The Plaintiffs pursued a case on behalf of women in
revenue-producing roles at Goldman Sachs, and those are the only
roles that were ever at issue in the litigation or part of the
putative class. The written objection seeks to alter the class
definition to include people who were never in the class to begin
with, which courts routinely reject. Women who worked in
non-revenue producing roles are not affected by the Settlement, and
the Settlement does not release any claims brought by such women.
The objection is, therefore, overruled.
Judge Torres finally approves the Settlement as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement. She has reviewed the terms of the proposed
Settlement Agreement along with its exhibits, including
specifically the programmatic and monetary relief, and the
Plaintiffs' Motions for Final Approval. Based on a review of those
papers, and the Court's familiarity with the case, Judge Torres
concludes that the relief provided to the class under the
Settlement is the result of extensive, arm's-length negotiations
and is in all respects fair, reasonable, and adequate, and binding
on all members of the Class who have not opted out. The
programmatic and monetary relief are significant and meaningful,
especially when weighed against the risks of ongoing litigation.
The parties have agreed to the detailed programmatic relief as set
forth in the Settlement Agreement. They have also agreed to
monetary relief for Settlement Class Members, as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement. The relief to the Settlement Class Members
consists of $215 million inclusive of payment for: (a) Settlement
Shares to Class Members, (b) all Service Awards paid to Settlement
Class Representatives, as awarded by the Court, (c) all Class
Counsel Attorneys' Fees and Class Counsel Litigation Expenses, as
awarded by the Court, (d) all Settlement Administration Costs, as
awarded by the Court, and (e) applicable federal, state, and local
income taxes, and all federal and state unemployment taxes required
by law to be withheld other than those to be paid for by the
Defendants.
Within 14 days of the Settlement Effective Date, the Settlement
Administrator will distribute checks to all Participating
Settlement Class Members in the amount of her Settlement Share as
determined by the Settlement Administrator based on the Plan of
Allocation and $250,000 each to Named Plaintiffs and Settlement
Class Representatives Cristina Chen-Oster, Shanna Bowman, Allison
Gamba, and Mary De Luis for their approved Service Awards. Within
12 days of the Settlement Effective Date, the Settlement
Administrator will also pay, or cause to be paid, by wire transfer,
$71,665,000 in Court-approved attorneys' fees and $6,684,806.15 in
out-of-pocket litigation costs to Class Counsel.
Each Settlement Class Member will have 180 days to cash her check.
The Settlement Administrator will distribute a reminder postcard 60
days prior to the check expiration date, will attempt to contact
Settlement Class Members who have not cashed their checks via
telephone or email, will perform an address trace for any
undeliverable checks, and will re-send the checks if a different
address is found.
If, 180 days after initial distribution from Net Settlement Fund,
there is a remaining balance of more than $150,000.00 in the Net
Settlement Fund, a second distribution will be made to those
Participating Settlement Class Members who deposited their initial
check, and will provide Participating Settlement Class Members with
another 180 days to cash the second checks. If, after this second
distribution, there is a remaining balance of funds in the Net
Settlement Fund (or if there is no redistribution), the remaining
balance will be paid to cy pres recipients the National Women's Law
Center and Equal Rights Advocates.
As of the Effective Date, pursuant to the Judgment, and without
further action by anyone, the Settlement Class Representatives and
all Participating Settlement Class Members will be deemed to have,
and, by operation of the Judgment, will have, fully, finally, and
forever waived, released, and discharged all Released Claims
against all Released Defendants' Persons, and will forever be
barred and enjoined from commencing, instituting, or prosecuting
any action or proceeding in any court, tribunal or forum asserting
any of the Released Claims against any of the Release Defendants'
Persons. This Release will have res judicata, collateral estoppel,
and all other preclusive effects in all pending and future
lawsuits, arbitrations, or other suits, actions or proceedings
involving any of the Release Defendants' Persons. Upon the
Effective Date, all class claims, including the class claims of the
Settlement Class Representatives, will be deemed voluntarily
dismissed with prejudice.
Judge Torres awards the Class Counsel one-third of the settlement,
or $71,665,000 in attorneys' fees and $6,684,806.15 in
out-of-pocket litigation costs for their efforts in support of this
litigation. She also approves the service awards of $250,000 each
to the Named Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Representatives
Chen-Oster, Orlich, Gamba and De Luis.
Without affecting the finality of this Final Approval Order and
Final Judgment, the Court will retain jurisdiction over
implementation of the Settlement Agreement for one year from the
Effective Date, including without limitation the release of claims
and litigation bar set forth in Section VII.A.1 of the Settlement
Agreement, distributions from the Settlement Fund, and payment of
Settlement Shares to Participating Settlement Class Members.
As of the Effective Date of the Settlement, the action will
automatically be dismissed with prejudice, except that the Court
will retain continuing jurisdiction as set forth. The parties will
abide by all terms of the Settlement Agreement.
The Clerk of Court will terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 1447,
1450, 1460. Any other pending motions are moot. All conferences are
vacated. The Clerk of Court is further directed to close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2023, Order is available at
https://rb.gy/l95yyr from PacerMonitor.com.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Willis Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHERALE WILLIS, SANDY COLBERT, and TIFFANEY PEACOCK, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a GEICO and GEICO
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a GEICO, Defendants, Case No.
5:23-cv-00430-CAR (M.D. Ga., Oct. 26, 2023) seeks to recover the
proper overtime wages of Plaintiffs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, liquidated damages,
and all attorney's fees and costs.
This case is related to Benvenutti v. Government Employees
Insurance Company d/b/a GEICO et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-00182, an
FLSA collective action currently pending in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. The Plaintiffs
bring this action against Defendants on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated employees who were not included on the
Benvenutti case Notice Lists.
The Plaintiffs and those similarly situated are hourly-paid GEICO
employees who have handled communications with GEICO customers
and/or communications related to GEICO customers and were assigned
to work for and/or were managed out of GEICO's Macon, Georgia call
center within the last three years.
GEICO owns and operates an insurance company that provides services
to clients who reside in various states across the United States,
including in the state of Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Nicholas Stanojevich, Esq.
QUINN, CONNOR, WEAVER, DAVIES & ROUCO, LLP
4100 Perimeter Park South
Atlanta, GA 30341
Telephone: (404) 299-1211
E-mail: nstanojevich@qcwdr.com
- and -
Richard Rouco, Esq.
QUINN, CONNOR, WEAVER, DAVIES & ROUCO, LLP
2 - 20th Street North, Suite 930
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 870-9989
E-mail: rrouco@qcwdr.com
- and -
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
Nicole A. Chanin, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC
200 31st Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 244-2202
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
nchanin@barrettjohnston.com
GUARDIAN INTERNATIONAL: Guzman Sues Over Wage and Hour Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GUZMAN, ALFREDO,on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GUARDIAN INTERNATIONAL SOLUTIONS, INC.; AND
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive; Defendants, Case No. 23STCV26481
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., October 30, 2023) arises out of the
Defendants' violations of the Private Attorneys General Act, the
California Labor Code and the applicable Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Order due to their engagement in unfair wage and
hour practices.
Plaintiff Guzman was employed by Defendants as a security guard
from approximately June 2021-March 2023. However, he was
misclassified as an independent contractor. Among other things, the
Defendants failed to maintain accurate time and payroll records for
Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees as required by Labor Code
section 1174 and the applicable IWC Wage Order, Section 7, says the
suit.
Guardian International Solutions, Inc. is a California corporation
that provides security services in the Los Angeles area. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake R. Jones, Esq.
BLAKE JONES LAW, PC
355 South Grand Avenue
Suite 2450 - #2052
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (323) 576-3221
E-mail: blake@blakejones.law
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Humphries Files Suit in D. South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harley-Davidson Inc.
The case is styled as Robert Humphries, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Harley-Davidson Inc, Case No.
7:23-cv-05524-DCC (D.S.C., Oct. 30, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Harley-Davidson, Inc. -- https://www.harley-davidson.com/ -- is an
American motorcycle manufacturer headquartered in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
Blake Garrett Abbott, Esq.
POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (843) 834-4712
Email: pauld@akimlawfirm.com
blake@akimlawfirm.com
HARVARD COLLECTION: Steinmetz Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harvard Collection
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Benyamin Steinmetz,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Harvard Collection Services, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01358-MAD-DJS
(W.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Harvard Collection Services, LLC -- https://www.harvardcollect.com/
-- is a debt collection agency in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tamir Saland, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: tsaland@steinsakslegal.com
HONG KONG LAUNDROMAT: Lawrence Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hong Kong Laundromat
8 Inc., et al. The case is styled as Nana Queenie Lawrence, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hong Kong Laundromat 8
Inc., 123 Graham Incorporated, Case No. 1:23-cv-08109-DLI-JAM
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Hong Kong Laundromat 8 Inc. offers laundry services in New York
City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Bell, Esq.
BELL LAW GROUP PLLC
116 Jackson Avenue
Syosset, NY 11791
Phone: (516) 280-3008
Fax: (516) 706-4692
Email: jb@belllg.com
ILINKO INC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ilinko, Inc. The case
is styled as Silvia Martinez, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Ilinko, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08064
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
iLinko -- http://www.ilinko.com/-- is a premier B2B product
development destination that facilitates the design, engineering
and procurement for high-volume, time-critical finished and
semi-finished hard goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
IQVIA HOLDINGS: Faces Ramirez Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELO RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. IQVIA HOLDINGS INC., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-23-020141 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., Oct. 24,
2023) arises from the Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to pay Plaintiff and other Collective
Action Members overtime premium compensation for hours worked over
40 in a single workweek.
Plaintiff Ramirez was employed by IQVIA in Florida as a sales
representative at all times relevant to this matter. Pursuant to
IQVIA's policy, pattern or practice, Plaintiff asserts that he was
not paid proper compensation for all hours worked while engaged in
training and product certification onboarding, including overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40.
IQVIA Holdings Inc. is a global provider of advanced analytics,
technology solutions, and clinical research services to the life
science industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
Tamra C. Givens, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 447-8888
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
JELD-WEN INC: Faulk Has Leave to File 2nd Amended Class Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID G. FAULK, and BONNIE J. FAULK, Plaintiffs v.
JELD-WEN, INC., d/b/a Pozzi Window Company; SPENARD BUILDERS
SUPPLY, LLC; and RODERICK C. WENDT, Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-00171-JMK (D. Alaska), Judge Joshua M. Kindred of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Alaska:
a. grants Defendants JELD-WEN and Roderick C. Wendt's Motion
to Strike First Amended Class Action Complaint at
Docket 37;
b. denies as moot Plaintiffs David and Bonnie Faulk's Motion
to Remand at Docket 40; and
c. grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Second
Amended Complaint at Docket 48.
On July 21, 2022, JELD-WEN and Wendt removed this putative class
action to this Court, alleging that the case falls under the
Court's diversity jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act (CAFA). On Aug. 15, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a
Motion to Remand, arguing that the local controversy exception to
the CAFA applies and requires the Court to decline jurisdiction.
The Court denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand, with leave to
amend the Complaint solely for the purpose of adding allegations
that clarify Spenard's role in the counts alleged against Spenard.
On Feb. 16, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint. On
March 13, 2023, Defendants JELD-WEN and Wendt moved to strike the
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, arguing that the amendments exceed
scope of the Court's Order granting narrow leave to amend.
On March 20, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a renewed Motion to Remand,
asserting that the allegations in the First Amended Complaint
establish that the case falls within CAFA's local controversy
exception. On June 2, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave
to File a Second Amended Complaint. They state that the amendment
is proposed to remove the class allegations and focus solely on
their claims. They submit that the second amended complaint should
be relevant for the Court's CAFA analysis or otherwise provide
independent grounds for divesting jurisdiction.
Judge Kindred holds that the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint
does not do what it was meant to do -- clarify the relationship
between the Defendants to aid the Court's jurisdictional analysis
–– and does exactly what it was not meant to do -- greatly
expand the counts alleged against Spenard to defeat CAFA
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint
at Docket 32 is stricken.
As the Court has stricken the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, the
operative pleading for the Court's jurisdictional analysis is the
original Complaint. The Court already has ruled that remand is
inappropriate under the original Complaint. The Plaintiffs' Renewed
Motion to Remand at Docket 40 is based on the now-stricken First
Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Remand
therefore is denied as moot.
The Plaintiffs seek to amend their Complaint to remove the class
allegations and add new allegations. To the extent that the
Plaintiffs claim this proposed amended complaint divests the Court
of jurisdiction, Judge Kindred says this procedural move reeks of
forum manipulation. If the Plaintiffs seek to destroy federal
jurisdiction by eliminating the class aspect of this action, their
efforts are futile. This is because jurisdiction is determined at
the time of removal; therefore, post-removal developments do not
defeat jurisdiction.
Although the Plaintiffs' proposed amendments will not divest this
Court of CAFA jurisdiction, Judge Kindred finds granting leave to
amend to eliminate the class allegations proper. If the Plaintiffs
no longer wish to bring a class action, they should not be forced
to. Judge Kindred does not find any of the allegations in the
proposed Second Amendment Complaint directly contradict the
allegation in the Plaintiffs' original Complaint. Accordingly, the
Defendants have not shown that they will be prejudiced by
amendment. Leave to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint is
granted.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2023, Order is available at
https://rb.gy/djhehx from PacerMonitor.com.
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: Ebneshahidi Suit Transferred to D. Mass.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Natalie Ebneshahidi, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Johns Hopkins
University, The Johns Hopkins Health System, Case No. 1:23-cv-02539
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on Oct. 31, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12597-ADB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Johns Hopkins University -- https://www.jhu.edu/ -- is a private
research university in Baltimore, Maryland.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James Pizzirusso, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 540-7200
Fax: (202) 540-7201
Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
- and -
James A. Ulwick, Esq.
KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A.
1 South Street, Suite 2600
Baltimore, MD 21201
Phone: (410) 752-6030
Email: julwick@kg-law.com
- and -
Steven N. Nathan, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street, Ste. 14th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (646) 357-1100
Fax: (212) 202-4322
Email: snathan@hausfeld.com
- and -
Amanda V. Boltax, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th St NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 540-7200
Fax: (202) 540-7201
Email: mboltax@hausfeld.com
The Defendant is represented by:
James D. Houghton, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
2001 M St. NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20006-4103
Phone: (202) 349-8000
Fax: (202) 349-8080
Email: jhoughton@orrick.com
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: Riffey Suit Transferred to D. Mass.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Phyllis Riffey, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. The Johns Hopkins University, The
Johns Hopkins Health System, Case No. 1:23-cv-02190 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 31,
2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12596-ADB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Breach
of Contract.
Johns Hopkins University -- https://www.jhu.edu/ -- is a private
research university in Baltimore, Maryland.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Ra O. Amen, Esq.
George Triantis, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 223-5505
Fax: (813) 223-5402
Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
ramen@forthepeople.com
gtriantis@forthepeople.com
The Defendant is represented by:
James D. Houghton, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
2001 M St. NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20006-4103
Phone: (202) 349-8000
Fax: (202) 349-8080
Email: jhoughton@orrick.com
- and -
Aravind Swaminathan, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
Seattle, WA 98104-7036
Phone: (206) 883-2542
Fax: (206) 883-2699
Email: ASwaminathan@wsgr.com
- and -
Marc Shapiro, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON, & SUTCLIFFE LLP
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (212) 506-3521
Email: mrshapiro@orrick.com
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: Schaffer Suit Transferred to D. Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Kathleen Schaffer, Patricia Patchoski, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. The Johns
Hopkins University, The Johns Hopkins Health System, Case No.
1:23-cv-02099 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts on Oct. 31, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12595-ADB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Property Damage.
Johns Hopkins University -- https://www.jhu.edu/ -- is a private
research university in Baltimore, Maryland.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Courtney Weiner, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF COURTNEY WEINER PLLC
1629 K St., NW, Suite 300
Washington, MD 20006
Phone: (202) 827-9980
Email: cw@courtneyweinerlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
James D. Houghton, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
2001 M St. NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20006-4103
Phone: (202) 349-8000
Fax: (202) 349-8080
Email: jhoughton@orrick.com
- and -
Aravind Swaminathan, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
Seattle, WA 98104-7036
Phone: (206) 883-2542
Fax: (206) 883-2699
Email: ASwaminathan@wsgr.com
- and -
Marc Shapiro, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON, & SUTCLIFFE LLP
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (212) 506-3521
Email: mrshapiro@orrick.com
KANSAS CITY LIFE: Meek Appeals Rulings in Breach of Contract Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Y. Meek filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
his lawsuit styled as CHRISTOPHER Y. MEEK, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, v. KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00472-BP, in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Missouri, Kansas City.
The suit, filed on June 18, 2019, is a class action for breach of
contract and conversion to recover amounts that Defendant charged
Plaintiff and the proposed class in excess of amounts authorized by
the express terms of their life insurance policies. The Defendant
has caused material harm to Plaintiff and the proposed class by
improperly draining monies they have accumulated in the cash values
under their policies. Every unauthorized dollar taken from policy
owners is one less dollar that can be used to: earn interest; pay
future premiums; increase the death benefit; use as collateral for
policy loans; or withdraw as cash, says the complaint.
On July 1, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class
which the Court granted on February 7, 2022 through an Order
entered by Chief District Judge Beth Phillips.
On March 13, 2023, the Defendant filed a MOTION for order to
partially decertify or modify the class.
On March 27, 2023, Judge Philips entered an Order GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART Plaintiff's and Defendant's October 20, 2022
motions for summary judgment. The Plaintiff is granted summary
judgment on Counts I, II and III, but only as to liability;
Defendant is granted summary judgment on Count IV, and neither
party's arguments regarding the statute of limitations is adopted,
says the Order.
Also on March 27, an ORDER was entered finding as moot Defendant
Kansas City Life Insurance Company's motion to partially decertify
or modify the class in light of the Court's summary judgment
ruling.
On May 19, 2023, Defendant Kansas City Life Insurance Company moved
for partial decertification of the class, to decertify as to
individuals who did not suffer any overcharges after June 18,
2014.
On June 20, Jude Philipps signed an Order (1) granting Defendant's
motion to partially decertify class and (2) dismissing Count V
without prejudice.
On July 18, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a MOTION for reconsideration
involving June 20 Order.
On September 14, 2023, a court order was entered (1) granting
Plaintiff's motion for partial reconsideration; and (2) adhering to
prior decision. The Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Reconsideration,
was GRANTED but the Court ADHERED to its prior Order partially
decertifying the class.
On September 27, 2023, Judge Phillips signed an Order wherein
Plaintiff's July 18, 2023 motion for a new trial or, in the
alternative, motion for additur was DENIED and Plaintiff's motion
to alter or amend judgment was GRANTED. The Defendant's motion for
decertification of the Class and to alter or amend the judgment was
denied and the Defendant's renewed motion for Judgment as a matter
of law on Count I was also denied.
The Plaintiff now files this petition to seek review of Court
Orders dated February 7, 2022, March 27, 2023, June 20, 2023,
September 14, 2023, and September 27, 2023.
The appellate case is captioned as Christopher Meek v. Kansas City
Life Ins. Company, Case No. 23-3354, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on October 24, 2023.
The cross appeal briefing schedule in the case states that:
-- Transcript is due on or before November 28, 2023;
-- Appendix is due on December 8, 2023;
-- BRIEF APPELLANT, Kansas City Life Insurance Company is due on
December 8, 2023; and
-- Appellee/cross Appellant brief due 30 days from the date the
court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the appellant's
brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Christopher Y. Meek, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
John J. Schirger, Esq.
MILLER & SCHIRGER
4520 Main Street, Suite 1570
Kansas City, MO 64111
Telephone: (816) 561-6500
- and -
David A. Hickey, Esq.
Ethan M. Lange, Esq.
Lindsay Todd Perkins, Esq.
Patrick Joseph Stueve, Esq.
Bradley Wilders, Esq.
STUEVE & SIEGEL
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Defendant-Appellee Kansas City Life Insurance Company is
represented by:
James Randolph Evans, Esq.
SQUIRE & PATTON
One Atlantic Center, Suite 3150
1201 W. Peachtree Street, N.W.
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (678) 272-3215
- and -
Adam Randall Fox, Esq.
Hannah J. Makinde, Esq.
SQUIRE & PATTON
555 S. Flower Street, 31st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 689-5166
- and -
Traci Lynn Martinez, Esq.
SQUIRE & PATTON
2000 Huntington Center
41 S. High Street
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 365-2807
- and -
John W. Shaw, Esq.
BERKOWITZ & OLIVER
2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1200
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 561-7007
KINDER MORGAN: Rodriguez Suit Removed to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jose Rodriguez, an individual on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated v. KINDER MORGAN, INC., a
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. ECU003151
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in
and for the County of Imperial, to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California on Oct. 30, 2023, and
assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-02007-MMA-DEB.
Among other things, Plaintiff alleges Defendant did not provide
Plaintiff with accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant deprived and did not authorize or permit employees to
take lawful meal periods, or where necessary, second meal periods.
Plaintiff further alleges Defendant had a policy that required
employees stay on premises during their meal periods. The Plaintiff
alleges that he was forced to "miss taking compliant rest periods"
due to Defendant, and that he was required to stay on the premises
during rest periods. The Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant
failed to pay all penalties owed for noncompliant rest and meal
periods, and as a result, Plaintiff and other employees who were
terminated or resigned did not receive all wages owed to them upon
termination. Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to
"keep at a central location in the state or at the plants or
establishments at which employees were employed, payroll records
showing the hours worked…" and wages paid to employees at the
respective locations.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher C. Hoffman, Esq.
Keia James Atkinson, Esq.
A.J. Sparagna, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92121
Phone: (858) 597-9600
Facsimile: (858) 597-9601
Email: choffman@fisherphillips.com
katkinson@fisherphillips.com
asparagna@fisherphillips.com
KOSAS COSMETICS: Wurm Balks at Unwanted Text Message Sales Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARMING WURM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KOSAS COSMETICS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-23-020279 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., Oct. 26,
2023) is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief, and
damages for Defendant's violations of the Caller ID Rules of the
Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
The Plaintiff brings this action alleging that Defendant made text
message sales calls that promoted Kosas 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.
Kosas Cosmetics, LLC, is a foreign limited liability company, which
sells various goods to persons throughout the U.S., including
Florida, through its online store.[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
LEGACY CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Haskins Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
JERRY HASKINS, Plaintiff v. LEGACY CORPORATION OF IL and BLAKE A.
ENLOE, individually, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-04188-SLD-JEH
(C.D. Ill., October 30, 2023) is a class action arising under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law for
Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages to
Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons.
The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants as a welder (a non-exempt
employee) in or around July 2022. He asserts that he was employed
by Defendants in this capacity until his unlawful termination on or
about August 28, 2023 as a direct and proximate result of
Plaintiff's complaints about Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff
his wages owed.
Legacy Corporation of IL is a corporation doing business in and for
Rock Island County, whose address is 16322 Barstow Road, East
Moline, IL. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander Taylor, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Telephone (331) 272-1942
Facsimile: (630) 575-8188
E-mail: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com
LIMELIFE USA: Melendez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Limelife USA, LLC.
The case is styled as Rhondine Melendez, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Limelife USA, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-08072 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
LimeLife by Alcone -- https://www.limelifebyalcone.com/ -- is an
online platform that provides cosmetics and skincare products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Warren Files Suit in S.D. West Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Loandepot.com, LLC.
The case is styled as David A. Warren and Patricia A. Warren, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Loandepot.com, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00702 (S.D.W. Va., Oct. 30,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
LoanDepot -- https://www.loandepot.com/ -- sometimes stylized as
loanDepot, is an Irvine, California-based nonbank holding company
which sells mortgage and non-mortgage lending products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Denali Skye Hedrick, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER
209 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301-1386
Phone: (304) 940-9809
Email: dhedrick@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Jason E. Causey, Esq.
BORDAS & BORDAS
1358 National Road
Wheeling, WV 26003
Phone: (304) 242-8410
Fax: (304) 242-3936
Email: jcausey@bordaslaw.com
- and -
Patricia M. Kipnis, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER
1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: (215) 274-9331
Email: pkipnis@baileyglasser.com
LRG ENERGY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brooks Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
CODY LEE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LRG ENERGY LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-00177-Z (N.D. Tex., Nov. 2, 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 Brooks was employed by the Defendant as a lift operator.
LRG ENERGY LLC is a domestic upstream oil & gas company with
operations primarily in the Texas Panhandle. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
WAGE AND HOUR FIRM
5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75254
Telephone: (214) 489-7653
Facsimile: (469) 319-0317
Email: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com
rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com
LTC DELIVERY: Misclassifies Delivery Drivers, Wells Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
TAMARA WELLS, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff v. LTC DELIVERY, LLC, LAURA GOAD, AND MARK
GOAD, MEDICINE CHEST INSTITUTIONAL PHARMACY, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 3:23-cv-2384 (N.D. Tex., Oct. 26, 2023) is an action brought by
the Plaintiff against the Defendants for violations of the minimum
wage provisions of the Texas Labor Code and the minimum wage and
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants improperly classified
Plaintiff Wells and other similarly situated workers as independent
contractors. The Defendants further failed to pay Plaintiff at
least minimum wage for all hours worked and an overtime premium for
those hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the suit.
The Plaintiff performed work for the Defendants as an independent
contract delivery driver during the period from about March 27,
2022, through May 8, 2023.
LTC Delivery, LLC, d/b/a The Delivery Service, is a for profit,
limited liability company incorporated in the state of Texas that
is doing business in Dallas County.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark D. Downey, Esq.
DOWNEY LAW GROUP LLC
4516 Lovers Lane, #204
Dallas, TX 75225
Telephone: (214) 764-7279
E-mail: mdowney@dlawgrp.com
MADISON COUNTY, GA: Dove Suit v. Jail Dismissed Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DOMINICK DOVE, et al., Plaintiffs v. MADISON COUNTY
JAIL, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:23-cv-00116-TES-CHW
(M.D. Ga.), Judge Tilman E. Self, III, of the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia, Athens Division, dismisses the
Plaintiffs' complaint without prejudice.
Pro se Plaintiff Dove, an inmate at the Madison County Jail in
Danielsville, Georgia, filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983 on behalf of himself and two other inmates -- Mason Dean and
Ronald Rice. However, a pro se plaintiff may not represent the
interest of other prisoners. Judge Self holds that it's plain error
to permit an imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to
represent his fellow inmates in a class action. This same principle
prevents Dove from representing the other inmates who are listed as
plaintiffs in the Complaint.
The Plaintiffs also seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP)
via a statutorily incomplete application submitted only under
Dove's name. Judge Self explains that under the Prison Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), prisoners proceeding IFP may not join as
plaintiffs in a single lawsuit and pay only a single filing fee.
Instead, each prisoner must file his own lawsuit and pay the full
filing fee. The Plaintiffs are therefore not permitted to proceed
IFP in an action together.
Accordingly, Judge Self dismisses the Complaint without prejudice.
Each Plaintiff may file their own separate complaint asserting
claims that are personal to that inmate and for which they will be
individually responsible for docketing fees.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2023 Order is available at
https://shorturl.at/psC26 from PacerMonitor.com.
MAMIYE BROTHERS: Suarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mamiye Brothers, Inc.
The case is styled as Alvin Suarez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Mamiye Brothers, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-09547 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Mamiye Brothers -- https://mamiye.com/ -- designs, manufactures,
distributes, and markets the most desirable brands in women's,
children's, and infant apparel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: (516) 287-3458
Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com
MARATHON STAFFING: Williams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marathon Staffing
Solutions Inc. The case is styled as Teddy Williams, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public v. Marathon Staffing Solutions Inc., Ramsey Express
Trucking, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0011438 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Joaquin Cty., Oct. 31, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Marathon -- https://www.marathonstaffing.com/ -- is one of the
largest regional employers, supplying temporary, on-site, contract,
contract-to-hire, and direct hire employees to companies throughout
the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Otkupman, Esq.
OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC
28632 Roadside Dr, Ste 203
Agoura Hills, CA 91301-6015
Phone: (818) 293-5623
Fax: (888) 850-1310
Email: roman@OLFLA.com
MERRILL GARDENS: Court Consolidates Ramirez & Holguin Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California consolidates the cases, MARIA
BUSTOS RAMIREZ, Plaintiff v. MERRILL GARDENS, LLC, Defendant, and
RAMONA CHRISTINA HOLGUIN, Plaintiff v. MERRILL GARDENS, LLC,
Defendant, Case Nos. 1:22-cv-00542-SAB, 1:22-cv-01042-SAB (E.D.
Cal.).
On Nov. 6, 2023, the parties in the captioned actions filed a
stipulation to consolidate the captioned cases for all purposes.
Judge Boone finds that the actions involve the same or similar
parties, claims, and questions of fact or law and that
consolidation will avoid unnecessary costs and duplication of
proceedings. The parties have a joint class action settlement
pending approval of the Court. Thus, good cause exists to grant the
parties' stipulation to consolidate the cases.
Accordingly, the parties' stipulation consolidating these cases, is
granted. The captioned cases will be consolidated for all purposes,
including trial, pursuant to Rule 42(a).
The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the Order in each of the
referenced cases. Going forward, the parties and the Clerk of the
Court are directed to file documents under only the lead case
number. Future captions should indicate the lead case number
followed by the member case number as follows:
Lead Case: 1:22-cv-00542-SAB
Member Case: 1:22-cv-01042-SAB.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2023, Order is available at
https://shorturl.at/EKQ15 from PacerMonitor.com.
MIIR HOLDINGS: Knowles Sues Over Website's Inaccessibility to Blind
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MIIR HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-09501-JGK (S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2023) alleges
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York
State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The class action arises from the Defendant's failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.miir.com,
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people. Accordingly, Plaintiff
seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's
corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
MIIR HOLDINGS, LLC operates the MIIR online retail store across the
United States and maintains the website which provides consumers
with access to an array of goods including information about
purchasing drinkware, kitchenware, accessories, and other products
available online. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Abdellatif Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Ghassan Abdellatif, individually, and as a
representative of other aggrieved employees v. MOLINA HEALTHCARE,
INC. a Corporation, and DOES 1 through 250, inclusive, Case No.
23STCV23076 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 30,
2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-09145.
On September 25, 2023, Abdellatif filed a Class Action Complaint
which sets forth the following 7 causes of action: Unpaid Overtime
and Minimum Wages; Non-compliant Wage Statements; Failure to Pay
All Wages and on a Timely Basis; Unpaid Meal Period Premiums;
Unpaid Rest Period Premiums; Unreimbursed Business Expenses;
Violation of California Business & Professions Code ("Unfair
Competition") all in Violation of California Labor Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Erin N. Bass, Esq.
Carol Yur, Esq.
DENTONS US LLP
601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 623-9300
Facsimile: (213) 623-9924
Email: erin.bass@dentons.com
carol.yur@dentons.com
- and -
Carl J. Lehman, Esq.
4655 Executive Drive, Suite 700
San Diego, CA 92121
Phone: (619) 236-1414
Facsimile: (619) 232-8311
Email: carl.lehman@dentons.com
MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Auguste Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monterey Financial
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Khadijah Auguste, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Monterey
Financial Services, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-21714-BRM-JBC (D.N.J.,
Oct. 31, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Monterey Financial Services --
https://www.montereyfinancial.com/index.html -- is a comprehensive
finance and receivable management company, dedicated to meeting the
specific needs of your business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Muhammad Hasan Siddiqui, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: hsiddiqui@steinsakslegal.com
MORGAN TRUCK: Sigala Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jose A. Sigala, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. MORGAN TRUCK BODY, LLC; and DOES 1 to
100, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2305094 was removed from the Superior
Court of California, County of Riverside, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 31,
2023, and assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-02255-JGB-SP.
The Complaint, styled as a class action, asserts claims for:
Failure to Authorize or Permit Meal Periods in Violation of Labor
Code; Failure to Authorize or Permit Rest Periods in Violation Of
Labor Code; Failure to Indemnify Employees for Employment-Related
Losses/Expenditures in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Provide
Complete and Accurate Wage Statements in Violation Of Labor Code;
Failure to Timely Pay All Earned Wages and Final Paychecks Due at
Time of Separation of Employment in Violation of Labor Code; and
Unfair Competition Practices, in Violation of Business and
Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Dan M. Forman, Esq.
Wanja S. Guy, Esq.
CDF LABOR LAW LLP
707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 5150
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 612-6300
Email: dforman@cdflaborlaw.com
wguy@cdflaborlaw.com
NEW DIRECTION IRA: Theriault Files Suit in D. Kansas
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Direction IRA,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Joseph Gilbert Theriault,
William Weigel, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. New Direction IRA, Inc. formerly known as: Entrust of
Colorado, New Direction Trust Company, Mainstar Trust formerly
known as: First Trust Company of Onaga, Case No.
2:23-cv-02477-JWB-ADM (D. Kan., Oct. 30, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
New Direction Trust Company -- https://ndtco.com/ -- is a trusted
provider of self-directed IRAs and HSAs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexandra N.C. Rose, Esq.
Jeff P. DeGraffenreid, Esq.
Scott C. Nehrbass, Esq.
FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP - WICHITA
1551 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 100
Wichita, KS 67206-4466
Phone: (316) 291-9796
Fax: (316) 771-6149
Email: nrose@foulston.com
jdegraffenreid@foulston.com
snehrbass@foulston.com
ONLY WHAT YOU NEED: Julian Sues Over False Ads of Protein Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN JULIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ONLY WHAT YOU NEED, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 7:23-cv-09522 (S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2023) alleges claims
against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment and for
violations of the New York General Business Law.
Plaintiff Julian alleges that the Defendant Only What You Need,
Inc. (OWYN) has been manufacturing, marketing and distributing
plant-based protein products that contain dangerous levels of per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Laboratory testing has
revealed that certain OWYN protein powders and protein shakes
tested positive for PFAS chemicals. However, OWYN failed to
disclose on the labels that its products contained PFAS chemicals,
says the Plaintiff.
Based in Fairfield, NJ, OWYN is a supplement company that sells
protein shakes and powders. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: jarisohn@bursor.com
pfraietta@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
OPENDOOR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Alich Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Opendoor Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Alich securities class
suit in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona.
On October 7, 2022 and November 22, 2022, purported securities
class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Arizona, captioned Alich v. Opendoor
Technologies Inc., et al. (Case No. 2:22-cv-01717-JFM) ("Alich")
and Oakland County Voluntary Employee's Beneficiary Association, et
al. v. Opendoor Technologies Inc., et al. (Case No.
2:22-cv-01987-GMS) ("Oakland County"), respectively.
The lawsuits were consolidated into a single action, captioned In
re Opendoor Technologies Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No.
2:22-CV-01717-MTL).
The consolidated amended complaint names as defendants the Company,
Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. II (SCH"), certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors and the
underwriters of a securities offering the Company made in February
2021.
The complaint alleges that the Company and certain officers
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, and
that the Company, SCH, certain officers and directors and the
underwriters violated Section 11 of the Securities Act, in each
case by making materially false or misleading statements related to
the effectiveness of the Company's pricing algorithm.
The plaintiffs also allege that certain defendants violated Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Section 15 of the Securities Act,
respectively, which provide for control person liability.
The complaint asserts claims on behalf of all persons and entities
that purchased, or otherwise acquired, Company common stock between
December 21, 2020 and November 3, 2022 or pursuant to offering
documents issued in connection with its business combination with
SCH and the secondary public offering conducted by the Company in
February 2021.
The plaintiffs seek class certification, an award of unspecified
compensatory damages, an award of interest and reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorneys’ fees and expert fees, and other
and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
The defendants filed motions to dismiss on June 30, 2023, which are
pending before the court.
The Company believes that the allegations in the complaint are
without merit and it intends to vigorously defend ourselves in the
matter.
Opendoor Technologies Inc. is a managed marketplace for
residential
real estate that enables sellers and buyers of residential real
estate to experience a simple and certain transactions.
ORTHOALASKA LLC: Prestegard Files Suit in D. Alaska
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against OrthoAlaska, LLC. The
case is styled as Karen Prestegard, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. OrthoAlaska, LLC Case No.
3:23-cv-00248-SLG (D. Ala., Oct. 30, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Federal
Trade Commission Act.
OrthoAlaska -- https://www.orthoak.net/ -- is an integrated group
of orthopedic and rheumatology providers in Alaska, created to
address the rising costs of healthcare in Alaska.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Bryan Cooley, Esq.
Katherine Elsner, Esq.
EHRHARDT, ELSNER, AND COOLEY
215 Fidalgo Ave., Suite 201
Kenai, AK 99611
Phone: (907) 283-2876
Fax: (907) 283-2896
Email: Josh@907legal.com
katie@907legal.com
OUTDOORSY INC: Venue of Nautilus Suit Moved to District of Hawaii
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff v. OUTDOORSY,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-01886-HSG (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants Defendant Outdoorsy's motion
to transfer venue.
The insurance action arises from a tragic car accident: Audrey
Eginard was injured and Aurelie Vincent died in a single vehicle
accident while descending the Mauna Kea Access Road on the Island
of Hawaii in March 2017. Eginard had rented the 2001 Nissan Xterra
from Defendant Shawn Zenor, doing business as Huaka'i Campers,
through Outdoorsy's rental platform. Vincent was driving the Xterra
and Eginard was a passenger at the time of the accident. In July
2018, Eginard and the Estate of Vincent filed actions against
Zenor, Huaka'i Campers, and Outdoorsy in Hawaii State Court,
alleging that the Xterra's brakes failed. These actions have since
been consolidated into one case (underlying Hawaii Action). There
are also two pending and overlapping insurance actions.
Plaintiff Nautilus issued an auto liability insurance policy to
Outdoorsy. Nautilus is defending Outdoorsy in the underlying Hawaii
Action, but has reserved the right to seek (1) a declaration from a
court regarding its rights under the policy and (2) reimbursement
for the defense of any uncovered claims. Compl. It accordingly
brought this action, in which it contends that the Xterra was not
covered under the policy because it was not being used by a "named
specified operator" or "specified operator" at the time of the
accident since Eginard -- not Vincent -- had rented the Xterra.
Non-party Progressive Direct Insurance Co. issued an insurance
policy to Zenor. But Progressive contends that the policy does not
afford any coverage for the underlying Hawaii Action because it
excludes coverage for vehicles when leased or rented to others or
given in exchange for any compensation. Progressive accordingly
filed its own declaratory judgment action in the District of Hawaii
against Zenor and Nautilus, seeking a declaration that Nautilus is
obligated to defend Zenor in the underlying Hawaii Action.
Outdoorsy has filed a motion to transfer the action to the United
States District Court for the District of Hawaii pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Progressive has filed a motion to intervene
and like Outdoorsy seeks to transfer the action to the District of
Hawaii.
Judge Gilliam concludes that Nautilus' suggestion that a
substantial part of the events giving rise to the case did not
occur in Hawaii is not well taken and the transfer of venue to the
District of Hawaii would serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and would promote the interests of justice. He finds that
(i) Nautilus offers no explanation or support for the suggestion
that negotiations over the policy generally occurred in California;
(ii) the Nautilus Policy, which provides coverage for personal
injury and property damage, does not appear limited to any specific
state or location; (iii) he cannot conclude that the convenience of
unidentified witnesses outweighs the convenience to Eginard; (iv)
he has no reason to believe that documentary evidence is more
accessible in Hawaii than in California; and (v) judicial economy
is better served by having these insurance matters in a single
forum before a single judge.
In view of the foregoing, Judge Gilliam exercises his discretion
and grants the motion to transfer. The Clerk is directed to
transfer this action to the District Court for the District of
Hawaii and to close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2023, Order is available at
https://rb.gy/eksxpv from PacerMonitor.com.
PILOT AIR FREIGHT: Vera Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Alfredo Vera, an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. PILOT AIR FREIGHT, LLC, A DELAWARE
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, DBA PILOT FREIGHT SERVICES; VANESSA LNU
an individual AND DOES 1 THRU 50, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 23STCV13339
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for
the Central District of California on Oct. 31, 2023, and assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-09159-SPG-BFM.
The Plaintiff's Complaint asserted claims for failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide
meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, waiting time
penalties, wage statement violations, failure to timely pay wages,
failure to indemnify, and unfair competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Dhananjay S Manthripragada, Esq.
madeleine f mckenna, Esq.
Thomas F Cochrane, Esq.
Allison L Mather, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213.229.7000
Facsimile: 213.229.7520
Email: DManthripragada@gibsondunn.com
MMcKenna@gibsondunn.com
TCochrane@gibsondunn.com
AMather@gibsondunn.com
PONY TAIL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bell Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
CANDACE BELL; CRISDEION LOZON; BEVERLY BLAKE; and KRISTIN
JOURNIGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PONY TAIL, INC. d/b/a Club Onyx, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-05063-MLB (N.D. Ga., Nov. 2, 2023) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as dancers.
PONY TAIL, INC. is a gentlemen's club called "Onyx" that employs
female dancers and is located in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kimberly N. Martin, Esq.
Thomas F. Martin, Esq.
MARTIN & MARTIN, LLP
Post Office Box 1070
Tucker, GA 30085-10170
Telephone (404) 313-5538
Email: kimberlymartinlaw@gmail.com
tfmartinlaw@msn.com
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Tucker Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Reina Tucker, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Progress Software Corporation, The
Johns Hopkins University, The Johns Hopkins Health System
Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-04980 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 31, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12610-ADB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Progress Software Corporation -- https://www.progress.com/ -- is an
American public company that offers software for creating and
deploying business applications.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Reagan Charleston Thomas, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS, AND OVERHOLTZ
17 E. Main Street, #200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (985) 778-8134
Email: rthomas@awkolaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
William F. Kiniry, III, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP US
650 South Exeter Street, Suite 1100
Baltimore City, MD 21202
Phone: (410) 580-4623
Fax: (215) 498-5131
Email: william.kiniryiii@dlapiper.com
- and -
James D. Houghton, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
2001 M St. NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20006-4103
Phone: (202) 349-8000
Fax: (202) 349-8080
Email: jhoughton@orrick.com
- and -
Aravind Swaminathan, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
Seattle, WA 98104-7036
Phone: (206) 883-2542
Fax: (206) 883-2699
Email: ASwaminathan@wsgr.com
- and -
Marc Shapiro, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON, & SUTCLIFFE LLP
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (212) 506-3521
Email: mrshapiro@orrick.com
PROGRESSIVE LEASING: Bell Files Suit in D. Utah
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive Leasing.
The case is styled as Jodi Bell, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Progressive Leasing, Case No.
2:23-cv-00787-DAO (D. Utah, Oct. 30, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.
Progressive Leasing -- https://progleasing.com/ -- introduced the
world to virtual lease-to-
own purchase options. This easily integrated service enabled
stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ashton J. Hyde, Esq.
YOUNKER HYDE MACFARLANE PLLC
250 E. 200 S., Ste. 1100
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Phone: (801) 312-8756
Fax: (801) 335-6478
Email: ashton@yhmlaw.com
PROGRESSIVE LEASING: Whitmore Files Suit in D. Utah
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive Leasing.
The case is styled as Tyler Whitmore, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Progressive Leasing, Case No.
2:23-cv-00792-JCB (D. Utah, Oct. 31, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Progressive Leasing -- https://progleasing.com/ -- introduced the
world to virtual lease-to-own purchase options.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jared D. Scott, Esq.
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
50 W. Broadway, Ste. 600
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Phone: (801) 534-1700
Fax: (801) 364-7697
Email: jscott@aklawfirm.com
PSL ASSOCIATES: Lambert Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PSL Associates, LLC.
The case is styled as Evelyn Lambert, individually and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. PSL
Associates, LLC, Oasis AHR, LLC, Oasis Outsourcing III, Pegasus
Senior Living, LLC, Welltower Pegasus Tenant, LLC, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2023-0011435 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Oct.
31, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roxanna Tabatabaeepour, Esq.
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 Rosecrans Ave. Ste. 200
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266-2497
Phone: 310-531-1900
Fax: 310-531-1901
Email: jboxer@maternlawgroup.com
PUBLIX SUPER: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Roberts Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER ROBERTS, CAITLIN THROCKMORTON, and BRANDY MOORE
individually on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 8:23-cv-02447 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 26, 2023) arises from the
Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to
pay its non-exempt hourly assistant department managers, including
Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees, for all of
their overtime hours worked based upon its unlawful policies and
practices.
Plaintiffs Roberts, Throckmorton and Moore worked for the Defendant
as non-exempt, hourly-paid assistant department managers from
November 2019 to November 2021, from March 2022 to May 2023, and
from September 2018 to approximately October 2021, respectively.
Publix Super Markets, Inc. operates more than 1,300 supermarkets in
the United States including in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, South
Carolina, Tennessee, North Carolina and Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
981 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 447-8888
E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
- and -
Ryan Morgan, Esq.
Andrew Frisch, Esq.
MORGAN AND MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., Suite 1600
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 418-2069
E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
afrisch@forthepeople.com
QUI INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Servers, Cho Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
MINSUNG CHO, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE
QUI INC. and ELLIE IL YOUNG SHIN, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-01480 (E.D. Va., October 30, 2023) seeks a declaratory
judgment and compensation, damages, equitable and other relief
available under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Cho was employed by Defendants at The Qui's location at
13972 Metrotech Drive, Chantilly, VA 20151 as a tipped server from
approximately early 2021 through September 21, 2023. Allegedly, the
Defendants have taken a tip credit against Defendants' minimum wage
and overtime obligations. Among other things, the Defendants have
failed to properly calculate and pay overtime compensation to, and
improperly retained the tips of, Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated in reckless disregard of controlling legal authority,
including statutes, regulations, and readily-available guidance
documents, says the suit.
Headquartered n Chantilly, VA, The Qui Inc. owns, operates, and
manages the three-restaurant The Qui Korean Barbecue chain, with
locations at 13972 Metrotech Drive, Chantilly, VA 20151; 24630
Southpoint Drive, Chantilly, VA 20152; and 10160 Fairfax Boulevard,
Suite 116, Fairfax, VA 22030. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Molly A. Elkin, Esq.
Sarah M. Block, Esq.
Patrick J. Miller-Bartley, Esq.
McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
1101 Vermont Ave., NW
Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 833-8855
Facsimile: (202) 452-1090
E-mail: mae@mselaborlaw.com
smb@mselaborlaw.com
pmb@mselaborlaw.com
RAY PROPERTIES: Robles Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ray Properties Kit
Carson, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Richard Robles, an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ray
Properties Kit Carson, Inc. (dba Kit Carson Nursing and
Rehabiltation Center), and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
23CV13393 (Cal. Super. Ct., Amador Cty., Oct. 30, 2023).
The case type is stated as " Other."
Ray Properties Kit Carson, Inc. doing business as Kit Carson
Nursing and Rehabilitation Center -- https://kitcarsonnr.com/ --
are a 24-hour skilled nursing center, our goal is to provide the
necessary medical and rehabilitative care to get you back on your
feet and back home.[BN]
RENSSELAER COUNTY, NY: Merckx Files Suit in N.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rensselaer County.
The case is styled as Daniel J. Merckx, as Administrator of the
Estate of Ronald P. Merckx, Timothy S. Laraway, Jr., Barbara
Snashell, Chignard Noelizaire, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Rensselaer County; Mark Wojcik, in his
official capacity as Chief Fiscal Officer of Rensselaer County;
Cattaraugus County; Matthew J. Keller, in his official capacity as
Treasurer of Cattaraugus County; City of Port Jervis; Laura Quick,
in her official capacity as City Clerk-Treasurer of the City of
Port Jervis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; Case No. 1:23-cv-01354-MAD-CFH (N.D.N.Y., Oct. 30,
2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights
Act.
Rensselaer County -- https://www.rensco.com/ -- is a county in the
U.S. state of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George F. Carpinello, Esq.
Jenna C. Smith, Esq.
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP-ALBANY OFFICE
30 South Pearl Street, 11th Floor
Albany, NY 12207
Phone: (518) 434-0600
Email: gcarpinello@bsfllp.com
jsmith@bsfllp.com
RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Class Deal in Derivative Suit Wins Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota grants the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
final approval and enters final judgment in the case, In re Resideo
Technologies, Inc., Derivative Litigation, Case No. 21-cv-1965
(WMW/ECW) (D. Minn.).
The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the proposed Settlement
Class, seek final approval of settlement against Defendants
Resideo; Michael G. Nefkens; Joseph D. Ragan, III; Niccolo de Masi;
Paul Deninger; Roger Fradin; Jack Lazar; Nina Richardson; Andrew
Teichl; and Sharon Weinbar.
The Plaintiffs and the Defendants entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement dated Feb. 7, 2023, which provides for a
complete dismissal with prejudice of the claims against the
Defendants in this action, as well as a release of claims on the
terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation. The Settlement
provides that the Plaintiffs have agreed to settle all claims in
this Action in exchange for the implementation of critical
corporate governance reforms designed to, among other things,
improve board oversight, ensure the accurate disclosure of
information to the markets, and reduce the risk of legal and
regulatory exposure. The parties reached the settlement following
extensive negotiations among counsel that included mediation before
now-retired United States Magistrate Judge Becky Thorson.
On Feb. 13, 2023, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed
motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement. In doing so, on
a preliminary basis, it certified the Settlement Class, approved
the Settlement, and approved the proposed notice plan. To date, two
objections to the Settlement have been received, but neither of
these objectors asked to be excluded from the Settlement Class. On
June 22, 2023, the Court held a Settlement Hearing to determine
whether the Settlement should be finally approved. The Plaintiffs
seek a determination that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate; approval of the Plan of Allocation; final certification
of the Settlement Class; and an award of attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses and service awards.
As part of the final approval of settlement, the Plaintiffs seek
attorneys' fees in the amount of $1.6 million, and service awards
in the aggregate amount of $15,000 (6 Lead Plaintiffs seek a
service award of $2,500 each) to compensate the Named Plaintiffs.
After considering all the relevant factors, Judge Wright concludes
that the Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. She also
concludes that the Notice provided in the case complied with the
requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
due process. Judge further holds that the reaction of the
Settlement Class supports the requested award of attorneys' fees
proposed and a service award of $2,500 per Lead Plaintiff is
reasonable.
Based on the foregoing analysis and all the files, records and
proceedings therein, Judge Wright vacates the Oct. 25, 2023 Order
and the Oct. 26, 2023 Judgment. She directs the Clerk of Court is
directed to enter an Amended Order and Amended Judgment as
provided. She grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement.
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. 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.
Judge Wright 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, and due process. 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.
Judge Wright awards $1.6 million, plus any accrued interest, in
attorneys' fees to the Plaintiffs' counsel. She 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.
The Consolidated Action is dismissed with prejudice. The Parties
will bear their own fees, costs, and expenses, except as provided
in subparagraph 2(e) and 2(f) of the Order.
Without affecting the finality of the Order and the Judgment, Judge
Wright retains jurisdiction over this matter for the purpose of
resolving disputes related to the interpretation, administration,
implementation, effectuation, and enforcement of the Settlement.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2023 Amended Order is
available at https://rb.gy/rn3jbl from PacerMonitor.com.
SABON WEB: Black Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sabon Web, LLC. The
case is styled as Jahron Black, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Sabon Web, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-08091
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sabon -- https://us.sabon.com/ -- distributes personal care
products. The Company offers bath balls, foams, mineral powders,
body scrubs, shower gels, milky soaps, deodorants, perfumes,
massage oil, body lotions, and hand soaps.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
SACRAMENTO LGBT: Taylor Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sacramento LGBT
Community Center, et al. The case is styled as Sabrena Taylor, on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, and on behalf
of the general public v. Sacramento LGBT Community Center, Case No.
23CV010783 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 30, 2023).
The Sacramento LGBT Community Center -- https://saccenter.org/ --
works to create a region where LGBTQ people thrive.[BN]
SARAYA USA: Cohen Sues Over Deceptive Marketing of Food Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
DALIT COHEN, individually herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; Plaintiff v. SARAYA USA, INC., a Utah
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-08079 (E.D.N.Y., October 30, 2023) seeks damages, other
monetary relief, declaratory relief, and an order enjoining
Defendants from continuing their false and misleading marketing of
the "Lakanto Monkfruit Sweetener" product line, asserting claims
against the Defendants for violations of New York's Consumer
Protection from Deceptive Acts and Practices Act.
The class action arises from the Defendants' false and misleading
representations about the said product line in which they deceive
consumers about their sugar substitutes to take advantage of
diabetics, as well as individuals who are seeking out healthier
forms of desserts and sweet foods. In addition, the Defendants
consistently label and advertise the Products as "ZERO NET CARBS,"
and "ZERO CALORIE." The Defendants also furthered their deceptive
practices by marketing their products with incorrect and
manipulated serving sizes, says the suit.
Headquartered in Utah, Saraya manufactures, mass markets, and
distributes the Lakanto food products throughout New York and the
United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shalini Dogra, Esq.
DOGRA LAW GROUP PC
2219 Main Street, Unit 239
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Telephone: (747) 234-6673
Facsimile: (310) 868-0170
E-mail: shalini@dogralawgroup.com
SELECT COMFORT: Hargraves Sues Over Untimely Payment of Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN HARGRAVES, on behalf himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SELECT COMFORT RETAIL CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 617482/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., Oct. 26,
2023) seeks to recover damages under the New York Labor Law for
untimely paid wages for Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals who work or worked for Defendant in New York State.
The complaint alleges that Defendant paid the Plaintiff and Class
Members on a biweekly basis, which violated the requirement that
manual workers be paid within seven days after the end of the
workweek in accordance with NYLL.
The Plaintiff and the Class members worked for the Defendant as
field services delivery assistant, field services lead technician,
field services technician, field technician, technician assistant,
supervisor field services at any time between February 3, 2017 to
March 9, 2023.
Select Comfort Retail Corporation retails household furniture in
New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Migliaccio, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H St NE, Suite 302
Washington D.C. 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
- and -
Michael Palitz, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
477 Madison Ave., 6th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (800) 616-4000
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com
SHMALTZ BREWING: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shmaltz Brewing
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Colette Stroude, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Shmaltz Brewing
Company, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-08083 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Shmaltz Brewing Company -- https://shmaltzbrewing.com/ -- is an
American craft brewing company headquartered in Troy, New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
SHOEWELL INC: Martin Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shoewell, Inc. The
case is styled as Damian Martin, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Shoewell, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08114
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Shoewell, Inc. doing business as Cellini Uomo --
https://celliniuomo.com/ -- offers exclusive casual and dress
Italian made shoes and clothing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE: Souza Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
TABATHA SOUZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC; AURORA
CHARTER OAK-LOS ANGELES, LLC; and DOES #1 through #50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-02192 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 24, 2023)
arises from the Defendants' failure to pay wages, including proper
overtime, on time and in full for all hours worked by Plaintiff and
similarly situated individuals in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' Kronos-based
timekeeping and payroll systems were affected by a service outage
beginning in December 2021, like many other companies across the
United States. That outage led to problems in timekeeping and
payroll throughout Defendants' organization. As a result,
Defendants' 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 Souza is one of the many Signature Healthcare employees
who has been allegedly affected by these pay and timekeeping
practices.
Signature Healthcare Services owns and operates approximately 20
interrelated healthcare facilities across the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
440 N. Barranca Ave., #1228
Covina, CA 91723
Telephone: (310) 928-1277
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
SOBER LIVING: Lincoln Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tristan Lincoln, and similarly situated employees v. SOBER LIVING
AMERICA, INC. and JAMES C. DeVARENNES, Case No. 1:23-cv-04977-SCJ
(N.D. Ga., Oct. 30, 2023), alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") by failing to pay the Plaintiff for all
hours worked, failing to pay him at least the federal minimum wage
for each hour worked, and failing to pay him an overtime premium
for each hour he worked above 40 hours during a given workweek.
The Plaintiff frequently worked long hours, seven days per week,
and often up to as many as 60 hours per workweek. The Plaintiff
frequently worked beyond his scheduled work hours without any
compensation. Defendants required the Plaintiff to be "on-call
24/7," but only paid him his hourly rate of pay for sometimes 10 or
20 hours per week. Defendants did not have the Plaintiff clock-in
or clock-out. Instead, Defendants kept "time-card" records for the
hours the Plaintiff worked. However, Defendants' "time-card"
records falsely and inaccurately reflect that the Plaintiff only
worked between (precisely) 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. on weekdays
from May 12, 2021, until January 16, 2023. During his employment
Defendants never paid the Plaintiff an overtime premium for each
hour he worked over 40 hours during any given workweek. The
Defendants failed to properly compensate the Plaintiff for all
overtime hours worked at a rate of one and one-half times his
regular rate of pay, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was formerly employed by Defendants as a van driver
and work development employee.
SLA is a business which operates group home facilities in multiple
U.S. States, and which provides alcohol and drug support and
accountability mechanisms for recovering addicts, including lodging
and employment opportunities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dean R. Fuchs, Esq.
SCHULTEN WARD TURNER & WEISS, LLP
260 Peachtree Street, N.W., Suite 2700
Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: (404) 688-6800
Facsimile: (404) 688-680
Email: d.fuchs@swtwlaw.com
SPECIALIZED LOAN: Rowland Asserts Unfair Fee Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TERESA ROWLAND, LIZ CHAVEZ, and PAUL CHAVEZ, individually and as
representatives of the classes, Plaintiffs v. SPECIALIZED LOAN
SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-05529 (N.D. Cal., Oct.
26, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant seeking redress
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Rosenthal Debt
Collection Practices Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law
as well as seeks individual claims for SLS' violations of the
FDCPA, the Rosenthal Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act, and the California Homeowner Bill of Rights.
In the years leading up to the Great Recession, predatory subprime
mortgage lenders began targeting potential homebuyers like
Plaintiffs with a simple, irresistible offer: the opportunity to
own a home without having to put down a single dollar. These
so-called "80/20" mortgage schemes typically involved two
mortgages: a primary mortgage that covered 80% of the home's
appraised value, plus a second "piggyback" mortgage for remaining
20%, which took the place of a down payment and allowed borrowers
to avoid costly mortgage insurance.
Until recently, Plaintiffs and the similarly situated homebuyers
they seek to represent in this case thought they had escaped the
worst of the Great Recession. Although they had been victims of
these predatory "80/20" mortgage-loan schemes, and although they
had later faced foreclosure during the housing crisis, they had
successfully fought to stay in their homes with the help of
first-lien loan modifications or bankruptcy filings. Following the
recent nationwide surge in home prices that has allowed homeowners
like Plaintiffs and class members to regain the home equity they
lost during the Great Recession, these lenders and servicers have
suddenly reappeared, demanding payment on their long-forgotten
second-lien mortgage loans.
According to the complaint, SLS has demanded that Plaintiff Teresa
Rowland pay more than $50,000 in interest and fees that purportedly
accrued during the period in which Ms. Rowland did not receive any
periodic statements. SLS now claims that Plaintiffs Liz and Paul
Chavez owe over $90,000 in interest and fees that supposedly
accrued while they were not receiving periodic statements. The
Plaintiffs are far from the only victims of SLS' opportunistic and
predatory practices; indeed, it is apparently standard policy and
practice for SLS to demand payment of improper,
retroactively-assessed interest and fees, says the suit.
Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC is a mortgage-loan servicing
company governed by Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of
1974.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Julie Pollock, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
505 Montgomery St, Suite 625
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 906-0684
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: jpollock@bm.net
- and -
Michelle Drake, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Telephone: (612) 594-5999
E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
- and -
Zachary M. Vaughan, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
2001 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 559-9740
E-mail: zvaughan@bm.net
- and -
Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
KELLY GUZZO PLC
3925 Chain Bridge Rd, Suite 202
Fairfax, VA 22030
Telephone: (703) 424-7570
E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
SPECTRAFEM LLC: Melendez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spectrafem, LLC. The
case is styled as Rhondine Melendez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Spectrafem, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-08077-NRM-VMS (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Spectrafem is a healthcare management services company based out of
New York overseeing specialty women's health brands including Viva
Eve.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
TD AMERITRADE INC: Schultz Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as David Schultz, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No.
8:23-cv-00375 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nebraska, to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts on Oct. 31, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12590-ADB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Other Contract.
TD Ameritrade -- https://www.tdameritrade.com/ -- is a stockbroker
that offers an electronic trading platform for the trade of
financial assets including common stocks, preferred stocks, futures
contracts, exchange-traded funds, forex, options, mutual funds,
fixed income investments, margin lending, and cash management
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Almeida, Esq.
BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP
333 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 1900
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 212-4954
- and -
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
212 W. Spring Valley Road,
Richardson, TX 75081
Phone: (405) 235-1560
Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com
- and -
Andrew Tate, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP
235 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 400
Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: (314) 669-3600
Email: atate@peifferwolf.com
- and -
Brandon Michael Wise, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP
One US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950
St. Louis, MO 63101
Phone: (314) 833-4827
Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com
THOMAS C. PRIORE: Edelman Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thomas C. Priore, et
al. The case is styled as Jeffrey Edelman, and other similarly
situated v. Thomas C. Priore, Christina Favilla, John Priore,
Matthew Kearney, Michael Passilla, William Gahan, Defendants;
Priority Technology Holdings, Inc., Nominal Defendant; Case No.
2023-1105-LWW (Del. Chancery Ct., Oct. 31, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties."
Thomas C. Priore founded Triaxx Asset Management LLC.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen E Jenkins, Esq.
Samuel Gross, Esq.
ASHBY & GEDDES
PO Box 1150
Wilmington, DE 19899
Phone: (302) 654-1888
Fax: (302) 654-2067
Email: SGross@ashbygeddes.com
TIP-TOP ROOFING: Vriens Sues Over Substandard Roofing Installation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Vriens, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Tip-Top Roofing & Construction, LLC,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated roofing
contractors, Defendants, Case No. 2023CP1005346 (S.C. Com. Pl., 9th
Judicial, October 30, 2023) alleges claims against the Defendants
for negligence and for breach of implied warranties.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to install the
roofing on his home in accordance with good workmanship, applicable
building codes, and state and federal regulations.
Based in South Carolina, Tip-Top Roofing & Construction, LLC is a
limited liability company and a subcontractor of D.R. Horton, a
roofing material supplier and installation company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Lucey, Esq.
Mandee Funai, Esq.
JUSTIN O'TOOLE LUCEY, P.A.
415 Mill Street (29464)
Post Office Box 806
Mount Pleasant, SC 29465-0806
Telephone: (843) 849-8400
E-mail: jlucey@lucey-law.com
mfunai@lucey-law.com
TMG HEALTH INC: Herman Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Tama Herman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. TMG Health, Inc., Case No.
2:23-cv-03465 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 31, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12598-ADB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
TMG Health -- https://www.tmghealth.com/ -- is a national provider
of expert solutions for Medicare Advantage, Medicare Part D and
Managed Medicaid plans.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel Srourian, Esq.
DANIEL SROURIAN
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 474-3800
Email: daniel@slfla.com
- and -
Randi A. Kassan
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 741-5600
Fax: (516) 741-0128
Email: rkassan@milberg.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Joseph E. Wolfson, Esq.
STEVENS & LEE
620 Freedom Business Center, Suite 200
King Of Prussia, PA 19406
Phone: (610) 205-6019
Fax: (610) 988-0808
Email: jwo@stevenslee.com
UNIVERSAL CITY: Clarke Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Atiba Clarke, on behalf of himself and
current and former aggrieved employees v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS
LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV16612 was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on Oct. 31, 2023, and assigned Case No.
2:23-cv-09167.
The Plaintiff asserts various violations of the California Labor
Code. More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to
pay him and other alleged aggrieved employees all minimum wages
owed for compensable work time going through "security checks" and
failed to provide him and other alleged aggrieved employees with
compliant meal periods. In turn, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
failed to provide them with accurate itemized wage statements and
failed to timely pay them all wages owed upon termination of
employment.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Remy Kessler, Esq.
CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 310-909-7775
Facsimile: 424-465-6630
Email: rkessler@constangy.com
US MED-EQUIP: Bid for Approval of Ambrose Settlement Due Dec. 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TAYLOR AMBROSE, Plaintiff v. US MED-EQUIP, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00114-SAB (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge
Stanley B. Boone of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California orders the parties to file any motion for
approval of PAGA settlement, or otherwise file dispositional
documents, by Dec. 29, 2023.
Plaintiff Ambrose, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed the putative class action on Jan. 26,
2023. Pursuant to stipulation, the Plaintiff filed a proposed first
amended complaint that the Court deemed filed on April 13, 2023. On
May 15, 2023, the Defendant filed an answer. On June 13, 2023, the
Court issued a phase class scheduling order. On Oct. 27, 2023, the
parties filed a notice of settlement. The filing, while not clear,
appeared to proffer the matter was settled in its entirety, and on
Oct. 30, 2023, the Court vacated all dates and deadlines, and
ordered the parties to file a motion for approval of class action
settlement by Dec. 29, 2023.
On Nov. 6, 2023, the parties filed a notice of dismissal requesting
the Plaintiff's class claims only, be dismissed without prejudice.
The stipulation proffers that the parties do not intend to dismiss
the Plaintiff's individual or PAGA representative claims by way of
the joint request. It further proffers that: no consideration was
exchanged for the dismissal of the Plaintiff's class claims; no
notices were mailed to the similarly situated employees nor has
there been any form of advertising disseminated; no class has been
certified in this matter; no motions to certify a class have been
filed; and no person not named in this lawsuit is bound by the
dismissal.
Judge Boone emphasizes that the Advisory Committee Notes to the
2003 rules amendments confirm that Rule 23(e) does not apply to
settlements or dismissals that occur before class certification. In
the case, no class has been certified and the matter is being
dismissed without prejudice. Therefore, dismissal does not require
court approval under Rule 23(e).
Of further note, the parties are not dismissing the entire action,
but request dismissal of only the class claims pursuant to Rule 41.
Judge Boone finds it proper to construe the parties' stipulation to
dismiss the class claims as consent to amend the complaint under
Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Based on the
notice of settlement following mediation and the instant
stipulation, the Plaintiff may still need to file a motion for
approval of the settlement of the PAGA claims. Therefore, the Court
will keep the current deadline for filing any motion for approval
of settlement of this action for December 29, 2023, and Plaintiff
may otherwise file dispositional documents if the Plaintiff decides
to also no longer proceed on the PAGA claims.
Accordingly, Judge Boone, pursuant to the parties' agreement, deems
amended the Plaintiff's first amended complaint and any class
action claims asserted therein are no longer alleged against the
Defendant. He orders the parties to file any motion for approval of
PAGA settlement, or otherwise file dispositional documents, by Dec.
29, 2023.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2023, Order is available at
https://shorturl.at/hotOP from PacerMonitor.com.
USI INSURANCE: Powell Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
MARCIA POWELL, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. USI INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC, a limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 23STCV26254 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 26, 2023)
is a class action against the Defendants for alleged unlawful labor
practices in violation of the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods,
failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to maintain
accurate records of hours worked and meal periods, failure to
indemnify necessary business expenses, failure to timely pay all
wages to terminated employees, and failure to furnish accurate wage
statements.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in the County of Los
Angeles, State of California, as a commercial lines assistant from
approximately January 2022 to November 2022.
USI Insurance Services, LLC is an insurance brokerage and
consulting firm with principal place of business in Los Angeles,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan, Esq.
Linh H. Tran, Esq.
MOON LAW GROUP, PC
1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 232-3128
Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
E-mail: kmoon@moonlawgroup.com
lilit@moonlawgroup.com
ltran@moonlawgroup.com
WELLBE SENIOR: Purnell Seeks Customer Service Reps' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE PURNELL AND LARRY LEWIS, on behalf of themselves, and all
other Plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs
v. WELLBE SENIOR MEDICAL, LLC D/B/A WELLBE MEDICAL SERVICES, A
DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CORPORATION, WELLBE SENIOR
MEDICAL ILLINOIS, P.C., an ILLINOIS PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-15285 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 24, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act, and the Chicago Minimum Wage
Ordinance.
The complaint alleges that Named Plaintiffs and members of the
Plaintiff Class were improperly classified by the Defendants as
salary exempt and denied overtime pay for work in excess of 40
hours in a work week.
The Plaintiffs are former customer service representatives and
Supervisor CSR Call Center employees of the Defendants.
WellBe Senior Medical, LLC operates a third-party patient services
and administration business.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
John William Billhorn, Esq.
BILLHORN LAW FIRM
53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312)-853-1450
WHOOP INC: Sanderson Sues Over Automatic Membership Renewal
-----------------------------------------------------------
DONRICK SANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WHOOP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-05477 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 24, 2023) arises from the
Defendants' violation of California's Automatic Renewal Law, the
False Advertising Law and the Unfair Competition Law by
disseminating misleading advertisements concerning the
automatically renewing nature of Whoop Memberships.
According to the complaint, Whoop sells bundled wearable fitness
tracking bands and associated fitness tracking. Said differently,
Whoop customers cannot just buy a standalone fitness band; they
must buy a package consisting of the fitness band and a pre-defined
period of data processing and analytics. Two different Whoop
Memberships are available: a "24-Month Membership" (consisting of a
fitness tracking band and 24-months of data processing and
analysis); an "Annual Membership" (consisting of a fitness tracking
band and 12 months of data processing and analysis). The annual
membership can be billed annually or monthly. Whoop also offers a
"1 Month Free Trial."
At the end of the membership period or trial period, Whoop
automatically renews customers for an additional year of membership
at the annual membership price. But Whoop does not provide clear
and conspicuous disclosures or obtain affirmative consent before
enrolling consumers in any of these auto-renewal plans in violation
of ARL, says the suit.
Whoop, Inc. is an American wearable technology company
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christin Cho, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: christin@dovel.com
WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Sorto Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
RENE A. SORTO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WORLDWIDE FLIGHT SERVICES, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 23STCV26018 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 24, 2023) is a
representative action pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act
of 2004, California Labor Code, on behalf of Plaintiff and all
other aggrieved employees employed by or formerly employed by
Worldwide Flight Services.
According to the complaint, the Defendants on multiple occasions
have had a pattern and practice of failing to pay overtime wages to
Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees; failing to pay to pay
sick leave and/or paid time off at the regular rate of pay; failing
to provide uninterrupted meal period; failing to pay the full
amount of wages owed to Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees
upon termination and/or resignation; and failing to furnish
accurate itemized wage statements.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee who worked as a ramp associate in the State of
California.
Worldwide Flight Services, Inc. offers aircraft ground support
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Nourmand, Esq.
James A. De Sario, Esq.
Ivan P. Medina, Esq.
THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
8822 West Olympic Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 553-3600
Facsimile: (310) 553-3603
XTO ENERGY: Brusamonti Appeals Summary Judgment to 3rd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Peter Brusamonti, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Memorandum and Order dated September 21, 2023 and
Judgment dated October 3, 2023 entered in the lawsuit styled PETER
BRUSAMONTI, et al., Plaintiffs v. XTO ENERGY INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:20-cv-00652-CB, in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania.
The suit seeks compensatory losses and damages allowed by law,
including prejudgment and post-judgment interest and costs and
expenses of litigation and such other further relief resulting from
breach of contract. XTO Energy produces gas and its constituents in
Western Pennsylvania under various standard form oil and gas
leases. Peter and Lisa Brusamonti, a married couple, are the owners
of mineral interests in real property located in Butler County,
Pennsylvania. XTO allegedly breached the oil and gas leases by
artificially reducing the royalties it paid and failed to pay
royalties due on production.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Cathy
Bissoon of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania entered a Memorandum and Order dated September 21,
2023, granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment.
According to the Court's Memorandum and Order, the Plaintiffs' oil
and gas royalty-revenues inadvertently were underpaid, as a result
of the Defendant's software upgrade. The upgrade caused
over-deductions of certain production expenses. The Defendant
ceased over-withholding, and began reimbursing the Plaintiffs'
account, before this lawsuit was filed.
Accepting the Plaintiffs' calculations, $11,242.47 was wrongly
withheld. Before this lawsuit was filed, in May 2020, the Defendant
had reimbursed roughly $3,000. By May 2020 (well before the
Defendant was served), the outstanding balance was down to
approximately $2,585.61. By August 2020 -- before the Defendant
filed its answer (and after a joint Motion for extension) -- the
balance, according to the Plaintiffs, was $2.57. Although the
Defendant disagrees that $2.57 is owing, this is the extent of the
remaining dispute.
For the reasons stated in the motion papers, Judge Bissoon held
that summary judgment in favor of the Defendant is warranted.
Consistent with the foregoing, the Court entered the following:
(1) Defendant's Motion for summary judgment is granted;
(2) Plaintiffs' Motion for class certification is stricken; and
(3) Defendant's Motion for sanctions is denied.
The appellate case is captioned as Peter Brusamonti, et al. v. XTO
Energy Inc., Case No. 23-2912, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on October 25, 2023.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants PETER BRUSAMONTI and LISA BRUSAMONTI, husband
and wife, on behalf themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:
D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES
707 Grant Street, Suite 125
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 281-7229
Defendant-Appellee XTO ENERGY INC. is represented by:
Nicolle R. Bagnell, Esq.
Thomas J. Galligan, Esq.
Justin H. Werner, Esq.
REED SMITH
225 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1200
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 288-7112
- and -
Elizabeth Tiblets, Esq.
K&L GATES
301 Commerce Street, Suite 3000
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Telephone: (817) 347-5270
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Defends Exposure Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------
Carlisle Companies Incorporated, over the years, has been named as
a defendant, along with numerous other defendants, in lawsuits in
various courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to
exposure to asbestos-containing friction products produced and sold
predominantly by the its discontinued Motion Control business
between the late-1940s and the mid-1980s and roofing products
produced and sold by Henry Company LLC, which the Company acquired
on September 1, 2021, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company has been subject to liabilities for indemnity and
defense costs associated with these lawsuits. The Company has
recorded a liability for estimated indemnity costs associated with
pending and future asbestos claims.
As of September 30, 2023, the Company believes that its accrual for
these costs is not material to the Company's financial position,
results of operations, or operating cash flows.
The Company recognizes expenses for defense costs associated with
asbestos claims during the periods in which they are incurred.
The Company currently maintains insurance coverage with respect to
asbestos-related claims and associated defense costs. The Company
records the insurance coverage as a receivable in an amount it
reasonably estimates is probable of recovery for pending and future
asbestos-related indemnity claims. Since the Company's insurance
coverage contains various exclusions, limits of coverage and
self-insured retentions and may be subject to insurance coverage
disputes, the Company may incur expenses for indemnity and defense
costs and recognize income from insurance recoveries in different
periods, as such recoveries are recorded only if and when it
becomes probable that such costs will be covered by insurance.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://shorturl.at/dnFS6
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carrier Global Has $223MM Liabilities at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Carrier Global Corporation, as of September 30, 2023, has reported
total asbestos liabilities of $223 million, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging
personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos allegedly
integrated into certain Carrier products or business premises.
While the Company has never manufactured asbestos and no longer
incorporates it into any currently-manufactured products, certain
products that the Company no longer manufactures contained
components incorporating asbestos. A substantial majority of these
asbestos-related claims have been dismissed without payment or have
been covered in full or in part by insurance or other forms of
indemnity. Additional cases were litigated and settled without any
insurance reimbursement. The amounts involved in asbestos-related
claims were not material individually or in the aggregate in any
period.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://shorturl.at/djrt0
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Has 900 Pending PI Lawsuits at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company, at September 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022,
had approximately 900 lawsuits pending against former parent
company E. I. du Pont de Nemours (EID) alleging personal injury
from exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These cases are pending in state and federal
court in numerous jurisdictions in the U.S. and are individually
set for trial. A small number of cases are pending outside of the
U.S. Most of the actions were brought by contractors who worked at
sites between the 1950s and the 1990s. A small number of cases
involve similar allegations by EID employees or household members
of contractors or EID employees. Finally, certain lawsuits allege
personal injury as a result of exposure to EID products.
"At September 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, Chemours had accruals
of $35 million related to these matters."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://shorturl.at/kq359
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Defends 271 Cases at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company, as of September 30, 2023, there were 271
individual cases pending against the Company in state and federal
courts throughout the United States, as compared to 251 cases as of
June 30, 2023 and 227 cases as of December 31, 2022, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "During the three months ended September 30,
2023, 33 new cases were filed and 13 cases were resolved by
voluntary dismissal or settlement. During the nine months ended
September 30, 2023, 136 new cases were filed and 92 cases were
resolved by voluntary dismissal, settlement or dismissal by the
court. The value of the settlements in the periods presented was
not material, either individually or in the aggregate, to such
periods' results of operations.
"A significant portion of the Company's costs incurred in defending
and resolving these claims has been, and the Company believes that
a portion of the costs will continue to be, covered by insurance
policies issued by several primary, excess and umbrella insurance
carriers, subject to deductibles, exclusions, retentions, policy
limits and insurance carrier insolvencies.
"While the Company and its legal counsel believe that these cases
are without merit and intend to challenge them vigorously, there
can be no assurances regarding the ultimate resolution of these
matters."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://shorturl.at/qrEO4
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Faces 582 New PI Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation is a defendant in a substantial number of
lawsuits that seek to recover damages for personal injury allegedly
caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured
and/or distributed by its heritage companies in the past, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Flowserve Corporation states, "The Company has received 582 New
claims for the three months ended September 30, 2023. Typically,
these lawsuits have been brought against multiple defendants in
state and federal courts. While the overall number of
asbestos-related claims in which we or our predecessors have been
named has generally declined in recent years, there can be no
assurance that this trend will continue, or that the average cost
per claim to us will not further increase. Asbestos-containing
materials incorporated into any such products were encapsulated and
used as internal components of process equipment, and we do not
believe that significant emission of asbestos fibers occurred
during the use of this equipment."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://shorturl.at/dgksY
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Financial Still Receives A&E Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., continues to receive
asbestos and environmental ("A&E") claims, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The vast majority of the Company's exposure to A&E relates to
accident years prior to 1986 that are reported in Property &
Casualty Other Operations ("Run-off A&E"). In addition, since 1986,
the Company has written A&E exposures under general liability
policies and pollution liability under homeowners policies, which
are reported in the Commercial Lines and Personal Lines segments,
respectively.
Significant uncertainty limits the ability of insurers and
reinsurers to estimate the ultimate reserves necessary for unpaid
gross losses and expenses related to environmental and asbestos
claims. The degree of variability of gross reserve estimates for
these exposures is significantly greater than for other more
traditional exposures.
In the case of the reserves for asbestos exposures, factors
contributing to the high degree of uncertainty include inadequate
loss development patterns, plaintiffs' expanding theories of
liability, the risks inherent in major litigation, and inconsistent
and emerging legal doctrines with respect to the underlying claims
and with respect to the Company's coverage obligations.
Furthermore, over time, insurers, including the Company, have
experienced significant changes in the rate at which asbestos
claims are brought, the claims experience of particular insureds,
and the value of claims, making predictions of future exposure from
past experience uncertain. Plaintiffs and insureds also have sought
to use bankruptcy proceedings, including "pre-packaged"
bankruptcies, to accelerate and increase loss payments by insurers.
In addition, some policyholders have asserted new classes of claims
for coverages to which an aggregate limit of liability may not
apply. Further uncertainties include insolvencies of other
carriers, insolvencies of insureds and unanticipated developments
pertaining to the Company's ability to recover reinsurance for A&E
claims. Management believes these issues are not likely to be
resolved in the near future.
In the case of the reserves for environmental exposures, factors
contributing to the high degree of uncertainty include expanding
theories of liability and damages against insureds, emerging risks
such as per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), the risks
inherent in major litigation, inconsistent and emerging legal
doctrines concerning the existence and scope of coverage for could
ultimately exceed the $1.5 billion treaty limit in which case any
adverse development in excess of the treaty limit would be absorbed
as a charge to earnings by the Company. In these scenarios, the
effect of these charges could be material to the Company's
consolidated operating results or liquidity.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://shorturl.at/ksyEJ
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Still Defends PI Claims as of Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. is named in asbestos-related personal
injury claims related to North American Refractories Company
(NARCO), which was sold in 1986, and the Bendix Friction Materials
(Bendix) business, which was sold in 2014, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
As of September 30, 2023, NARCO and Bendix has recorded a total
asbestos-related liabilities $1.2 billion.
NARCO emerged from bankruptcy in April 2013, at which time a
federally authorized 524(g) trust was established to evaluate and
resolve all existing NARCO asbestos claims (the Trust). Both
Honeywell and NARCO are protected by a permanent channeling
injunction barring all present and future individual actions in
state or federal courts and requiring all asbestos-related claims
based on exposure to NARCO asbestos-containing products to be made
against the Trust (Channeling Injunction). The NARCO Trust
Agreement and the NARCO Trust Distribution Procedures set forth the
structure and operating rules of the Trust, and established
Honeywell's evergreen funding obligations.
While resolution values moved higher and lower over the years for
Bendix-related asbestos claims, such resolution values may continue
to increase over the near term in light of recent asbestos
litigation trends. It is not possible to predict whether resolution
values for Bendix-related asbestos claims will increase, decrease,
or stabilize in the future.
The Company reflects the inclusion of all years of epidemiological
disease projection through 2059 when estimating the liability for
unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims. Such liability for
unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims is based on historic and
anticipated claims filing experience and dismissal rates, disease
classifications, and resolution values in the tort system for the
previous five years. The Company valued Bendix asserted and
unasserted claims using average resolution values for the previous
five years. The Company updates the resolution values used to
estimate the cost of Bendix asserted and unasserted claims during
the fourth quarter each year.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://shorturl.at/ajnuA
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Int'l. Paper Has $102MM Liabilities at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company has been named as a defendant in
various asbestos-related personal injury litigation, in both state
and federal court, primarily in relation to the prior operations of
certain companies previously acquired by the Company, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company's total recorded liability with respect to pending and
future asbestos-related claims was $102 million, net of estimated
insurance recoveries and $105 million, net of estimated insurance
recoveries as of September 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022,
respectively. While it is reasonably possible that the Company may
incur losses in excess of its recorded liability with respect to
asbestos-related matters, we are unable to estimate any loss or
range of loss in excess of such liability, and do not believe
additional material losses are probable.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://shorturl.at/lBHP7
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Reports $15.3MM Accrued Liabilities
---------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation, and its subsidiaries, are defendants in various
other legal actions (including proceedings based on alleged
exposures to asbestos) incidental to its past and current business
activities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "As of September 30, 2023, December 31, 2022
and September 30, 2022, our condensed balance sheets included
accrued liabilities for these other legal actions of $15.3 million,
$14.4 million and $14.2 million, respectively. These liabilities do
not include costs associated with legal representation. Based on
our analysis, and considering the inherent uncertainties associated
with litigation, we do not believe that it is reasonably possible
that these other legal actions will materially adversely affect our
financial position, cash flows or results of operations.
"During the ordinary course of our business, contingencies arise
resulting from an existing condition, situation or set of
circumstances involving an uncertainty as to the realization of a
possible gain contingency. In certain instances, such as
environmental projects, we are responsible for managing the cleanup
and remediation of an environmental site. There exists the
possibility of recovering a portion of these costs from other
parties. We account for gain contingencies in accordance with the
provisions of ASC 450 "Contingencies" and, therefore, do not record
gain contingencies and recognize income until it is earned and
realizable."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://shorturl.at/jwGJQ
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Otis Worldwide Corporation has been named as defendants in lawsuits
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "While we have never manufactured any
asbestos-containing component parts, and no longer incorporate
asbestos in any current products, certain of our historical
products have contained components manufactured by third parties
incorporating asbestos. A substantial majority of these
asbestos-related claims have been dismissed without payment or were
covered in full or in part by insurance or other forms of
indemnity. Additional cases were litigated and settled without any
insurance reimbursement. The amounts involved in asbestos-related
claims were not material individually or in the aggregate as of and
for the periods ended September 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022.
"The estimated range of total liabilities to resolve all pending
and unasserted potential future asbestos claims through 2059 is
approximately $21 million to $43 million as of September 30, 2023
and December 31, 2022. Since no amount within the range of
estimates is more likely to occur than any other, we have recorded
the minimum amount of $21 million, which is principally recorded in
Other long-term liabilities on our Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets as of September 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022. Amounts are
on a pre-tax basis, not discounted, and exclude the Company's legal
fees to defend the asbestos claims (which will continue to be
expensed as they are incurred). In addition, the Company has an
insurance recovery receivable for probable asbestos-related
recoveries of approximately $5 million, which is principally
included in Other assets on our Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets as of September 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://shorturl.at/gnqFW
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Has 561 Claims as of Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation has reported 561 outstanding claims as of
September 30, 2023, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We, like many other industrial companies, have
been named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in courts
across the country by persons alleging personal injury from
exposure to products containing asbestos. We have never mined,
milled, manufactured or marketed asbestos; rather, we made and
provided to industrial users a limited number of products that
contained encapsulated asbestos, but we stopped manufacturing these
products in the late 1980s. Most of the claims filed against us
involve numerous defendants, sometimes as many as several
hundred."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://rb.gy/qa2vny
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Has 459 Pending Cases as of Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation, as of September 30, 2023, was a party to 459
pending cases involving an aggregate of 4,860 claimants primarily
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing
materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and
otherwise) manufactured or distributed by its former Lamons
division and certain other related subsidiaries for use primarily
in the petrochemical, refining and exploration industries,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute
its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers
prior to acquisition. The Company believes that many of its pending
cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets were
distributed or used.
The Company may be subjected to significant additional
asbestos-related claims in the future, and will aggressively defend
or reasonably resolve, as appropriate. The cost of settling cases
in which product identification can be made may increase, and the
Company may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former
activities of its acquired gasket distributors. The cost of claims
varies as claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions
without specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the
requisite or maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be
amended to alter the amount sought. The large majority of claims do
not specify the amount sought. Of the 4,860 claims pending at
September 30, 2023, 42 set forth specific amounts of damages (other
than those stating the statutory minimum or maximum). At September
30, 2023, of the 42 claims that set forth specific amounts, there
were no claims seeking more than $5 million for punitive damages.
Relatively few claims have reached the discovery stage and even
fewer claims have gone past the discovery stage. Total settlement
costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such cases, some of
which were filed over 30 years ago, have been $12.9 million. All
relief sought in the asbestos cases is monetary in nature. Based on
the settlements made to date and the number of claims dismissed or
withdrawn for lack of product identification, the Company believes
that the relief sought (when specified) does not bear a reasonable
relationship to its potential liability.
The Company records a liability for asbestos-related claims, which
includes both known and unknown claims, based on a study from the
Company's third-party actuary, the Company's review of the study,
as well as the Company's own review of asbestos claims and claim
resolution activity.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://shorturl.at/hkEM0
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Defends 920 Active Cases at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation, as of September 30, 2023, was a
defendant in approximately 920 active asbestos cases involving
approximately 2,510 plaintiffs, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "The vast majority of these cases involve
multiple defendants. About 1,545, or approximately 62 percent, of
these plaintiff claims are currently pending in a jurisdiction
which permits filings with massive numbers of plaintiffs. At
December 31, 2022, U. S. Steel was a defendant in approximately 920
active asbestos cases involving approximately 2,510 plaintiffs.
Based upon U. S. Steel's experience in such cases, it believes that
the actual number of plaintiffs who ultimately assert claims
against U. S. Steel will likely be a small fraction of the total
number of plaintiffs.
"The amount U. S. Steel accrues for pending asbestos claims is not
material to U. S. Steel's financial condition. However, U. S. Steel
is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related
claims due to a number of uncertainties, including: (1) the rates
at which new claims are filed, (2) the number of and effect of
bankruptcies of other companies traditionally defending asbestos
claims, (3) uncertainties associated with the variations in the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, (4)
uncertainties regarding the facts, circumstances and disease
process with each claim and (5) any new legislation enacted to
address asbestos-related claims.
"Further, U. S. Steel does not believe that an accrual for
unasserted claims is required. At any given reporting date, it is
probable that there are unasserted claims that will be filed
against the Company in the future. The Company engages an outside
valuation consultant to assist in assessing its ability to estimate
an accrual for unasserted claims. This assessment is based on the
Company's settlement experience, including recent claims trends.
The analysis focuses on settlements made over the last several
years as these claims are likely to best represent future claim
characteristics. After review by the valuation consultant and U. S.
Steel management, it was determined that the Company could not
estimate an accrual for unasserted claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://shorturl.at/mLVW9
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $884MM Pending and Future Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation has 6,542 unresolved claims at September
30, 2023, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Corporation's total asbestos-related liability for pending and
future claims and defense and processing costs was $884 million at
September 30, 2023 ($947 million at December 31, 2022), and was
included in "Asbestos-related liabilities - current" and
"Asbestos-related liabilities - noncurrent" in the consolidated
balance sheets. At September 30, 2023, approximately 23 percent of
the recorded claim liability related to pending claims and
approximately 77 percent related to future claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://shorturl.at/irJS3
*********
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 ***